ProPAM/Static: A Static View of a Methodology for Process and Project Alignment

  • Paula Ventura MartinsEmail author
  • Alberto Rodrigues da Silva
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 405)


Process descriptions represent high-level plans and do not contain information necessary for concrete software projects. Processes that are unrelated to daily practices or hardly mapped to project practices, cause misalignments between processes and projects. We argue that software processes should emerge and evolve collaboratively within an organization. In this chapter we present a Process and Project Alignment Methodology for agile software process improvement and particularly describe its static view.


Software process improvement Process management Project management 



This work was partially supported by national funds through FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology) through projects UID/SOC/04020/2013 and UID/CEC/50021/2013.


  1. 1.
    Salo, O.: Improving software development practices in an agile fashion. In: Book Improving Software Development Practices in an Agile Fashion, Series Improving Software Development Practices in an Agile Fashion, Agile-ITEA, p. 8 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Staples, M., et al.: An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI. J. Syst. Softw. 80(6), 883–895 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coleman, G., O’Connor, R.V.: Investigating software process in practice: a grounded theory perspective. J. Syst. Softw. 81(5), 772–784 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basri, S., O’Connor, R.: Organizational commitment towards software process improvement an Irish software VSEs case study. In: Proceedings 4th International Symposium on Information Technology 2010 (ITSim 2010) (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    SEI, CMMI for Development, Version 1.3, S. E. I.-C. M. University (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weber, K. et al.: MPS model-based software acquisition process improvement in Brazil. In: Proceedings 6th Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC 2007), pp. 110–122. IEEE Computer Society, Lisbon (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mirna, M. et al.: The results analysis of using MIGME-RRC methodology for software process improvement. In: Proceedings 6th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI) (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO/IEC, 15504-2 Information technology—software process assessment—part 2: a reference model for processes and process capability, ISO/IEC TR 15504-2, July, 1998Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laporte, C.Y. et al.: A software engineering lifecycle standard for very small enterprises. In: Proceedings Software Process Improvement, 15th European Conference, EuroSPI 2008, pp. 129–141. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldenson, D., Herbsleb, J.D.: After the appraisal: a systematic survey of process improvement, its benefits, and factors that influence success (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baddoo, N., Hall, T.: De-motivators for software process improvement: an analysis of practitioners’ views. J. Syst. Softw. 66(1), 23–33 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beck, K.: Extreme programming explained: embrace change, p. 224. Addison Wesley, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rising, L., Janoff, N.: The Scrum software development process for small teams. IEEE Softw. 17, 26–32 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Verlage, M.: Multi–view modeling of software processes. In: Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Software Process Technology, pp. 123–126. Springer, Berlin (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martins, P.V., Silva, A.R.: ProPAM: discussion for a new SPI approach. Softw. Qual. Prof. J. 11(2), 4–17 (2009) (American Society for Quality)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martins, P.V., Silva, A.R.: ProjectIT-Enterprise: a software process improvement framework. In: Industrial Proceedings of the 17th EuroSPI Conference, pp. 257–266. Grenoble, France (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dissmann, S. et al.: Integration of software process management and development history recording. In: Proceedings Second Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’95), p. 468 (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rico, D.: Using cost benefit analyses to develop software process improvement (SPI) strategies, A. E. S. D. ITT Industries, Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)/ AI (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula Ventura Martins
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alberto Rodrigues da Silva
    • 2
  1. 1.Research Centre of Spatial and Organizational DynamicsUniversidade do Algarve, Campus de GambelasFaroPortugal
  2. 2.INESC-ID, Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations