Software Process Improvement Health Checklist

  • Natalja Nikitina
  • Mira Kajko-Mattsson
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 301)


Positive results achieved by software process improvement (SPI) efforts tend to degrade with time. To prevent degradation, companies need to regularly evaluate their SPI efforts and tackle potential SPI problems in a timely manner. This can be done by evaluating the conditions necessary for succeeding with the SPI implementations and sustaining their results. In this paper, we suggest an SPI Health Checklist to be used for diagnosing the health of the SPI efforts.


SPI success effort evaluation sustainability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Stelzer, D., Mellis, W.: Success Factors of Organizational Change in Software Process Improvement. J. Softw. Process: Improve. Pract. 4, 227–250 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zahran, S.: Software Process Improvement: Practical Guidelines for Business Success. Addison Wesley (1998) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nikitina, N., Kajko-Mattsson, M.: Success Factors Leading to the Sustainability of Software Process Improvement Efforts. In: 6th International Conference on Software Engineering –Advances, pp. 581–588. IEEE Press (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rainer, A., Hall, T.: Key Success Factors for Implementing Software Process Improvement: A Maturity-based Analysis. J. Syst. Softw. 62, 71–84 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dybå, T.: An Empirical Investigation of the Key Factors for Success in Software Process Improvement. J. Softw. Eng. 31, 410–424 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dybå, T.: An Instrument for Measuring the Key Factors of Success in Software Process Improvement. J. Emp. Softw. Eng. 5, 357–390 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Curtis, B., Paulk, M.: Creating a Software Process Improvement Program. J. Inf. Softw. Technol. 35, 381–386 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sulayman, M., Urquhart, C., Mendes, E., Seidel, S.: Software Process Improvement Success Factors for Small and Medium Web Companies: A Qualitative Study. J. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 479–500 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beecham, S., Hall, T., Rainer, A.: Software Process Improvement Problems in Twelve Software Companies: An Empirical Analysis. J. Emp. Softw. Eng. 8, 7–42 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldenson, D., Herbsleb, D.: After the Appraisal: A Systematic Survey of Process Improvements, its Benefits, and Success Factors that influence Success. Technical report, SEI (1995) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall, T., Rainer, A., Baddoo, N.: Implementing Software Process Improvement: An Empirical Study. J. Softw. Process: Improve. Pract. 7, 3–15 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D.: Implementing Software Process Improvement Initiatives: An Empirical Study. In: Münch, J., Vierimaa, M. (eds.) PROFES 2006. LNCS, vol. 4034, pp. 222–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Basri, S., O’Connor, R.V.: A Study of Software Development Team Dynamics in SPI. In: O‘Connor, R.V., Pries-Heje, J., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2011. CCIS, vol. 172, pp. 143–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nikitina, N., Kajko-Mattsson, M.: Developer-driven Big-bang Process Transition from Scrum to Kanban. In: 2011 International Conference on Software and Systems Process, pp. 159–168. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Myers, M.D.: Qualitative Research in Business & Management. Sage Publications, London (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalja Nikitina
    • 1
  • Mira Kajko-Mattsson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information and Communication TechnologyKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations