An exploratory study of software process improvement implementation risks

Journal of software: Evolution and Process

Volumn 24, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 877-894

  Niazi, Mahmood ^a,b,c  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b KING FAHD UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND MINERALS   (Saudi Arabia)

^c INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY   (Pakistan)

Author keywords

Critical risks; Exploratory study; Software process improvement

Indexed keywords

EXPLORATORY STUDIES; IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY; IN-DEPTH UNDERSTANDING; SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS; SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT; SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT IMPLEMENTATION; SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS; TRANSCRIPTION PROCESS;

MANAGEMENT; MANAGERS; TRANSCRIPTION;

SOFTWARE DESIGN;

EID: 84875382438     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20477481     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/smr.543     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Staples M, Niazi M, Jeffery R, Abrahams A, Byatt P, Murphy R. An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI. The Journal of Systems and Software 2007; 80(6):883-895.
2. Goldenson DR, Herbsleb JD. After the appraisal: a systematic survey of process improvement, its benefits, and factors that influence success. Technical Report CMU/SEI-95-TR- 009, Software Engineering Institute, USA, 1995.
3. Niazi M. Software process improvement: a road to success. Product-focused Software Process Improvement (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Münch J, Vierimaa M (eds.). Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg, 2006; 4034:395-401.
4. Leung H. Slow change of information system development practice. Software Quality Journal 1999; 8(3): 197-210.
5. Niazi M, Wilson D, Zowghi D. A Maturity model for the implementation of software process improvement: an empirical study. The Journal of Systems and Software 2005b; 74(2):155-172.
6. O'Connor R, Coleman G. An investigation of barriers to the adoption of software process best practice models. 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 2007; 780-789.
7. SEI. 2004. Process Maturity Profile. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. URL http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/assets/ 2004marSwCMM.pdf [accessed on May 2007].
8. Niazi M, Wilson D, Zowghi D. Critical barriers for SPI implementation: an empirical study. IASTED International Conference on Software Engineering (SE 2004), Austria, 2004; 389-395.
9. McDermid J, Bennet K. Software Engineering research: a critical appraisal. IEE Proceedings on software engineering 1999; 146(4):179-186.
10. Hall T, Wilson D. Views of software quality: a field report. IEEE Proceedings on Software Engineering 1997; 144(2):111-118.
11. Hall T, Wilson D. Perceptions of software quality: a pilot study. Software Quality Journal 1998; 7(1):67-75.
12. Paulk M, Curtis B, Chrissis M, Weber C. Capability maturity model for software, version 1.1. Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-24, Software Engineering Institute, USA, 1993.
13. Chrissis M, Konrad M, Shrum S. CMMI Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. Addison Wesley: Saddle River, NJ, 2006.
14. Dounos P, Bohoris G. Factors for the design of CMMI-based software process improvement initiatives. 14th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics. IEEE Computer Society: Los Alamitos, CA, 2010; 43-47.
15. Florence A. Lessons learned in attempting to achieve software CMM Level 4. CrossTalk - The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 2001; 14(8):29-30.
16. El-Emam K, Fusaro P, Smith B. Success factors and barriers for software process improvement. Better software practice for business benefit: principles and experience. IEEE Computer Society: Los Alamitos, CA, 1999; 355-371.
17. Rainer A, Hall T. Key success factors for implementing software process improvement: a maturity-based analysis. The Journal of Systems and Software 2002; 62(2):71-84.
18. Stelzer D, Werner M. Success factors of organizational change in software process improvement. Software process improvement and practice 1999; 4(4):227-250.
19. Butler K. Process lessons learned while reaching Level 4. CrossTalk - The Journal of Defense Software Engineering 1997; 10(5):1-6.
20. Diaz M, Sligo J. How software process improvement helped Motorola. IEEE Software 1997; 14(5):75-81.
21. Dion R. 1992. Elements of a process-improvement program. IEEE Software 9(4):83-85.
22. Khandelwal V, Ferguson J. Critical success factors and the growth of IT in selected geographic regions. 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, USA, 1999.
23. Niazi M, Ali-Barbar M, Verner JM. Software process improvement barriers: a cross-cultural comparison, Information and Software Technology 2010; 52(11):1204-1216.
24. Rockart JF. Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review 1979; 57(2):81-93.
25. Harrison R, Baddoo N, Barry E, Biffl S, Parra A, Winter B, Wuest J. Directions and methodologies for Empirical Software Engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 1999; 4(4):405-410.
26. Perry D, Porter A, Votta L. Empirical studies of software engineering: a roadmap. Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, 2000; 347-355.
27. Coolican H. Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. Hodder and Stoughton: London, 1999.
28. Baddoo N. Motivators and de-motivators in software process improvement: an empirical study. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hertfordshire UK, 2001.
29. Baddoo N, Hall T. Motivators of software process improvement: an analysis of practitioner's views. The Journal of Systems and Software 2002; 62(2):85-96.
30. Baddoo N, Hall T. De-motivators of software process improvement: an analysis of practitioner's views. The Journal of Systems and Software 2003; 66(1):23-33.
31. Niazi M, Ali-Babar M. Identifying high perceived value practices of CMMI Level 2: an empirical study. Information and Software Technology 2009 51(8):1231-1243.
32. Niazi M, Wilson D, Zowghi D. A framework for assisting the design of effective software process improvement implementation strategies. The Journal of Systems and Software 2005a; 78(2):204-222.
33. Michael S, Lewis B. Research practice: international handbooks of quantitative application in social sciences. Sage: London, 1994.
34. Creswell J. Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Sage: London, 1994.
35. Burnard P. A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse Education Today 1991; (11):461-466.
36. Black T. Doing qualitative research in the social sciences: an integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics. Sage: London, 1999.
37. Seaman C. Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1999; 25(4):557-572.
38. Beecham S, Hall T, Rainer A. Building a requirements process improvement model. Technical Report No. 378, Department of Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, 2003.
39. Hall T, Rainer A, Baddoo N. Implementing software process improvement: an empirical study, Software Process Improvement and Practice 2002; 7(1):3-15.
40. Regnell B, Runeson P, Thelin T. Are the perspectives really different-further experimentation on scenario-based reading of requirements. Empirical Software Engineering 2000; 5(4):331-356.
41. Baddoo N, Hall T, Wilson D. Implementing a people focused SPI programme. 11th European Software Control and Metrics Conference and the Third SCOPE Conference on Software Product Quality, 2000.
42. Dyba T. An instrument for measuring the key factors of success in SPI. Empirical Software Engineering 2000; 5(4):357-390.
43. Pino F, Pardo C, Garcí F, Piattini M. Assessment methodology for software process improvement in small organizations. Information and Software Technology 2010; 52(10):1044-1061.
44. Trewin D. Small business in Australia: 2001. Australian Bureau of Statistics Report 1321.0. URL http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/ subscriber.nsf/0/C639A01ED725ADABCA256C54000336D1/$File/13210-2001.pdf [accessed on June 2005].
45. Nevalainen R, Schweigert T. A European scheme for software process improvement manager training and certification. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 2010; 22(4):269-277.
46. Khan SU, Niazi M, Ahmad R. Barriers in the selection of offshore software development outsourcing vendors: an exploratory study using a systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, DOI:10.1016/j.infsof. 2010.08.003