Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Empirical Study Identifying High Perceived Value Practices of CMMI Level 2

  • Conference paper
Book cover Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2008)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 5089))

Abstract

We have conducted face-to-face questionnaire based interview sessions with twenty-three Malaysian software practitioners in order to determine the perceived value associated with the specific practices of “requirements management”, “process and product quality assurance” and “configuration management” process areas of CMMI level 2 in the stage representation. The objective of this study is to identify the extent to which a CMMI practice is used in order to develop a finer-grained framework, which encompasses the notion of perceived value within specific practices. This will provide software process improvement (SPI) practitioners with some insight into designing appropriate SPI implementation strategies.

We asked practitioners to choose and rank “requirements management”, “process and product quality assurance” and “configuration management” practices against the five types of assessments (high, medium, low, zero or do not know). From this, we propose the notion of ’perceived value’ associated with each practice. We have identified ’high’ and ‘medium’ perceived values CMMI level 2 practices. We have also identified the viewpoints of developers and managers about these practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chrissis, M., Konrad, M., Shrum, S.: CMMI Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brodman, J.G., Johnson, D.L.: What Small Businesses and Small Organizations Say About the CMMI. In: Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1994). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Batista, J., Dias, d.F.: Software Process Improvement in a Very Small Team: a Case with CMM. Software Process-Improvement and Practice (5), 243–250 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Paulk, M.: Using the Software CMM in small organizations. In: The Joint 1998 Proceedings of the Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference and the Eighth International Conference on Software Quality, Portland, pp. 350–361 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Conradi, R., Fuggetta, A.: Improving Software Process Improvement, July/August (2002), pp. 92–99. IEEE Software (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wilkie, F.G., McFall, D., McCaffery, F.: An Evaluation of CMMI Process Areas for Small to Medium-sized Software Development Organisations. SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT AND PRACTICE 10, 189–201 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Niazi, M., Babar, M.: Ali: De-motivators for software process improvement: An Analysis of Vietnamese Practitioners’ Views. In: Münch, J., Abrahamsson, P. (eds.) PROFES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4589, pp. 118–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Niazi, M., Babar, M.: Ali: Motivators of Software Process Improvement: An Analysis of Vietnamese Practitioners’ Views. In: International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2007), pp. 79–88 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rainer, A., Hall, T.: Key success factors for implementing software process improvement: a maturity-based analysis. Journal of Systems & Software 62(2), 71–84 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D.: A Maturity Model for the Implementation of Software Process Improvement: An empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software 74(2), 155–172 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Coolican, H.: Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. Hodder and Stoughton, London (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Trewin and D: Small Business in Australia: 2001. Australian Bureau of Statistics report 1321.0 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  13. El Emam, K., Madhavji, H.N.: A Field Study of Requirements Engineering Practices in Information Systems Development. In: Second International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 68–80 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Standish-Group: Chaos: A Recipe for Success. Standish Group International (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hall, T., Beecham, S., Rainer, A.: Requirements Problems in Twelve Software Companies: An Empirical Analysis. In: IEE Proceedings - Software, August 2002, pp. 153–160 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jobserve.com: UK Wasting Billions on IT Projects (21/4/2004), http://www.jobserve.com/news/NewsStory.asp?e=e&SID=SID2598

  17. Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 5th edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rauterberg, M., Strohm, O.: About the Benefits of User-Oriented Requirements Engineering. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation of Software Quality (REFSQ 1994) (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  19. DeBillis, M., Haapala, C.: User-Centric Software Engineering. IEEE Expert 10(1), 34–41 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Niazi, M.: An empirical study for the improvement of requirements engineering process. In: The 17th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Taiwan, Republic of China, July 14-16, 2005, pp. 396–399 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Niazi, M., Shastry, S.: Role of Requirements Engineering in Software development Process: An empirical study. In: IEEE International Multi-Topic Conference (INMIC 2003), pp. 402–407 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Niazi, M., Cox, K., Verner, J.: An empirical study identifying high perceived value requirements engineering practices. In: Fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems Development (ISD 2005), Karlstad University, Sweden, August 15-17 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sommerville, I., Ransom, J.: An empirical study of industrial requirements engineering process assessment and improvement. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 14(1), 85–117 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Barry, E.J., Mukhopadhyay, T., Slaughter, S.A.: Software Project Duration and Effort: An Empirical Study. Information Technology and Management 3(1-2), 113–136 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zowghi, D., Nurmuliani, N.: A study of the impact of requirements volatility on software project performance. In: Ninth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 3–11 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stark, G., Skillicorn, A., Ameele, R.: An Examination of the Effects of Requirements Changes on Software Maintenance Releases. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice 11, 293–309 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zowghi, D., Nurmuliani, N., Powell, S.: The Impact of Requirements Volatility on Software Development Lifecycle. In: Proceedings of Software Engineering Conference, Australian, pp. 28–37 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Verner, J., Evanco, W.M.: In-house Software Development: What Software Project Management Practices Lead to Success? IEEE Software 22(1), 86–93 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kobitzsch, W., Rombach, D., Feldmann, R.L.: Outsourcing in India. IEEE Software, 78–86 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jarvis, A., Crandall, V.: INROADS to software quality. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Beecham, S., Hall, T., Rainer, A.: Software Process Problems in Twelve Software Companies: An Empirical Analysis. Empirical software engineering 8, 7–42 (2003)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D.: A Framework for Assisting the Design of Effective Software Process Improvement Implementation Strategies. Journal of Systems and Software 78(2), 204–222 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing and Mathematics, Keele University, ST5 5BG, UK

    Mahmood Niazi

  2. Lero, University of Limerick, Ireland

    Muhammad Ali Babar

  3. Centre for Advanced Software Engineering, University Technology Malaysia, Jalan Semarak, 54100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Suhaimi Ibrahim

Authors
  1. Mahmood Niazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muhammad Ali Babar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suhaimi Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Andreas Jedlitschka Outi Salo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Niazi, M., Ali Babar, M., Ibrahim, S. (2008). An Empirical Study Identifying High Perceived Value Practices of CMMI Level 2. In: Jedlitschka, A., Salo, O. (eds) Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5089. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69566-0_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69566-0_34

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-69564-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69566-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation