Software process improvement problems in twelve software companies: An empirical analysis

Empirical Software Engineering

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 7-42

  Beecham, Sarah ^a   Hall, Tracy ^a   Rainer, Austen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Capability maturity model; Correspondence analysis; Empirical study; Organization; Practitioners; Project; Software lifecycle; Software process improvement

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER GRAPHICS; DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS; DATA REDUCTION; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL; CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS; SOFTWARE LIFECYCLE; SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 0037366147     PISSN: 13823256     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1021764731148     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Ahuja, S. 1999. Process improvement in a rapidly changing business and technical environment. Fourth Annual Software Engineering European Process Group Conference, Amsterdam, Holland, c303.
2. Bach, J. 1999. What software reality is really about. IEEE Computer 32(12): 148-149.
3. Baddoo, N., and Hall, T. (in press). De-motivators for software process improvement: an analysis of practitioners', views. Journal of Systems and Software.
4. Boehm, B. W. 1981. Software Engineering Economics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
5. Curtis, B. 2000 The global pursuit of process maturity. IEEE Software 17(4): 76-78.
6. Diaz, M., and Sligo, J. 1997. How software process improvement helped Motorola. IEEE Software (September/October): 75-81.
7. Dunn, G. (1989). Design and Analysis of Reliability Studies. The Statistical Evaluation of Measurement Errors. New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Dybå, T. 2000. An instrument for measuring the key factors of success in software process improvement. Empirical Software Engineering 5(4): 357-390.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. El Emam, K., and Madhavji, N. H. 1995. The Reliability of Measuring Organizational Maturity. John Wiley & Sons.
13. 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.
14. Fordham, R. G. 1999. Software Process Maturity: Is level five enough? 21st International Conference on Software Engineering, May, Los Angeles, California.
15. Greenacre, M., and Blasius, B. 1994. Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences. Recent Developments and Applications. London: Academic Press Ltd.
16. Hall, T., Beecham, S., and Rainer, A. 2002. Requirements Problems in Twelve Companies: An Empirical Analysis. IEE Proceedings for Software, October, 149(5): 153-160.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Humphrey, W. S. 1989. Managing the Software Process. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
22. 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, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 277-288.
23. Kitchenham, B. A., Hughes, R. T., and Linkman, S. G. 2001. Modeling software measurement data. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27(9): 788-804.
24. 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.
25. Krippendorff, K. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
26. Krueger, R. A., and Casey, M. A. 2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide For Applied Research. Sage Publications.
27. Mellis, W. 1998. Software quality management in turbulent times-are there alternatives to process oriented software quality management? Software Quality Journal 7(3/4):277-295.
28. Moitra, D. 1998. Managing change for software process improvement initiatives: a practical experience-based approach. Software Process-Improvement and Practice 4(4): 199-207.
29. Morgan, D. L. 1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (2nd ed.): Sage Publications.
30. 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.
31. Paulk, M. C. 1994. A Comparison of ISO 9001 and the Capability Maturity Model for Software. Carnegie Mellon University, CMU/SEI-94-TR-12.
32. Paulk, M. C., and Chrissis, M. B. 2000. The November 1999 High Maturity Workshop. Software Engineering Institute.
33. 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.
34. Pitterman, B. 2000. Telcordia technologies: The journey to high maturity. IEEE Software 17(4):89-96.
35. Rainer, A., and Hall, T. 2002. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors affecting SPI. Journal of Systems and Software.
36. Sommerville, I., and Sawyer, P. 1997. Requirements Engineering A good practice guide. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
37. Stelzer, D., and Mellis, W. 1998. Success factors of organizational change in software process improvement. Software Process-Improvement and Practice 4(4): 227-250.
38. 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.
39. Vogt, W. P. 1999. Dictionary of Statistics and Methodology (2nd ed.): Sage Publications.
40. 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.