Advertisement

Introducing Quality System in Small and Medium Enterprises: An Experience Report

  • Lerina Aversano
  • Gerardo Canfora
  • Giovanni Capasso
  • Giuseppe A. Di Lucca
  • Corrado A. Visaggio
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3009)

Abstract

The institutionalization of a Quality System improves the levels of technical and managerial efficiency of Enterprises. Moreover, the market itself solicits the acquisition of a Quality Certification for getting a steady confirmation of Enterprise’s capabilities. The introduction of a Quality System in Small and Medium Enterprises can entail prohibitive costs for them and affect their agility and flexibility. The paper proposes a lightweight approach as a solution to either avoid or reduce such drawbacks; it consists of a method for re-designing processes and a software system to control and monitoring processes’ execution. Consequently, a research question arises: is the approach suitable for establishing a Quality System effectively in a Small Medium Enterprise? In order to have a preliminary evaluation of the proposed approach, a case study has been carried out in an Italian Enterprise, aiming at owning VISION 2000 Certification.

Keywords

Quality System Experience Report Medium Enterprise Operative Instruction Quality Certification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aversano, L., Cimitile, A., De Lucia, A., Stefanucci, S., Villani, M.L.: Workflow Management in the GENESIS Environment. In: 2nd Workshop on Cooperative Support for Distributed Software Engineering Processes, Benevento, Italy (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandinelli, S., Fuggetta, A., Ghezzi, C.: Software Process Evolution in the SPADE environment. EEE Transactions Software Engineering 19(12), 1128–1144 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blaha, R., Premerlani, E., Lorensen, W.: Object-Oriented model and design. Prentice-Hall, Englewoof Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conradi, R., Orjord, E., Westby, P.H., Liu, C.: Initial Software Process Management in EPOS. Software Engineering Journal 6(5), 275–284 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I., Over, J.: Process Modeling. Communications of the ACM 35(9), 75–90 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Gregorio, E.: Modellazione di Business Process e Valutazione della Qualità di uno strumento Sofwtare a Supporto. Laurea Thesis, University of Naples Federico II, Dept. Of Computer Science and Systems (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the Corporation: a Manifesto for Business Revolution. HarperCollins, NY (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hartmann, P., Studt, R., Wewers, T.: A Framework for Classifying Interorganizational Workflow-Controlled Business Processes Focusing on Quality Management. In: Porc. of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    International Standard: ISO 9000:2000 Quality Management Systems - Fundamentals and vocabulary (Novembre 28, 2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jarvinen, J., Hamann, D., van Solingen, R.: On Integrating Assessment and Measurement: Towards Continuous Assessment of Software Engineering Processes. In: Proc. of the 6th IEEE International Symposium on Software Metrics (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacobson, I., Ericsson, M., Jacobson, A.: The Object Advantage: Business Process Reengineering with Object Technology. ACM Press, Addison-Wesley (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Machado, C.F., de Oliveira, L.C., Fernandes, R.: Experience Report - Restructure of Processes based on ISO/IEC 12207 and SW-CMM in CELEPAR. In: Proc. of the 4th IEEE International Symposium and Forum on Software Engineering Standards (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V.: Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1. Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-93-TR-24, DTIC Number ADA263403 (February 1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller, G.: Sizing up Today’s Lightweight Software Processes. IT Porfessional, pp. 46–49. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (May 2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Pan, D.: Modeling Software Process (1997), web site http://sern.ucalgary.ca/courses/seng/621/W97/pand/essay.html
  17. 17.
    Ritrovato, P., Gaeta, M.: Generalised Environment for Process Management in Co-operative Software. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Cooperative Supports for Distributed Software Engineering Processes, Oxford, UK, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rombach, H.D., Verlage, M.: Directions in Software Process reasearch. Advances in Computer (41), 1–63 (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Staffware plc, web site http://www.staffware.com/
  20. 20.
    Ultimus, web site http://www.ultimus.com/
  21. 21.
    Basili, V.R.: Software modeling and measurement: The Goal/Question/Metric paradigm. Technical Report CS-TR-2956, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 (September 1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Solingen, R., Berbhout, E.: The Goal/Question/Metric Method. McGraw-Hill, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zettel, J.: Spearmint Multi-View Architecture,Technical Report Fraunhofer Institute of Software Engineering, Kaiserslautern, Germany, IESE-Report No. 013.99/E, Version 1.0 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lerina Aversano
    • 1
  • Gerardo Canfora
    • 1
  • Giovanni Capasso
    • 2
  • Giuseppe A. Di Lucca
    • 1
  • Corrado A. Visaggio
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Centre On Software TechnologyUniversità degli Studi del Sannio RCOSTBenevento
  2. 2.Elisys S.r.l.Casagiove (Caserta)

Personalised recommendations