Intangible benefits of CMM-based software process improvement

Software Process Improvement and Practice

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 217-228

  Hyde, Kevin ^a   Wilson, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Intangible benefits; Software process; Software process benefits

Indexed keywords

LEARNING SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PERSONNEL; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; ROUTERS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; TELECOMMUNICATION;

CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL (CMM); INTANGIBLE BENEFITS; SOFTWARE PROCESS; SOFTWARE PROCESS BENEFITS;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE;

EID: 12344307600     PISSN: 10774866     EISSN: 10991670     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/spip.205     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Ashrafi N. 2003. The impact of software process improvement on quality: in theory and practice. Information and Management 40(7): 677-690.
2. Bamberger J. 1997. Essence of the capability maturity model. Computer 30(6): 112-114.
3. Buchman C. 1996. SPI at allied signal aerospace. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol 1: Software Technology and Architecture, HICSS/IEEE: Hawaii, 673-680.
4. Diaz M, Sligo J. 1997. How SPI helped Motorola. IEEE Software 14(5): 75-81.
5. Dion R. 1993. Process improvement and the corporate balance sheet. IEEE Software 10(3): 28-35.
6. Ellison S, Dymond K. 1994. Management models for software development. In Proceedings of Software Quality Management II, Vol. 1: Managing Quality Systems, Computational Mechanics Publications: Glasgow, UK, 3-18.
7. Fayad M, Laitinen M. 1997. Process assessment considered wasteful. Communications of the ACM 40(11): 125-128.
8. Fowler K. 1997. SEI CMM level 5: a practitioners perspective. Crosstalk: Journal of Defense Software Engineering 10(9): http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/frames.asp?uri= 1997/09/seicmm5.asp.
9. Fowler F. 1988. Survey Research Methods. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
10. Goldenson D, Herbsleb J. 1995. After the appraisal: a systematic survey of process improvement, its benefits, and factors that influence success. Technical Report CMU/SEI-95-TR-009 ADA302225, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA.
11. Gray E, Smith W. 1998. On the limitations of software process assessment and the recognition of a required re-orientation for global process improvement. Software Quality Journal 7(1): 21-34.
12. Hayes W, Zubrow D. 1995. Moving on up: data and experience doing CMM-based process improvement. Technical Report CMU/SEI-95-TR-008 ADA300121, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA.
13. Herbsleb J, Carlton A, Rozum J, Siegel J, Zubrow D. 1994. Benefits of CMM-based SPI: initial results. Technical Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-013 ADA283848, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA.
14. Humphrey WS. 1989. Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley: Menlo Park, CA.
15. Humphrey WS. 1995. A Discipline for Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley: Menlo Park, CA.
16. Humphrey W, Snyder T, Willis R. 1991. SPI at Hughes aircraft. IEEE Software 8(4): 11-23.
17. ISO/IEC-15504. 1998. International Technology - Software Process Assessment, International Standards Organisation.
18. Jiang J, Klein G, Hwang H-G, Huang J, Hung S-Y. 2004. An exploration of the relationship between software development process maturity and project performance. Information and Management 41: 279-288.
19. Johnson D, Brodman J. 1996. Realities and rewards of SPI. IEEE Software 13(6): 99-101.
20. Klein D. 1998. If you get straight A's, you must be intelligent - respecting the intent of the capability maturity model. Crosstalk: Journal of Defense Software Engineering 11(2): http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/frames.asp? uri=1998/02/respecting.asp.
21. Krasner H. 1994. The payoff for SPI: what it is and how to get it. Software Process Newsletter, IEEE Computer Society 1: 1-6.
22. Leung H. 1999. Slow change of information system development practice. Software Quality Journal 8(3): 197-210.
23. Marsh C. 1982. The Survey Method - The Contribution of Surveys to Sociological Explanation. George Allen and Unwin: London, UK.
24. Nichols P. 1991. Social Survey Methods - A Fieldguide for Development Workers. Oxfam: Oxford, UK.
25. Paulk M, Curtis B, Chrissis M, Weber C. 1993. Capability maturity model for software, version 1.1. Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-24, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA.
26. Paulk M, Weber C, Curtis B, Chrissis M (eds). 1995. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Addison-Wesley: Menlo Park, CA.
27. Pitterman B. 2000. Telcordia technologies: the journey to high maturity. IEEE Software 17(4): 89-96.
28. Reader A. 1989. Survey Research Methods. The University of Chicago: Chicago, IL.
29. Rouse A, Watson D, Gilbert A, Dilnutt R. 1995. A Comparison of the System Development Practices in Australian and United States Organisations. Department of Information Systems, Monash University: Melbourne, Australia.
30. SEI. 2002a. CMMI for software engineering version 1.1. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-029, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA.
31. SEI. 2002b. Process maturity profile of the software. SCAMPI Appraisal Results, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburg, PA. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/sema/pdf/SW-CMM/2002aug.pdf.
32. SEI. 2004. Process Maturity Profile. SCAMPI Appraisal Results, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh, PA. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/sema/pdf/SW-CMM/2004 aug.pdf.
33. Smith W, Fletcher R, Gray E, Hunter R. 1994. SPI: the route to software quality? In Proceedings of Software Quality Management II, Vol. 1: Managing Quality Systems, Computational Mechanics Publications: Glasgow, UK, 193-211.
34. Sommerville I. 1998. Software Engineering, 5th edn. Addison-Wesley: Menlo Park, CA.
35. Standish Group. 1995. Chaos-the state of the software industry. Standish Group International Technical Report, 1-11, http://www.standishgroup.com www.projectsmart.co.uk/docs/chaos_report.pdf.
36. Standish Group. 2003. Chaos - the state of the software industry, http://www.standishgroup.com.
37. Trochim W. 1999. Survey Research, http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/survey.htm.
38. Yamamura G. 1999. Software process satisfied employees. IEEE Software 16(5): 83-85.
39. Zahran S. 1994. The software process - what it is, and how to improve it. In Proceedings of Software Quality Management II, Vol. 1: Managing Quality Systems, Computational Mechanics Publications: Glasgow, UK, 215-231.