Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the gap between software process practices and actual practice in very small companies

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports on a grounded theory to study into software developers’ use of software development processes in actual practice in the specific context of very small companies. This study was conducted in three very small software product companies located in Ecuador. The data collection was based on semi-structured qualitative interviews with software project managers, focus group with software developers and was supplemented by the literature and document studies. We interviewed two types of participants (managers and developers), so as to ensure that we elicited a holistic perspective of how they approached the software development process in actual practice. The goal was to study what practices are actually used and their opinion and attitude toward the potential adopting of an international standard (ISO/IEC 29110) specifically designed for very small companies. With the collected data, we performed an analysis utilizing grounded theory coding techniques, as this methodology promotes the focus on uncovering the real concerns of the participants. This study highlighted three areas of concern: customer, software product and development tasks coordination and tracking. The findings in this study give an insight toward the work products as they relate to software development process practices in very small companies and the important factors that must be considered to assist project success.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. From hereon, the themes, categories and core category are denoted in italics.

References

  • Abrahamsson, P., Oza, N., & Siponen, M. T. (2010). Agile software development methods: A comparative review. In T. Dingsøyr, T. Dybå, & N. B. Moe (Eds.), Agile software development (pp. 31–59). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baldassarre, M. T., Caivano, D., Pino, F. J., Piattini, M., & Visaggio, G. (2012). Harmonization of ISO/IEC 9001:2000 and CMMI-DEV: from a theoretical comparison to a real case application. Software Quality Journal, 20(2), 309–335. doi:10.1007/s11219-011-9154-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basri, S., & Connor, R. V. (2011). A study of knowledge management process practices in very small software companies. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 3(4), 636–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basri, S., & O’Connor, R. V. (2010). Understanding the perception of very small software companies towards the adoption of process standards. In A. Riel, R. V. O’Connor, S. Tichkiewitch, & R. Messnarz (Eds.), Systems, software and services process improvement, Vol. 99 (pp. 153–164). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Basri, S., & O’Connor, R. V. (2011). Knowledge management in software process improvement: A case study of very small entities. In M. Ramachandran (Ed.), Knowledge engineering for software development life cycles: Support technologies and applications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D., & Mea, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369–386. doi:10.2307/248684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2003). Balancing agility and discipline: A guide for the perplexed. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, E., Calvo-Manzano, J. A., & Feliu, T. S. (2011). Introducing scrum in a very small enterprise: A productivity and quality analysis. In R. V. O‘Connor, J. Pries-Heje, & R. Messnarz (Eds.), EuroSPI 2011 (pp. 215–224). Roskilde: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cater-Steel, A. P. (2000). COTS developers lead best practice adoption. In Conference on software engineering (pp. 23–30). Presented at the IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA. doi:10.1109/ASWEC.2000.844555.

  • Cater-Steel, A., & Toleman, M. (2006). Exploring national culture in software development practices. In EuroSPI 2006 Industrial Proceedings, 4–1.

  • Clarke, P., & O’Connor, R. V. (2012a). The situational factors that affect the software development process: Towards a comprehensive reference framework. Information and Software Technology, 54(5), 433–447. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2011.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, P., & O’Connor, R. V. (2012b). The influence of SPI on business success in software SMEs: An empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(10), 2356–2367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, G., & O’Connor, R. (2006). Software process in practice: A grounded theory of the Irish software industry. In I. Richardson, P. Runeson, & R. Messnarz (Eds.), EuroSPI 2006 (pp. 28–39). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, G., & O’Connor, R. (2007). Using grounded theory to understand software process improvement: A study of Irish software product companies. Information and Software Technology, 49(6), 654–667. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2007.02.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, G., & O’Connor, R. (2008a). Investigating software process in practice: A grounded theory perspective. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(5), 772–784. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.07.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, G., & O’Connor, R. V. (2008b). An investigation into software development process formation in software start-ups. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 21(6), 633–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat. (2014). Annual enterprise statistics by size class for special aggregates of activities (NACE Rev. 2). http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Information_and_communication_service_statistics_-_NACE_Rev._.

  • Glass, R. L. (2003). The state of the practice of software engineering. IEEE Software, 20(6), 20–21.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, B. H., & Kautz, K. (2005). Grounded theory applied—Studying information systems development methodologies in practice. In 38th annual hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2005. HICSS ’05 (p. 264b–264b). Presented at the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2005. HICSS ’05, Hawaii. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2005.289.

