Advertisement

DevOps Competences and Maturity for Software Producing Organizations

  • Rico de Feijter
  • Sietse OverbeekEmail author
  • Rob van Vliet
  • Erik Jagroep
  • Sjaak Brinkkemper
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 318)

Abstract

Software producing organizations aim to release high quality software faster, which triggers the adoption of DevOps. However, not many artifacts are available that aid in adopting DevOps. In an attempt to bridge this gap, a DevOps Competence Model showing an overview of the areas to be considered in adopting DevOps is proposed. Also, a DevOps Maturity Model is proposed that presents a growth path for software producing organizations. Both these models incorporate perspectives that are made up of focus areas which in turn are made up of capabilities. Apart from designing and validating these models by means of expert workshops, a case study has been conducted where assessees answered questions to gain insight into which capabilities were implemented. From the answers, maturity profiles were extracted that supported the assessees in becoming more DevOps mature.

Keywords

Competence model Design science DevOps Maturity model Software producing organizations 

References

  1. 1.
    Bekkers, W., van de Weerd, I., Spruit, M., Brinkkemper, S.: A framework for process improvement in software product management. In: Riel, A., O’Connor, R., Tichkiewitch, S., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2010. CCIS, vol. 99, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15666-3_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nord, R.L., Ozkaya, I., Kruchten, P.: Agile in distress: architecture to the rescue. In: Dingsøyr, T., Moe, N.B., Tonelli, R., Counsell, S., Gencel, C., Petersen, K. (eds.) XP 2014. LNBIP, vol. 199, pp. 43–57. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14358-3_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Derniame, J.-C., Kaba, B.A., Wastell, D. (eds.): Software Process: Principles, Methodology, and Technology. LNCS, vol. 1500. Springer, Heidelberg (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49205-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Erich, F., Amrit, C., Daneva, M.: Cooperation between software development and operations: a literature review. In: The 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ACM, Torino (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Feijter, R., van Vliet, R., Jagroep, E., Overbeek, S., Brinkkemper, S.: Towards the adoption of DevOps in software product organizations: a maturity model approach. Technical report, Utrecht University (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hall, R.S., Heimbigner, D., van der Hoek, A., Wolf, A.L.: An architecture for post-development configuration management in a wide-area network. In: The 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 269–278. IEEE, Baltimore (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heitlager, I., Jansen, S., Helms, R., Brinkkemper, S.: Understanding the dynamics of product software development using the concept of coevolution. In: The 2nd international workshop on Software Evolvability, pp. 16–22. IEEE, Philadelphia (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hevner, A., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Q. 28, 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Humble, J., Farley, D., Spafford, G.: Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software Releases Through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation. Pearson Education, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iden, J., Tessem, B., Päivärinta, T.: Problems in the interplay of development and it operations in system development projects: a delphi study of norwegian it experts. Inf. Softw. Technol. 53, 394–406 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim, G., Behr, K., Spafford, G.: The Phoenix Project: A Novel About It, DevOps, and Helping Your Business Win. IT Revolution, Portland (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laan, S.: It Infrastructure Architecture-Infrastructure Building Blocks and Concepts, 2nd edn. Lulu Press, Raleigh (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lawton, G.: Developing software online with platform-as-a-service technology. Computer 41, 13–15 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lwakatare, L.E., Kuvaja, P., Oivo, M.: Dimensions of DevOps. In: Lassenius, C., Dingsøyr, T., Paasivaara, M. (eds.) XP 2015. LNBIP, vol. 212, pp. 212–217. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18612-2_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L., Collins, K.M.: Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. Qual. Rep. 17, 1–30 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pahl, C., Xiong, H., Walshe, R.: A comparison of on-premise to cloud migration approaches. In: Lau, K.-K., Lamersdorf, W., Pimentel, E. (eds.) ESOCC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8135, pp. 212–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40651-5_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saldaña, J.: The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smeds, J., Nybom, K., Porres, I.: DevOps: a definition and perceived adoption impediments. In: Lassenius, C., Dingsøyr, T., Paasivaara, M. (eds.) XP 2015. LNBIP, vol. 212, pp. 166–177. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18612-2_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Steenbergen, M., Bos, M., Brinkkemper, S., van de Weerd, I., Bekkers, W.: Improving is functions step by step: the use of focus area maturity models. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 25, 35–56 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Waller, G., Ehmke, N., Hasselbring, W.: Including performance benchmarks into continuous integration to enable DevOps. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 40, 1–4 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van de Weerd, I., Bekkers, W., Brinkkemper, S.: Developing a maturity matrix for software product management. In: Tyrväinen, P., Jansen, S., Cusumano, M.A. (eds.) ICSOB 2010. LNBIP, vol. 51, pp. 76–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13633-7_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Westfechtel, B., Conradi, R.: Software architecture and software configuration management. In: Westfechtel, B., van der Hoek, A. (eds.) SCM 2001/2003. LNCS, vol. 2649, pp. 24–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-39195-9_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wettinger, J., Andrikopoulos, V., Leymann, F.: Enabling DevOps collaboration and continuous delivery using diverse application environments. In: Debruyne, C., Panetto, H., Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Weichhart, G., An, Y., Ardagna, C.A. (eds.) OTM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9415, pp. 348–358. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26148-5_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wettinger, J., Breitenbücher, U., Leymann, F.: Compensation-based vs. convergent deployment automation for services operated in the cloud. In: Franch, X., Ghose, A.K., Lewis, G.A., Bhiri, S. (eds.) ICSOC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8831, pp. 336–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45391-9_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wieringa, R.J.: Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43839-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rico de Feijter
    • 1
  • Sietse Overbeek
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rob van Vliet
    • 2
  • Erik Jagroep
    • 2
  • Sjaak Brinkkemper
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.CentricGoudaThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations