Establishing the State of the Art of Frameworks, Methods and Methodologies Focused on Lightening Software Process: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

There are several models used in the software process improvement such as CMMI and ISO/IEC 15504 that provide advantages to software organizations, like their improvement in ability and maturity which is reflected in their competitiveness. However, most of the time they are not properly implemented, demanding too many resources and long-term commitments, hindering its implementation in software organizations. Moreover, a properly implementation of a model or standard, involves not only the definition of processes, but introducing the organizations in the development of a continuous process improvement culture. In this context, a feasible way to achieve continuous process improvement is the optimization of processes through their lightening. This paper presents the results of a systematic review method in order to establish the state of art for lightening software process, focusing on three aspects: (1) frameworks, methods and methodologies; (2) targeted processes; and (3) strategies.

Appendices

Appendix A: Primary Studies

• S1 Akbar, R., Hassan, M. F., & Abdullah, A. (2012). A framework of software process tailoring for small and medium size IT companies. 2012 International Conference on Computer & Information Science (ICCIS), 2, 914–918. http://doi.org/10.1109/ICCISci.2012.6297156

• S2 Al-Tarawneh, M. Y., Abdullah, M. S., & Ali, A. B. M. (2011). A proposed methodology for establishing software process development improvement for small software development firms. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 893–897. http://doi.org/10.1016Zj.procs.2010.12.146

• S3 Alwardt, A. L., Mikeska, N., Pandorf, R. J., & Tarpley, P. R. (2009). A lean approach to designing for software testability. AUTOTESTCON (Proceedings), 178–183. http://doi.org/10.1109/AUTEST.2009.5314039

• S4 Camargo, K. G., Ferrari, F. C., & Fabbri, S. C. (2015). Characterising the state of the practice in software testing through a TMMi-based process. Journal of Software Engineering Research and Development, 3(1), 7. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40411-015-0019-9

• S5 Edison, H., Wang, X., & Abrahamsson, P. (2015). Lean startup: Why Large Software Companies Should Care. Scientific Workshop Proceedings of the XP2015 on - XP ‘15 Workshops, 1–7. http://doi.org/10.1145/2764979.2764981

• S6 Farid, W. M. (2012). The Normap methodology: Lightweight engineering of non-functional requirements for agile processes. Proceedings - Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, APSEC, 1, 322–325. http://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2012.23

• S7 Farrow, A., & Greene, S. (2008). Fast & predictable—A lightweight release framework promotes agility through rhythm and flow. Proceedings—Agile 2008 Conference, 224–228. http://doi.org/10.1109/Agile.2008.83

• S8 Funkhouser, O., Etzkorn, L. H., & Hughes, W. E. (2008). A lightweight approach to software validation by comparing UML use cases with internal program documentation selected via call graphs. Software Quality Journal, 16(1), 131–156. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-007-9034-3

• S9 Garcia, J., Amescua, A., Sanchez, M. I., & Bermon, L. (2011). Design guidelines for software processes knowledge repository development. Information and Software Technology, 53(8), 834–850. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.03.002

• S10 Ivarsson, M., & Gorschek, T. (2012). Tool support for disseminating and improving development practices. Software Quality Journal, 20(1), 173–199. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9139-6

• S11 Kim, T., Chandra, R., & Zeldovich, N. (2013). Optimizing unit test execution in large software programs using dependency analysis. Proceedings of the 4th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Systems—APSys ‘13, 1-6. http://doi.org/10.1145/2500727.2500748

• S12 Kirk, D., & Tempero, E. (2012). A lightweight framework for describing software practices. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(3), 582–595. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2011.09.024

• S13 Kruchten, P. (2011). A plea for lean software process models. Procs. 2011 International Conference on Software and Systems Process (ICSSP), 1(604), 235–236. http://doi.org/10.1145/1987875.1987919

• S14 Lehtinen, T. O. a, Mantyla, M. V., & Vanhanen, J. (2011). Development and evaluation of a lightweight root cause analysis method (ARCA method)—Field studies at four software companies. Information and Software Technology, 53(10), 1045–1061. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.05.005

• S15 Lin, W. L. W., & Fan, X. F. X. (2009). Software Development Practice for FDA-Compliant Medical Devices. 2009 International Joint Conference on Computational Sciences ana Optimization, 2, 388–390. http://doi.org/10.1109/CS0.2009.191

• S16 Misra, S. C., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2009). Identifying some important success factors in adopting agile software development practices. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(11), 1869–1890. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2009.05.052

• S17 Motta, A., & Mangano, N. (2013). Lightweight Analysis of Software Design Models at the Whiteboard, 18–23.

• S18 Pang, H., Zhou, L., & Chang, X. (2011). Lightweight web framework oriented on page flow component. Proceedings 2011 International Conference on Mechatronic Science, Electric Engineering and Computer, MEC 2011, 1248–1251. http://doi.org/10.1109/MEC.2011.6025694

• S19 Park, S., & Bae, D.-H. (2011). An approach to analyzing the software process change impact using process slicing and simulation. Journal of Systems and Software, 84(4), 528–543. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2010.11.919

• S20 Peng, X., Chen, B., Yu, Y., & Zhao, W. (2012). Self-tuning of software systems through dynamic quality tradeoff and value-based feedback control loop. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(12), 2707–2719. http://doi.org/10.1016/jJss.2012.04.079

• S21 Petersen, K., & Wohlin, C. (2010). Software process improvement through the Lean Measurement (SPI-LEAM) method. Journal of Systems and Software, 83(7), 1275–1287. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2010.02.005

• S22 Pettersson, F., Ivarsson, M., Gorschek, T., & Ohman, P. (2008). A practitioner’s guide to light weight software process assessment and improvement planning. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(6), 972–995. http://doi.org/10.1016/jJss.2007.08.032

• S23 Pino, F. J., Pedreira, O., Garcia, F., Luaces, M. R., & Piattini, M. (2010). Using Scrum to guide the execution of software process improvement in small organizations. Journal ol Systems and Software, 83(10), 1662–1677. http://doi.org/10.1016/jJss.2010.03.077

• S24 Rapp, D., Hess, A., Seyff, N., Sporri, P., Fuchs, E., & Glinz, M. (2014). Lightweight Requirements Engineering Assessments in Software Projects, 354–363.

• S25 Rigby, P., Cleary, B., Painchaud, F., Storey, M. A., & German, D. (2012). Contemporary peer review in action: Lessons from open source development. IEEE Software, 29(6), 56–61. http://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2012.24

• S26 Rodriguez, P., Mikkonen, K., Kuvaja, P., Oivo, M., & Garbajosa, J. (2013). Building lean thinking in a telecom software development organization: strengths and challenges. Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software and System Process—ICSSP 2013, 98. http://doi.org/10.1145/2486046.2486064

• S27 Rubin, E., & Rubin, H. (2011). Supporting agile software development through active documentation. Requirements Engineering, 16(2), 117–132. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-010-0113-9

• S28 Selleri, F., Santana, F., Soares, F., Lima, A., Monteiro, I., Azevedo, D., … Meira, D. L. (2015). Using CMMI together with agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 58, 20–43. http://doi.org/10.1016/jjnfsof.2014.09.012

• S29 Stankovic, D., Nikolic, V., Djordjevic, M., & Cao, D.-B. (2013). A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects in former Yugoslavia IT companies. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(6), 1663–1678. http://doi.org/10.1016/jJss.2013.02.027

• S30 Vale, T., Cabral, B., Alvim, L., Soares, L., Santos, A., Machado, I., … Almeida, E. (2014). SPLICE: A Lightweight Software Product Line Development Process for Small and Medium Size Projects. 2014 Eighth Brazilian Symposium on Software Components, Architectures and Reuse, 42–52. http://doi.org/10.1109/SBCARS.2014.11

• S31 Vanhanen, J., Mantyla, M. V., & Itkonen, J. (2009). Lightweight elicitation and analysis of software product quality goals—A multiple industrial case study. 2009 3rd International Workshop on Software Product Management, IWSPM 2009, 27–30. http://doi.org/10.1109/IWSPM.2009.5

• S32 Zarour, M., Abran, A., Desharnais, J.-M., & Alarifi, A. (2015). An investigation into the best practices for the successful design and implementation of lightweight software process assessment methods: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 101, 180–192. http://doi.org/10.1016/jJss.2014.11.041

Appendix B: Proposals Type and Their Goal

ID	Proposal type	Authors	Goal
S1	Framework	(Akbar, Hassan, & Abdullah, 2012)	Presents a meta-model framework for adaptation lightweight software processes.
S2	Methodology	(Al-Tarawneh, Abdullah, & Ali, 2011)	Presents a methodology for SPI in SMEs using CMMI.
S3	Framework	(Alwardt, Mikeska, Pandorf, & Tarpley, 2009)	Shows how Lean 123 with an automatic approach in software testing saves costs and improves product quality.
S4	Tool	(Camargo, Ferrari, & Fabbri, 2015)	Identifies a set of key practices to support a generic lightweight process for software testing based on TMMi.
S5	Method	(Edison, Wang, & Abrahamsson, 2015)	Analyses why large companies should adopt Lean Startup to seek radical innovation.
S6	Methodology	(Farid, 2012)	Presents NORMAP, a lightweight methodology for non-functional requirements in agile process.
S7	Framework	(Farrow & Greene, 2008)	Presents a lightweight framework for the software release, in order to optimize time and delivering high quality to customers.
S8	Methodology	(Funkhouser, Etzkorn, & Hughes, 2008)	Presents a methodology to automate software validation.
S9	Tool	(García, Amescua, Sánchez, & Bermón, 2011)	Design guidelines for implementing a Process Asset Library (PAL) via a wiki, for storing organizational best practices.
S10	Tool	(Ivarsson & Gorschek, 2012)	Presents a tool support for disseminating and improving practices used in an organization based on the Experience Factory approach.
S11	Tool	(Kim, Chandra, & Zeldovich, 2013)	Demonstrates that TAO tool can reduce unit test execution time in two large Python software projects by over 96 %.
S12	Framework	(Kirk & Tempero, 2012)	Develop a framework to capture the best practices of successful companies.
S13	Othera	(Kruchten, 2011)	Explain why large and heavy processes are not suitable for software development and should be used lightweight processes.
S14	Method	(Lehtinen, Mäntylä, & Vanhanen, 2011)	Presents a lightweight method for RCA (Root Cause Analysis) called ARCA, in which the detection of a problem is based on a group meeting focused on the issue.
S15	Methodology	(Lin & Fan, 2009)	Shows the practice to develop software for medical devices that need formal and rigorous processes using a hybrid approach between CMMI and agile software development (ASD).
S16	Framewok	(Misra, Kumar, & Kumar, 2009)	Presents the state of the art on the identification of success factors in adopting agile software development practices.
S17	Tool	(Motta & Mangano, 2013)	Improves the Calico tool to allow a lightweight analysis, giving rapid feedback to the developer when developing a design.
S18	Framework	(Pang, Zhou, & Chang, 2011)	Designs a lightweight web framework based on page flow to improve software development and reduce development costs.
S19	Tool	(Park & Bae, 2011)	Proposes an approach for analyzing the impact of the change of a software process using slicing y simulation.
S20	Method	(Peng, Chen, Yu, & Zhao, 2012)	Proposes a method of selftuning that can dynamically capture the quality requirements and make tradeoff decisions through a Preference-Based Goal Reasoning procedure.
S21	Method	(Petersen & Wohlin, 2010)	Proposes a novel approach to bring together the quality improvement paradigm and lean software development practices, called SPI-LEAM method.
S22	Framework	(Pettersson et al., 2008)	Presents a guide to light weight software process assessment and improvement planning.
S23	Framework	(Pino, Pedreira, García, Luaces, & Piattini, 2010)	Proposes a “Lightweight process to incorporate improvements”, using the philosophy of the Scrum agile method, aiming to give detailed guidelines for incorporating process improvements in small companies.
S24	Method	(Rapp et al., 2014)	Develops a lightweight method to answer questions related to the quality of requirements engineering process, so that a company can be assessed and improved.
S25	Tool	(Rigby, Cleary, Painchaud, Storey, & German, 2012)	Describes lessons learned from the review process code in OSS (Open Source Software) to transfer them to development of proprietary software.
S26	Methodology	(Rodríguez, Mikkonen, Kuvaja, Oivo, & Garbajosa, 2013)	Explores how Lean principles are implemented in the software development companies and the challenges in the implementation of Lean.
S27	Framework	(Rubin & Rubin, 2011)	Proposes the system design Active Documentation Software Design (ADSD), by this, source code incorporates documentation statements.
S28	Othera	(Selleri et al., 2015)	Evaluates, synthesize, and present results on the use of the CMMI in combination with agile software development, and thereafter to give an overview of the topics researched.
S29	Othera	(Stankovic, Nikolic, Djordjevic, & Cao, 2013)	Presents the results of an empirical study to determine the critical factors that influence the success of agile projects.
S30	Method	(Vale et al., 2014)	Introduces SPLICE, a lightweight process that combines agile development practices with Software Product Line Engineering.
S31	Method	(Vanhanen, Mäntylä, & Itkonen, 2009)	Presents a method that gathers relevant stakeholders to elicit, prioritize, and elaborate the quality goals of a software product
S32	Othera	(Zarour, Abran, Desharnais, & Alarifi, 2015)	Presents the results of performing a systematic literature review focused on the best practices that help to SPA (Software Process Assessment) researchers and practitioners in designing and implementing lightweight assessment methods.

1. ^aIn these studies the subject of lightening software processes are analyzed, but they do not present a proposal