  • Herranz, E., Colomo-Palacios, R., de Amescua Seco, A., & Yilmaz, M. (2014). Gamification as a disruptive factor in software process improvement initiatives. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 20(6), 885–906.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S. (2012). Developing a grounded theory to explain the practices of self-organizing Agile teams. Empirical Software Engineering, 17(6), 609–639. doi:10.1007/s10664-011-9161-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, C. (2002). Software development in Austria: Results of an empirical study among small and very small enterprises. In IEEE Proceedings of the 28th Euromicro conference (pp. 361–366).

  • Hove, S. E., & Anda, B. (2005). Experiences from conducting semi-structured interviews in empirical software engineering research. In IEEE Proceedings of the 11th IEEE international software metrics symposium (pp. 10–32).

  • ISO/IEC. (2011). Software engineering—Lifecycle profiles for Very Small Entities (VSEs) Part 5-1-1: Management and engineering guide: Generic profile group: Basic Profile (No. ISO/IEC TR 29110-5-1-2:2011(E)). Geneva.

  • Jeners, S., O’Connor, R. V., Clarke, P., Lichter, H., Lepmets, M., & Buglione, L. (2013). Harnessing software development contexts to inform software process selection decisions. Software Quality Professional, 16(1), 35–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. (2006). My life is failure: 100 things you should know to be a better project leader. Boston, MA: Standish Group International Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khankaew, S., & Riddle, S. (2014). A review of practice and problems in requirements engineering in small and medium software enterprises in Thailand. In IEEE Empirical requirements engineering (EmpiRE), 2014 IEEE fourth international workshop (pp. 1–8).

  • Kontio, J., Bragge, J., & Lehtola, L. (2008). The focus group method as an empirical tool in software engineering. In F. Shull, J. Singer, & D. I. K. Sjøberg (Eds.), Guide to advanced empirical software engineering (pp. 93–116). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kontio, J., Lehtola, L., & Bragge, J. (2004). Using the focus group method in software engineering: Obtaining practitioner and user experiences. In IEEE Proceedings of the 2004 international symposium on empirical software engineering, ISESE’04 (pp. 271–280).

  • Kroeger, T. A., Davidson, N. J., & Cook, S. C. (2014). Understanding the characteristics of quality for software engineering processes: A grounded theory investigation. Information and Software Technology, 56(2), 252–271. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2013.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langford, J., & McDonaugh, D. (2003). Focus groups: Supporting effective product development. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Laporte, C. Y., Alexandre, S., & O’Connor, R. V. (2008). A Software engineering lifecycle standard for very small enterprises. In R. O’Connor, N. Baddoo, K. Smolander, & R. Messnarz (Eds.), Proceedings of EuroSPI (Vol. 16, pp. 129–141). Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85936-9_12.

  • Laporte, C. Y., & O’Connor, R. V. (2014a). Systems and software engineering standards for very small entities: Implementation and initial results. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on the quality of information and communications technology (QUATIC) (pp. 38–47).

  • Laporte, C. Y., & O’Connor, R. V. (2014b). A systems process lifecycle standard for very small entities: Development and pilot trials. In B. Barafort, R. V. O’Connor, & R. Messnarz (Eds.), Systems, software and services process improvement (pp. 13–24). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laporte, C. Y., O’Connor, R. V., & García Paucar, L. (2015). Software engineering standards and guides for very small entities: Implementation in two start-ups. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on evaluation of novel approaches to software engineering (ENASE 2015). Spain.

  • Lee, S., & Yong, H.-S. (2013). Agile software development framework in a small project environment. Journal of Information Processing Systems, 9(1), 69–88. doi:10.3745/JIPS.2013.9.1.069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCaffery, F., & Coleman, G. (2009). Lightweight SPI assessments: What is the real cost? Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 14(5), 271–278. doi:10.1002/spip.430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFall, D., Wilkie, F. G., McCaffery, F., Lester, N., & Sterritt, R. (2003). Software processes and process improvement in Northern Ireland. In 16th international conference on software & systems engineering and their applications (ICSSEA 2003) (pp. 1–10). Paris.

  • Misra, S., Fernández, L., & Colomo-Palacios, R. (2014). A simplified model for software inspection. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 26(12), 1297–1315. doi:10.1002/smr.1691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mora, M., Gelman, O., O’Connor, R., Alvarez, F., & Macias-Luevano, J. (2009). An overview of models and standards of processes in the SE, SwE, and IS Disciplines. In A. Cater-Steel (Ed.), Information technology governance and service management: Frameworks and adaptations (pp. 371–387). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Campos, E., Sanchez-Gordon, M.-L., Colomo-Palacios, R., & Amescua Seco, A. (2014). Towards measuring the impact of the ISO/IEC 29110 standard: A systematic review. In Proceedings of 21st EuroSPI 2014 conference (Vol. 425, pp. 1–12). Luxembourg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-43896-1_1.

