Advertisement

Using Software Inspection as a Catalyst for SPI in a Small Company

  • Lasse Harjumaa
  • Ilkka Tervonen
  • Pekka Vuorio
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3009)

Abstract

Process improvement activities in small and medium size enterprises (SME) are challenging due to small number of personnel and projects, people have to perform in a variety of roles. Assigning process improvement activities to the overburdened personnel may be seen as a threat to ongoing projects. Both management and staff should become convinced of the benefits of the improvement actions before taking the first step of the process. Even in this situation the software inspection provides a tempting starting point for process improvement. It is a focused and well defined subprocess and enables high return on investment benefits even in short period use. Our experiment in a small software company confirms that software inspection provides the justified starting point for process improvement. By means of the inspection maturity model the company recognises the weak points in their review practice and inspection patterns help in discovery of improvement actions.

Keywords

Process Improvement Small Company Inspection Process Base Practice Software Process Improvement 
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.
    Grunbacher, P.: A Software Assessment Process for Small Software Enterprises. In: Proceedings of the 23rd EUROMICRO. Conference, Budapest, pp. 123–128 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batista, J., Dias de Figueiredo, A.: SPI in a Very Small Team: a Case with CMM. Software Process - Improvement and Practise 5, 243–250 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Potter, N.S., Sakry, M.E.: Making Process Improvement Work. A Concise Action Guide for Software Managers and Practitioners. Addison Wesley, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rico, D.F.: Software Process Improvement (SPI): Modeling Return on Investment, ROI (2002), http://davidfrico.com/dacs02pdf.htm
  5. 5.
    Conradi, R., Marjara, A., Skåtevik, B.: Empirical Study of Inspection and Testing Data at Ericsson, Norway. In: Proceedings of PROFES 1999, Oulu, pp. 263–284 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilb, T., Graham, D.: Software Inspection. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Neill, D.: Issues in Software Inspection. IEEE Software 14, 18–19 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weller, E.F.: Lessons learned from Three Years of Inspection Data. IEEE Software 10, 38–45 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fagan, M.E.: Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development. IBM Systems Journal 15, 182–211 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Perpich, J.M., Perry, D.E., Porter, A.A., Votta, L.G., Wade, M.W.: Anywhere, anytime code inspections: Using the web to remove inspection bottlenecks in large-scale software development. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 14–21 (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tervonen, I., Iisakka, J., Harjumaa, L.: A Tailored Capability Model for Inspection Process Improvement. In: Proceedings of the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Quality Software, pp. 275–282 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ward, R.P., Fayad, M.E., Laitinen, M.: Software Process Improvement in the Small. Communications of the ACM 44, 105–107 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuvaja, P., Similä, J., Krzanik, L., Bicego, A., Koch, G., Saukkonen, S.: Software Process Assessment and Improvement: The BOOTSTRAP Approach. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burnstein, I., et al.: A Testing Maturity Model for Software Test Process Assessment and Improvement. Software Quality Professional 1 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gelperin, D., Hayashi, A.: How to support better software testing. Application Trends, 42–48 (May 1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Emam El, K., Drouin, J., Melo, W.: SPICE: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grady, R., van Slack, T.: Key Lessons in Achieving Widespread Inspection Use. IEEE Software 11, 46–57 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zahran, S.: Software Process Improvement, Practical Guidelines for Business Success. Addison-Wesley, UK (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buchman, C.D., Bramble, L.K.: Three-tiered Software Process Assessment Hierarchy. Software Process – Improvement and Practice 1, 99–106 (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horvat, R.V., Rozman, I., Gyorkos, J.: Managing the Complexity of SPI in Small Companies. Software Process – Improvement and Practice 5, 45–54 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sakamoto, K., Nakakoji, K., Yasunari, T.: Toward Computational Support for Software Process Improvement Activities. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering, Kyoto, pp. 22–31 (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tyran, C.K., George, J.F.: Improving Software Inspections with Group Process Support. Communications of the ACM 45, 87–92 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Neill, D.: National Software Quality Experiment: Results 1992-1996. In: Proceedings of Quality Week Europe Conference, Brussels, pp. 1–25 (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wiegers, K.E., Sturzenberger, D.C.: A Modular Software Process Mini-assessment Method. IEEE Software 17, 62–69 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Richardson, I.: SPI Models: What Characteristics are Required for Small Software Development Companies? Software Quality Journal 10, 101–114 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kelly, D.P., Culleton, B.: Process Improvement for Small Organizations. IEEE Computer 32, 41–47 (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Herbsleb, J., Zubrow, D., Goldenson, D., Hayes, W., Paulk, M.: Software Quality and the Capability Maturity Model. Communications of the ACM 40, 25–29 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns – Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Appleton, B.: Patterns for Conducting Process Improvement. In: PloP 1997 Conference (1997), http://www.cmcrossroads.com/bradapp/docs/i-spi/plop97.html
  30. 30.
    Rising, L.: Patterns: A way to reuse expertise (1998), http://www.agcs.com/supportv2/techpapers/patterns/papers/expertise.htm (referenced 01.03.2003)
  31. 31.
    Sakamoto, K., Kishida, K., Nakakoji, K.: Cultural Adaptation of the CMM: A Case Study of a Software Engineering Process Group in a Japanese Manufacturing Company. In: Fugetta, A., Wolf, A. (eds.) Software Process, pp. 137–154. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lasse Harjumaa
    • 1
  • Ilkka Tervonen
    • 1
  • Pekka Vuorio
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information Processing ScienceUniversity of OuluOULUN YLIOPISTO
  2. 2.Buscom OyOULU

Personalised recommendations