Advertisement

Assessing the State of Software Documentation Practices

  • Marcello Visconti
  • Curtis R. Cook
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3009)

Abstract

A system documentation process maturity model and assessment procedure were developed and used to assess 91 projects at 41 different companies over a seven year period. During this time the original version evolved into a total of four versions based on feedback from industry and the experience gained from the assessments. This paper reports the overall results obtained from the assessments which strongly suggest that the practice of documentation is not getting a passing grade in the software industry. The results show a clear maturity gap between documentation practices concerned with defining policy and practices concerned with adherence to those policies. The results further illustrate the need to recognize the importance of improving the documentation process, and to transform the good intentions into explicit policies and actions.

Keywords

system documentation processes maturity model key practices degree of satisfaction assessment results 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Card, D., McGarry, F., Page, G.: Evaluating software engineering technologies. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 13(7), 845–851 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook, C., Visconti, M.: Documentation is important. CrossTalk 7(11), 26–30 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook, C., Visconti, M.: New and improved documentation process model. In: Proceedings of the 14th Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference, Portland, Oregon, October 1996, pp. 364–380. PNSQC, Portland (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Humphrey, W.: Managing the software process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lientz, B., Swanson, E.: Problems in applications software maintenance. Communications of the ACM 24(11), 763–769 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paulk, M., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M., Weber, C.: The Capability Maturity Model guidelines for improving the software process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paulk, M., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M., Weber, C.: Capability Maturity Model, version 1.1. IEEE Software 10(4), 18–27 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pence, J., Hon III., S.: Building software quality into telecommunications network systems. Quality Progress, 95–97 (October 1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rombach, H., Basili, V.: Quantitative assessment of maintenance: an industrial case study. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Software Maintenance, Austin, Texas, September 1987, pp. 134–144. IEEE, Washington (1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Visconti, M., Cook, C.: A software system documentation process maturity approach to software quality. In: Proceedings of the 11th Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference, Portland, Oregon, October 1993, pp. 257–271. PNSQC, Portland (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Visconti, M., Cook, C.: Evolution of a maturity model – critical evaluation and lessons learned. Software Quality Journal 7, 223–237 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cook, C., Visconti, M.: What to do after the assessment report? In: Proceedings of the 17th Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference, Portland, Oregon, October 1999, pp. 214–228. PNSQC, Portland (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Visconti, M., Cook, C.: A meta-model framework for software process modeling. In: Oivo, M., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds.) PROFES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2559, pp. 532–545. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcello Visconti
    • 1
  • Curtis R. Cook
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de InformáticaUniversidad Técnica Federico Santa MaríaValparaísoChile
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations