Advertisement

An Approach to Evaluating Software Process Adaptation

  • Paul Clarke
  • Rory V. O’Connor
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 155)

Abstract

Process maturity reference frameworks such as ISO/IEC 15504 and the Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) seek to assist software process improvement (SPI) efforts by prescribing a roadmap for improving the capability of the development process. However, such frameworks are not widely adopted in the practice [1], [2], especially in smaller software development organisations where the development process is often modified based on business events [3]. Such modification of the development process represents an attempt to harmonise the process with the changing needs of the business, which is a dynamic capability. Dynamic capabilities refer to the ability of businesses to adapt to changing circumstances and according to the evolutionary theory of the firm [4], organisations that possess greater dynamic capability are more successful. This paper introduces dynamic SPI capability - the ability to adapt the software process relative to changing situational circumstances – as a method for evaluating software process adaptation.

Keywords

SPI Process Adaptation Situational Factors Dynamic SPI Capability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    McConnell, S.: Closing the Gap. IEEE Software 19(1), 3–5 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P., Murphy, R.: An Exploratory Study of Why Organizations do Not Adopt CMMI. Journal of Systems and Software 80(6), 883–895 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coleman, G., O’Connor, R.: Investigating Software Process in Practice: A Grounded Theory Perspective. Journal of Systems and Software 81(5), 772–784 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.: An evolutionary theory of economic change. The Balknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO/IEC: 15504-1 information technology - process assessment - part 1: Concepts and vocabulary. ISO / IEC, Geneva, Switzerland (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    CMMI Product Team. CMMI for development, version 1.2. Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008. Pittsburgh, PA, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salviano, C.F., Figueiredo, A.: Unified Basic Concepts for Process Capability Models. In: Proceedings of The Twentieth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2008), pp. 173–178 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McBride, T., Henderson-Sellers, B., Zowghi, D.: Project Management Capability Levels: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 56–63 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haapio, T.: A Framework for Improving Effort Management in Software Projects. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 12, 549–558 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fayad, M.E., Laitnen, M.: Process Assessment Considered Wasteful. Communications of the ACM 40(11), 125–128 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herbsleb, J., Carleton, A., Rozum, J., Siegel, J., Zubrow, D.: Benefits of CMM-Based Software Process Improvement: Initial Results. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herbsleb, J., Goldenson, D.: A systematic survey of CMM experience and results. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1996), pp. 323–330. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lawlis, P., Flowe, R., Thordahl, J.: A Correlational Study of the CMM and Software Development Performance. Crosstalk, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering 8(9), 21–25 (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gibson, D., Goldenson, D., Kost, K.: Performance results of CMMI-Based Process Improvement. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-004, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wegelius, H., Johansson, M.: Practical Experiences on Using SPICE for SPI in an Insurance Company. In: Abrahamsson, P., Baddoo, N., Margaria, T., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4764, p. 2. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    El Emam, K., Birk, A.: Validating the ISO/IEC 15504 Measures of Software Development Process Capability. Journal of Systems and Software 51(2), 119–149 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McAdam, R., Fulton, F.: The Impact of the ISO 9000:2000 Quality Standards in Small Software Firms. Managing Service Quality 12(5), 336–345 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ludewig, J.: Software engineering in the years 2000 minus and plus ten. In: Wilhelm, R. (ed.) Informatics: 10 Years Back, 10 Years Ahead. LNCS, vol. 2000, p. 102. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Benediktsson, O., Dalcher, D., Thorbergsson, H.: Comparison of Software Development Life Cycles: A Multiproject Experiment. IEE Proceedings - Software 153(3), 87–101 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    MacCormack, A., Verganti, R.: Managing the Sources of Uncertainty: Matching Process and Context in Software Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 20(3), 217–232 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kautz, K.: Software Process Improvement in very Small Enterprises: Does it Pay Off? Software Process: Improvement and Practice 4(4), 209–226 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chandler, A.D.: Organizational Capabilities and the Economic History of the Industrial Enterprise. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 6(3), 79–100 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cohendet, P., Kern, F., Mehmanpazir, B., Munier, F.: Knowledge Coordination, Competence Creation and Integrated Networks in Globalised Firms. Cambridge Journal of Economics 23(2), 225–241 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Poulin, L.A.: Achieving the Right Balance between Process Maturity and Performance. IEEE Canadian Review 56(-), 23–26 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davenport, T.H.: The Coming Commoditization of Processes. Harvard Business Review, 100–108 (June 2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ISO/IEC. Amendment to ISO/IEC 12207-2008 - systems and software engineering – software life cycle processes. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.: Harnessing ISO/IEC 12207 to examine the extent of SPI activity in an organisation. In: Riel, A., et al. (eds.) EuroSPI 2010. CCIS, vol. 99, pp. 25–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: The Situational Factors that Affect the Software Development Process. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (Submitted) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    IEEE. Guide to the software engineering book of knowledge (SWEBOK). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boehm, B., Clark, B., Horowitz, E., et al.: Software cost estimation with cocomo II. Prentice-Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Putnam, L.: A General Empirical Solution to the Macro Software Sizing and Estimating Problem. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 4(4), 345–361 (1978)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Albrecht, A.J.: Measuring application development productivity. In: Proceedings of the IBM Applications Development Symposium, p. 83. GUIDE International and SHARE, Inc., IBM Corporation (1979)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Glaser, B., Strauss, A.: The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne (1976)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of qualitative research. Sage Publications Limited, Thousand Oaks (2008)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bryant, A., Charmaz, K.: The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Clarke
    • 1
  • Rory V. O’Connor
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Lero Graduate School in Software EngineeringDublin City UniversityIreland
  2. 2.Dublin City UniversityIreland
  3. 3.Lero, the Irish Software Engineering Research CentreIreland

Personalised recommendations