  • Niazi, M., Babar, M. A., & Verner, J. M. (2010). Software process improvement barriers: A cross-cultural comparison. Information and Software Technology, 52(11), 1204–1216. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, R. V. (2012a). Evaluating management sentiment towards ISO/IEC 29110 in very small software development companies (Vol. 290, pp. 277–281). In Presented at the 12th international conference SPICE 2012. Spain: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30439-2_31.

  • O’Connor, R. V. (2012b). Using grounded theory coding mechanisms to analyze case study and focus group data in the context of software process research. In M. Mora, O. Gelman, A. L. Steenkamp, & M. Raisinghani (Eds.), Research methodologies, innovations and philosophies in software systems engineering and information systems (pp. 256–270). IGI Global.

  • O’Connor, R., & Basri, S. (2012). The effect of team dynamics on software development process improvement. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 3(3), 13–26. doi:10.4018/jhcitp.2012070102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, R., & Coleman, G. (2009). Ignoring “Best Practice”: Why Irish software SMEs are rejecting CMMI and ISO 9000. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 16(1), 7–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, R. V., & Laporte, C. Y. (2014). An innovative approach to the development of an international software process lifecycle standard for very small entities. International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach, 7(1), 1–22. doi:10.4018/ijitsa.2014010101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster, N., Giardino, C., Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T., & Abrahamsson, P. (2014). Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology, 56(10), 1200–1218. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2014.04.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulk, M. C. (1998). Using the software CMM in small organizations. In Proceedings of the Pacific Northwest software quality conference and the eighth international conference on software quality (pp. 350–361). Portland, Oregon.

  • Pino, F. J., García, F., & Piattini, M. (2008). Software process improvement in small and medium software enterprises: A systematic review. Software Quality Control Journal, 16(2), 237–261. doi:10.1007/s11219-007-9038-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, R. (2009). Software engineering: A practitioner’s approach (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Science.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, I., & von Wangenheim, G. C. (2007). Why are small software organizations different? IEEE Software, 24(1), 18–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Rube, I., Dodero, J. M., & Colomo-Palacios, R. (2015). A framework for software process deployment and evaluation. Information and Software Technology, 59, 205–221. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2014.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Gordon, M. L., O’Connor, R. V., & Colomo-Palacios, R. (2015). Evaluating VSEs viewpoint and sentiment towards the ISO/IEC 29110 standard: A two country grounded theory study. In A. Dorling, T. Rout, & R. V. O’Connor (Eds.), Software process improvement and capability determination. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoeffel, P., & Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Factors of influence in software process improvement: A comparative survey between micro and small enterprises (MSE) and medium and large enterprises (MLE). IEEE Latin America Transactions, 10(2), 1634–1643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P., & Murphy, R. (2007). An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(6), 883–895. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. S., Greer, D., Sage, P., Coleman, G., McDaid, K., Lawthers, I., & Corr, R. (2006). Applying an agility/discipline assessment for a small software organisation. In 7th international conference, PROFES 2006 (Vol. 4034, pp. 290–304). Amsterdam: Springer.

  • UNCTAD. (2012). Information economy report 2012: The software industry and developing countries. New York: United Nations Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verner, J. M., Babar, M. A., Cerpa, N., Hall, T., & Beecham, S. (2014). Factors that motivate software engineering teams: A four country empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software, 92, 115–127. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2014.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Wangenheim, C. G., Anacleto, A., & Salviano, C. F. (2006). Helping small companies assess software processes. IEEE Software, 23(1), 91–98. doi:10.1109/MS.2006.13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, M., O’Connor, R. V., & Clarke, P. (2015). Software development roles: A multi-project empirical investigation. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 40(1), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, M., O’Connor, R. V., & Collins, J. (2010). Improving software development process through economic mechanism design. In Proceedings of the 17th European systems and software process improvement and innovation (EuroSPI 2010) (pp. 177–188). Springer.

  • Zahran, S. (1998). Software process improvement—Practical guidelines for business success. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Mary-Luz Sánchez-Gordón

  2. Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Rory V. O’Connor

Authors
  1. Mary-Luz Sánchez-Gordón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rory V. O’Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary-Luz Sánchez-Gordón.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sánchez-Gordón, ML., O’Connor, R.V. Understanding the gap between software process practices and actual practice in very small companies. Software Qual J 24, 549–570 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-015-9282-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-015-9282-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation