SPI Models: What Characteristics are Required for Small Software Development Companies?

Software Quality Journal

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 101-114

  Richardson, Ita ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK   (Ireland)

^b Wang Laboratories BV   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Business goals; Flexible model; Quality function deployment; Return on investment; Small companies; Software process; Software process improvement

Indexed keywords

INDUSTRY; QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT;

BUSINESS GOALS; FLEXIBLE MODEL; SMALL COMPANIES; SOFTWARE PROCESS; SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT;

SOFTWARE DESIGN;

EID: 1842856209     PISSN: 09639314     EISSN: 15731367     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1020519822806     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Akao, Y. 1990. QFD, Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design, U.S.A., Productivity Press.
2. Buchman, C.D. and Bramble, L.K. 1995. Three-tiered software process assessment hierarchy, Software Process - Improvement and Practice. 1(2): 99-106.
3. Cohen, L. 1995. Quality Function Deployment, How to Make QFD Work for You, U.S.A., Addison-Wesley.
4. Combelles, A. and DeMarco, T. 1998. Viewpoint, Software in Focus, ESSI News Project Team, Issue 1, March.
5. El Eman, K., Lionel, B., and Smith, R. 1996. Assessor Agreement in Rating SPICE Processes, Software Process Improvement and Practice. 2(4): 291-306.
6. Fortuna, R.M. 1988. Beyond quality: Taking SPC upstream, Quality Progress, June, pp. 23-28.
7. Geyres, S., Bazzana, G., and Deler, G. 1997. Exchanging SPI experience across SMEs by internet conferencing. Proc. SPI '97, Barcelona, Spain.
8. Hauser, J.R. and Clausing, D. 1988. The house of quality, Harvard Business Rev., May-June, pp. 63-73.
9. Horvat, R.V., Rozman, I., and Gyorkos, J. 2000. Managing the complexity of SPI in small companies, Software Process - Improvement and Practice, 5(1): 45-54.
10. Kilpi, T. 1997. Product management challenge to software change process: Preliminary results from three SMEs experiment, Software Process - Improvement and Practice. 3(3): 165-175.
11. Kuvaja, P., Jouni S., Krzanik, K., Bicego, A., Koch, G., and Saukkonen, S. 1994. Software Processes Assessment and Improvement: The BOOTSTRAP Approach, U.K., Blackwell Publishers.
12. Mazur, G. 1994. QED for Small Business - A shortcut through the 'Maze of Matrices', Trans. from the Sixth Symp. on Quality Function Deployment, Novi, Michigan, pp. 375-386.
13. McIver Consulting. 1998. Manpower, Education and Training Study of the Irish Software Sector. Report submitted to the Software Training Advisory Committee and FAS, Dublin, Ireland.
14. National Competitiveness Council. 1999. Annual Competitiveness Report, Dublin, Ireland.
15. National Software Directorate. 1998. Irish Software Industry Survey Results, Dublin, Ireland.
16. Richardson, I., Ryan, K., and Murphy, E, 2002. Development of a generic quality function deployment matrix, Quality Management J. 9(2): 25-43.
17. Stevenson, H.H. 1989. Defining corporate strengths and weaknesses, D. Asch and C. Bowman (Eds.), Readings in Strategic Management, London, Macmillan in association with the Open University, pp. 162-176.
18. Zahran, S. 1998. Software Process Improvement, Practical Guidelines for Business Success, U.K., Addison-Wesley.