Advertisement

Improvement of Task Management with Process Models in Small and Medium Software Companies

  • Jakub Miler
  • Hanna Wesołowska
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 301)

Abstract

Small and medium software companies exhibit many special features that give reason for a dedicated approach to process improvement. They often cannot afford implementing maturity models or quality standards both in terms of time and money. Instead, they expect simpler solutions that can allow to run projects in more systematic and repeatable way, increase quality and knowledge management. In this paper, we present a method focused on improvement of task management using the process models. The method proposes the integration of modeling and task management tools, where models become templates of enacted projects. We applied the method in two case studies with SMEs, where sample process models were built and enacted in adapted task management tools, followed by a survey. The survey resulted in 82.5% of positive answers. The case studies show considerable potential of our method in solving some improvement problems of SMEs.

Keywords

software process improvement software process model SPEM model enactment project management task management SMEs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Basri, S., O’Connor, R.V.: Understanding the Perception of Very Small Software Companies towards the Adoption of Process Standards. In: Riel, A., O’Connor, R., Tichkiewitch, S., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2010. CCIS, vol. 99, pp. 153–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pino, F.J., Pardo, C., Garcia, F., Piattini, M.: Assessment methodology for software process improvement in small organizations. Information and Software Technology 52(10), 1044–1061 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pino, F.J., Garcia, F., Piattini, M.: Software Process Improvement in Small and Medium Software Enterprises: A Systematic Review. Software Quality Journal 16(2), 237–261 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pino, F.J., García, F., Piattini, M.: An Integrated Framework to Guide Software Process Improvement in Small Organizations. In: O’Connor, R.V., Baddoo, N., Cuadrago Gallego, J., Rejas Muslera, R., Smolander, K., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2009. CCIS, vol. 42, pp. 213–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mishra, D., Mishra, A.: Software Process Improvement Methodologies for Small and Medium Enterprises. In: Jedlitschka, A., Salo, O. (eds.) PROFES 2008. LNCS, vol. 5089, pp. 273–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Von Wangenheim, C.G., Weber, S., Hauck, J.C.R., Trentin, G.: Experiences on Establishing Software Processes in Small Companies. Information and Software Technology 48(9), 890–900 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Software Engineering Institute, International Process Research Consortium, CMU/SEI-2006-SR-001 (2006) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC7 Working Group 24, http://profs.etsmtl.ca/claporte/English/VSE/
  9. 9.
    CMMI Product Team: CMMI for Development, Version 1.3, Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033 (2010) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO, ISO/IEC 12207:2008 Systems and software engineering - Software life cycle processes (2008) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO, ISO/IEC 15504-4:2004: Information technology - Process assessment - Part 4: Guidance on use for process improvement and process capability determination (2004) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Commission: The New SME Definition, User guide and model declaration (2005) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO/IEC 29110-4-1:2011 Software engineering – Lifecycle profiles for Very Small Entities (VSEs) – Part 4-1: Profile specifications: Generic profile group (2011) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Richardson, I., Von Wangenheim, C.G.: Why are Small Software Organizations Different? IEEE Software 24(1), 18–22 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: The Meaning of Success for Software SMEs: An Holistic Scorecard Based Approach. In: O‘Connor, R.V., Pries-Heje, J., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2011. CCIS, vol. 172, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson, D.L., Brodman, J.G.: Tailoring the CMM for small businesses, small organizations, and small projects. In: El Emam, K., Madhavji, N.H. (eds.) Elements of Software Process Assessment and Improvement, pp. 239–259. IEEE CS Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kautz, K.: Software Process Improvement in Very Small Enterprises: Does it Pay Off? Software Process – Improvement and Practice 4, 209–226 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dyba, T.: An empirical investigation of the key factors for success in software process improvement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(5), 410–424 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sulayman, M., Mendes, E.: An extended systematic review of software process Improvement in small and medium web companies. IET Seminar Digests (1), 134–143 (2011), doi:10.1049/ic.2011.0017Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    IBM, Rational software, www.ibm.com/software/rational/
  21. 21.
    Atlassian, JIRA - Track bugs, tasks, and projects for software development, http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/overview
  22. 22.
    Manifesto for Agile Software Development, http://agilemanifesto.org
  23. 23.
    ISO, ISO 9001:2008 Quality management systems — Requirements (2008) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dingsoyr, T., Moe, N.B.: The Impact of Employee Participation on the Use of an Electronic Process Guide: A Longitudinal Case Study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 34(2), 212–225 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Savolainen, P., Sihvonen, H.-M., Ahonen, J.J.: SPI with Lightweight Software Process Modeling in a Small Software Company. In: Abrahamsson, P., Baddoo, N., Margaria, T., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4764, pp. 71–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Friedrich, J., Bergner, K.: Formally Founded, Plan-based Enactment of Software Development Processes. In: Raffo, D., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Software and Systems Process, ICSSP 2011, Waikiki, Honolulu, HI, USA. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yaeli, A., Klinger, T.: Enacting Responsibility Assignment in Software Development Environments. In: Dubinsky, Y. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Software Development Governance, SDG 2008, Leipzig, Germany. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A work product pool approach to methodology specification and enactment. The Journal of Systems and Software 81(8), 1288–1305 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Valiente, M.-C., Garcia-Barriocanal, E., Sicilia, M.-A.: Applying Ontology-Based Models for Supporting Integrated Software Development and IT Service Management Processes. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, And Cybernetics—Part C: Applications and Reviews 42(1), 61–74 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hug, C., Front, A., Rieu, D.: Henderson-Sellers. B.: A method to build information systems engineering process metamodels. The Journal of Systems and Software 82(10), 1730–1742 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Object Management Group: Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model Specification, Version 2.0 (2008), http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/2.0/PDF
  32. 32.
    IBM, Rational Method Composer, http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rmc/
  33. 33.
    The Eclipse Foundation: Eclipse Process Framework Project (EPF), http://www.eclipse.org/epf/
  34. 34.
    Wesołowska, H.: Tool and procedural support for software development processes of SMEs (in Polish), MSc thesis, supervised by J. Miler, Department of Software Engineering, Gdansk University of Technology, Gdansk (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jakub Miler
    • 1
  • Hanna Wesołowska
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Software EngineeringGdansk University of TechnologyGdanskPoland
  2. 2.Quality Assurance DepartmentBlue Services Sp. z o. o.SopotPoland

Personalised recommendations