Advertisement

Combining Capability Assessment and Value Engineering: A BOOTSTRAP Example

  • Pasi Ojala
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3009)

Abstract

Process improvement is a challenging task for software engineering. As Kuvaja [7]. has stated it: “It is difficult to find a unique way to identify a common improvement path suitable to all kinds of organizations.” The BOOTSTRAP method gives an assessor tools to evaluate processes. As a method it evaluates processes with low capability and a high effect on an organization’s goals the most important, and with high capability and a low effect on the organization the least important. It takes into account the organization’s needs and goals, capability profiles of its processes and industry as the main drivers of process improvement. Value Engineering (VE) is a systematic method to improve the value and optimize the life cycle cost of a function or a facility. VE generates cost improvements without sacrificing the capability levels needed. By combining these two processes, process improvement work can be tailored to take into consideration, not only the capabilities of software processes but also the values of the same processes. This article discusses how to enhance the BOOTSTRAP assessment method to include new value characteristics and phases. Same principles can be applied also in other capability based assessment methods (for example CMM, CMMI or SPICE).

Keywords

Life Cycle Cost Project Level Business Goal Improvement Planning Project Assessment 
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.
    Cooper, R., Slagmulder, R.: Target Costing and Value Engineering. Productivity Press, Portland (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crum, L.W.: Value Engineering: The organized search for value. Longman, London (1971)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dell’Isola, A.: Value Engineering. Practical Applications...for Design, Construction, Maintenance & Operations. R.S.Means Company Inc., Kingston (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Humprey, W.S.: Managing the Software Process. Addison Wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kelly, J., Male, S.: Value Management in Design and Construction. E & FN Spon, U.S (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krasner, H.: The Payoff for Software Process Improvement: What it is and How to get it. In: Emam, K.E., Madhavji, N.H. (eds.) Elements of Software process assessment and improvement, IEEE: Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuvaja, P.: BOOTSRAP 3.0 – A spice Conformant Software Process Assessment Methodology. Software Quality Journal 8, 7–19 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuvaja, P., Bicego, A., Dorling, A.: SPICE: The software process assessment model, Measuring Training Based Process Improvement. In: Proc. ESI_ISCN 1995 Conference, Vienna Austria, September 11-12 (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miles, L.D.: Techniques of Value analysis and Engineering. McCraw-Hill, New York (1972)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mudge, A.E.: Value Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ojala, P.: Enhancing Software Process Improvement Using Value Engineering. University of Oulu (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Park, R.: Chrysler Corporation, Cost, Function, Value Analysis, Value Control Manual. St. Lucie Press, New York (1978)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pasi Ojala
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Processing ScienceUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations