Software Process Improvement Problems in Twelve Software Companies: An Empirical Analysis

Empirical Software Engineering - Tập 8 - Trang 7-42 - 2003
Sarah Beecham1, Tracy Hall1, Austen Rainer1
1Department of Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, UK

Tóm tắt

In this paper we discuss our study of the problems 12 software companies experienced in software development. In total we present qualitative data collected from 45 focus groups that involved over 200 software staff. We look at how different practitioner groups respond to software process improvement problems. We show our classification and analysis of this data using correspondence analysis. Correspondence analysis is a graphical data representation method new to software development research. The aim of the work we present is to develop a more holistic understanding of the problems practitioners are experiencing in their attempts to improve their software processes. Our main finding is that there is an association between a company's capability maturity and patterns of reported problems. Organizational problems are more associated with high maturity companies than with low maturity companies. Low maturity companies are closely linked to problems relating directly to projects such as documentation, timescales, tools and technology. Our findings also confirm differences in practitioner group problems. Senior managers cite problems with goals, culture and politics. Project managers are concerned with timescales, change management, budgets and estimates. Developers are experiencing problems with requirements, testing, documentation, communication, tools and technology. These associations are displayed graphically through correspondence analysis maps.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Ahuja, S. 1999. Process improvement in a rapidly changing business and technical environment. Fourth Annual Software Engineering European Process Group Conference, Amsterdam, Holland, c303.

Bach, J. 1999. What software reality is really about. IEEE Computer 32(12): 148-149.

Baddoo, N., and Hall, T. (in press). De-motivators for software process improvement: an analysis of practitioners' views. Journal of Systems and Software.

Boehm, B. W. 1981. Software Engineering Economics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Curtis, B. 2000. The global pursuit of process maturity. IEEE Software 17(4): 76-78.

Diaz, M., and Sligo, J. 1997. How software process improvement helped Motorola. IEEE Software (September/October): 75-81.

Dunn, G. 1989. Design and Analysis of Reliability Studies. The Statistical Evaluation of Measurement Errors. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dybå, T. 2000. An instrument for measuring the key factors of success in software process improvement. Empirical Software Engineering 5(4): 357-390.

El Emam, K., and Birk, A. 2000. Validating the ISO/IEC 15504 measure of software requirements analysis process capability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(6): 541-566.

El Emam, K., Fusaro, P., and Smith, B. 1999. Success Factors and Barriers for Software Process Improvement. Better Software Practice For Business Benefit: Principles and Experience. Conference, Location, IEEE Computer Society.

El Emam, K., Goldenson, D., McCurley, J., and Herbsleb, J. 1998. Success or Failure? Modeling the Likelihood of Software Process Improvement. International Software Engineering Research Network.

El Emam, K., and Madhavji, N. H. 1995. The Reliability of Measuring Organizational Maturity. John Wiley & Sons.

El Emam, K., and Briand, L. 1999. Costs and benefits of software process improvement. In: R. Messnarz and C. Tully (eds): Better Software Practice for Business Benefits: Principles and Experience, Los Alamitos, IEEE CS Press, Chapter 16.

Fordham, R. G. 1999. Software Process Maturity: Is level five enough? 21st International Conference on Software Engineering, May, LosAngeles, California.

Greenacre, M., and Blasius, B. 1994. Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences. Recent Developments and Applications. London: Academic Press Ltd.

Hall, T., Beecham, S., and Rainer, A. 2002. RequirementsProblemsin Twelve Companies: An Empirical Analysis. IEE Proceedings for Software, October, 149(5): 153-160.

Hayes, W., and Zubrow, D. 1995. Moving on Up: Data and Experience Doing CMM-Based Process Improvement. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. CMU/SEI-95-TR-008.

Herbsleb, J. D., Carleton, A., Rozum, J., Siegel, J., and Zubrow, D. 1994. Benefits Of CMM-Based Software Process Improvement: Initial Results. SEI Technical Report, CMU/SEI-94-TR-013.

Herbsleb, J. D., and Goldenson, D. R. 1996. A systematic survey of CMM experience and results. 18th International Conference on Software Engineering, Berlin, Germany, March, pp. 323-330.

Horvat, R. V., Rozman, I., and Györkös, J. 2000. Managing the complexity of SPI in small companies. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 5(1): 45-54.

Humphrey, W. S. 1989. Managing the Software Process. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

Humphrey, W. S., Kitson, D. H., and Kasse, C. 1989. The State of Software Engineering Practice: A Preliminary Report. 11th International Conference on Software Engineering, Pittsburg, PA, pp. 277-288.

Kitchenham, B. A., Hughes, R. T., and Linkman, S. G. 2001. Modeling software measurement data. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27(9): 788-804.

Krasner, H. 1997. Accumulating the Body of Evidence for the Payoff of Software Process Improvement. In http://www.utexas.edu/coe/sqi/archive/krasner/spi.pdf-May 1999.

Krippendorff, K. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Krueger, R. A., and Casey, M. A. 2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide For Applied Research. Sage Publications.

Mellis, W. 1998. Software quality managment in turbulent times-are there alternatives to process oriented software quality management? Software Quality Journal 7(3/4): 277-295.

Moitra, D. 1998. Managing change for software process improvement initiatives: a practical experiencebased approach. Software Process-Improvement and Practice 4(4): 199-207.

Morgan, D. L. 1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (2nd ed.): Sage Publications.

Morgan, D. L., and Krueger, R. A. 1993. When to use focus groups and why. In D. L. Morgan (ed.), Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Paulk, M. C. 1994. A Comparison of ISO 9001 and the Capability Maturity Model for Software. Carnegie Mellon University, CMU/SEI-94-TR-12.

Paulk, M. C., and Chrissis, M. B. 2000. The November 1999 High Maturity Workshop. Software Engineering Institute

Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., Curtis, B., and Chrissis, M. B. 1995. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Pitterman, B. 2000. Telcordia technologies: The journey to high maturity. IEEE Software 17(4): 89-96.

Rainer, A., and Hall, T. 2002. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors affecting SPI. Journal of Systems and Software.

Sommerville, I., and Sawyer, P. 1997. Requirements Engineering A good practice guide. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Stelzer, D., and Mellis, W. 1998. Success factors of organizational change in software process improvement. Software Process-Improvement and Practice 4(4): 227-250.

Tingey, M. O. 1997. Comparing ISO 9000, Malcolm Baldrige and the SEI CMM for Software. A reference and section guide. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall PTR.

Vogt, W. P. 1999. Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology (2nd ed.): Sage Publications.

Willis, R. R., Rova, R. M., Scott, M. D., Johnson, M. I., Ryskowski, J. F., Moon, J. A., Shumate, K. C., and Winfield, T. O. 1998. Hughes Aircraft's Widespread Deployment of a Continuously Improving Software Process. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Technical Report CMU/SEI-98-TR-006. URL www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/98.reports/pdf/98tr006.pdf, accessed October 2002.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Empirical Software Engineering

Tập 8

7-42

Thông tin tác giả