Advertisement

Comparing Global (Multi-site) SPI Program Activities to SPI Program Models

  • Atte Kinnula
  • Marianne Kinnula
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3009)

Abstract

Software Process Improvement (SPI) methods have been used for years as means to try to solve the problems in software development. Number of SPI life cycle models exists, and some of them take a wider look to the problems. However, little information exists about how the SPI models apply to global level SPI programs in a multi-site environment. This article takes a historical look into one such case and compares how well IDEAL and ISO 15504-7 models match the actual activities. The results are naturally only indicative, but suggest that the literature models do not readily scale up and that a separate model may be needed to support setting up and guiding the execution of a multi-site SPI program.

Keywords

Global Level Business Group Cycle Model Continuous Activity Corporate Level 
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.
    Basili, V., Green, S.: Software Process Evolution at SEL. IEEE Software, 58–66 (July 1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basili, V., McGarry, F.: The Experience Factory: How to Build and Run One. Tutorial TF 2001, 20th International Conference on Software Engineering, Kyoto, Japan (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basili, V., Weiss, D.: A Methodology for Collecting Valid Software Engineering Data. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 728–738 (November 1984)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Culver-Lozo, K.: Software Process Iteration on Large Projects: Challenges, Strategies and Experiences. Software Process – Improvement and Practice 1, 35–45 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diaz, M., Sligo, J.: How Software Process Improvement Helped Motorola. IEEE Software, 75–81 (September/October 1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dion, R.: Elements of a Process-Improvement Program. IEEE Software, 83–85 (July 1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dion, R.: Process Improvement and the Corporate Balance Sheet. IEEE Software, 28–35 (July 1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haley, T.: Software Process Improvement at Raytheon. IEEE Software, 33–41 (November 1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hollenbach, C., Young, R., Plufgard, A., Smith, D.: Combining Quality and Software Improvement. Communications of the ACM 40(6), 41–45 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Humphrey, W.: Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Humphrey, W., Snyder, T., Willis, R.: Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software, 11–23 (July 1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO/IEC: 15504-7 Information technology – Software process assessment – Part 7: Guide for use in process improvement. ISO/IEC TR15504-7: 1998(E) (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karjalainen, J., Mäkäräinen, M., Komi-Sirviö, S., Seppänen, V.: Practical process improvement for embedded real-time software. Quality Engineering 8(4), 565–573 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kinnula, A.: Software Process Engineering in a Multi-Site Environment – An architectural design of a software process engineering system. PhD thesis, Univ. Oulu, Dept. Information Processing Sciences. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis A333. Oulu Unmiversity Press, Oulu (1999), http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514253035/
  15. 15.
    Kinnula, A.: Software process engineering systems: models and industry cases. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis A372. Oulu University Press, Oulu (2001), http://hercules.oulu.fi/isbn9514265084/
  16. 16.
    Laporte, C., Papicco, N.: Software and Systems Engineering Process Development and Integration at Oerlikon Aerospace. Software Process Newsletter 11, 10–17 (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McFeeley, R.: IDEALSM – A User’s Guide to Software Process Improvement. CMU/SEI- 96-HB-001, Software Engineering Institute (February 1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    NSPI Launch Letter by Matti Alahuhta, and corresponding slide sets (Nokia internal documents) (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paulk, M., Weber, C., Garcia, S., Chrissis, M., Bush, M.: Capability Maturity Model for Software, version 1.1. SEI-93-TR-024, Software Engineering Institute (February 1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pulford, K., Kuntzmann-Combelles, A., Shirlaw, S.: A quantitative approach to Software Management: The ami Handbook. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shewhart, W.A.: Statistical Method From the Viewpoint Of Quality Control. Dover Publications, New York (1986); reprint of the 1939 originalGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atte Kinnula
    • 1
  • Marianne Kinnula
    • 2
  1. 1.Nokia CorporationOuluFinland
  2. 2.Dept. of Information Processing SciencesUniversity of OuluFinland

Personalised recommendations