Advertisement

Exploring Software Process Variation Arising from Differences in Situational Context

  • Paul M. ClarkeEmail author
  • Rory V. O’Connor
  • David Solan
  • Peter Elger
  • Murat Yilmaz
  • Adam Ennis
  • Mark Gerrity
  • Sean McGrath
  • Ryan Treanor
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 748)

Abstract

The software development process is continuously changing, there is huge pressure to condense release cycles into shorter and shorter timeframes, tools are changing dramatically and companies must continually examine the efficacy of their development process. Attempting to hit a moving target is difficult and it is a decision which can have a major effect in terms of both the end-product and the business. In this paper, we discuss the role of situational context in deciding upon the software development process through the analysis of two case studies. The case studies take a detailed look at the organisational profile and context of each company in turn before we compare and contrast each situational context for factors that may influence the development process. We then compare the processes each company has chosen before our discussion of the role context plays in choosing a ‘correct’ software development process. While both companies have enjoyed sustained business growth and while both are agile in mind-set, we find that they are in fact quite distinct in their processes, this distinction being driven by their different situational contexts.

Keywords

Agile SAFe Situational context Software development process Software engineering 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported, in part, by Science Foundation Ireland grant 13/RC/2094 to Lero – The Irish Software Research Centre.

References

  1. 1.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V., Leavy, B.: A complexity theory viewpoint on the software development process and situational context. In: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Software and System Process (ICSSP 2016). IEEE, San Francisco (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    CMMI Product Team: CMMI for systems engineering/software engineering/integrated product and process development, version 1.02, CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD, v1.02. Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Royce, W.: Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. In: Western Electric Show and Convention Technical Papers, 25–28 August. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1970) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CMMI Product Team: CMMI for Development, Version 1.2, Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008. Pittsburgh, PA (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fowler, M., Highsmith, J.: The Agile Manifesto. Software Development (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    How would I know how badly we are losing out through sub-optimal software development. David Consulting Group (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.: The situational factors that affect the software development process: towards a comprehensive reference framework. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 433–447 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leader in Life: Accident & Health Insurance Software. https://www.fineos.com/
  9. 9.
    Node.js Consulting: Training, Co-Development & Micro Services. http://www.nearForm.com/
  10. 10.
    Blom, M.: Is scrum and XP suitable for CSE development? In: International Conference on Computational Science, ICCS 2010, May 31–June 2, Computational Science, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vaidya, A.: Does DAD know best, is it better to do LeSS or just be SAFe? Adapting scaling agile practices into the enterprise. In: Thirty-Second Annual Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference 2014, October 20–22, World Trade Center Portland, Portland, Oregon (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oskam, I.: T-shaped engineers for interdisciplinary innovation: an attractive perspective for young people as well as a must for innovative organisations. In: SEFI 37th Annual Conference, 01 July 2004, Rotterdam, Netherlands (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang, X., Du, H., Chen, J., Lin, Y., Zeng, L.: Ensure data security in cloud storage. In: 2011 International Conference on Network Computing and Information Security, May 14–15, Guilin Park Hotel, Guilin, China (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Financial Crime Task Force: Issues Paper on Cyber Risk to the Insurance Sector. International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Owen Williams: It’s Time for Insurers to Shift from Waterfall to Agile, 21 October 2013. http://iireporter.com/its-time-for-insurers-to-shift-from-waterfall-to-agile/
  16. 16.
    Lindvall, M., Basili, V., et al.: Empirical findings in agile methods. In: Wells, D., Williams, L. (eds.) XP/Agile Universe 2002. LNCS, vol. 2418, pp. 197–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45672-4_19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kumar, R., Fareign, G.D., Cullen, M., Cadavez, J., Prasad, K.: Maximizing the business value from silos: service based transformation with service data models. In: 2011 Annual IEEE India Conference (INDICON), 16–18 December BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, Hyderabad, India (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Henry, K.: The modernization problem, part 1: government & management of enterprise IT. ISACA J. 1, 49–51 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Solan, D.: FINEOS Software Development Presentation, DCU, 23 February 2017Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Elger, P.: nearForm Software Development Presentation, DCU, 6 March 2017Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hertel, G., Niedner, S., Herrmann, S.: Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Res. Pol. 32(7), 1159–1177 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Colombo, M., Piva, E., Rossi-Lamastra, C.: Open innovation and within-industry diversification in small and medium enterprises: The case of open source software firms. Res. Policy 43, 891–902 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paasivaara, M., Lassenius, C.: Could global software development benefit from agile methods? In: IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering, p. 109. IEEE, Helsinki (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Larman, C., Basili, V.: Iterative and incremental developments. a brief history. Computer 36, 47–56 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dustin, E., Rashka, J., Paul, J.: Automated Software Testing: Introduction, Management, and Performance. 1st edn., p. 37. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: Changing situational contexts present a constant challenge to software developers. In: O’Connor, R., Umay-Akkaya, M., Kemaneci, K., Yilmaz, M., Poth, A., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement (EuroSPI 2015). CCIS, vol. 543, pp. 100–111. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24647-5_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    O’Connor, R.V., Elger, P., Clarke, P.: Exploring the impact of situational context: a case study of a software development process for a microservices architecture. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and Systems Process (ICSSP), Co-Located with the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 6–10 (2016). doi: 10.1145/2904354.2904368
  29. 29.
    Nevalainen, R., Clarke, P., McCaffery, F., O’Connor, R.V., Varkoi, T.: Situational factors in safety critical software development. In: Kreiner, C., O’Connor, Rory V., Poth, A., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2016. CCIS, vol. 633, pp. 132–147. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44817-6_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Clarke, P., et al.: An investigation of software development process terminology. In: Clarke, Paul M., O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2016. CCIS, vol. 609, pp. 351–361. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-38980-6_25 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Clarke, Paul M., et al.: Refactoring software development process terminology through the use of ontology. In: Kreiner, C., O’Connor, R.V., Poth, A., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2016. CCIS, vol. 633, pp. 47–57. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44817-6_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V., Yilmaz, M.: A hierarchy of SPI activities for software SMEs: results from ISO/IEC 12207-based SPI assessments. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination (SPICE 2012), CCIS 290/2012, pp. 62–74 (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    O’Connor, R.V., Clarke, P.: Software process reflexivity and business performance: initial results from an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and Systems Process 2015 (ICSSP 2015), pp. 142–146. ACM SIG on Software Engineering, Tallinn (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul M. Clarke
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Rory V. O’Connor
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Solan
    • 3
  • Peter Elger
    • 4
  • Murat Yilmaz
    • 5
  • Adam Ennis
    • 1
  • Mark Gerrity
    • 1
  • Sean McGrath
    • 1
  • Ryan Treanor
    • 2
  1. 1.School of ComputingDublin City UniversityDublinIreland
  2. 2.Lero – the Irish Software Research CentreLimerickIreland
  3. 3.FINEOS CorporationDublinIreland
  4. 4.nearForm LimitedTramoreIreland
  5. 5.Çankaya UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations