Advertisement

Software Quality Journal

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 189–202 | Cite as

An evolutionary cultural-change approach to successful software process improvement

  • Michael Elliott
  • Ray Dawson
  • Janet Edwards
Article

Abstract

With a plethora of models, systems and standards to choose for a basis of software process improvement, decisions on which to adopt may depend on a number of factors. This paper presents an evolutionary and extremely cost effective approach to implementing a software quality system that requires minimum resource and little disruption to programme delivery. The method presented, achieved a 40% improvement in the level of implementation of the AWE plc software quality management system over a 5-year period. A critical success factor is the treatment of the users’ of the defined software quality system as customers, understanding their concerns and problems, and being responsive to them. The importance of a well designed system is highlighted together with the essential and extensive consultation process required to gain buy-in and lay the foundation for cultural change. This was supported with a helpful programme of facilitated self-assessment and sustained by a closely aligned training scheme. As a consequence some of the cultural elements were changed from one of thoughtless “tick-in-the-box” compliance to one of true understanding of the system requirements, true quality implementation, and subsequent added value.

Keywords

Culture Training Standards Quality improvement Conformance Return-on-investment 

References

  1. Carnegie Mellon University. (1998). Software capability maturity model. Pittsburgh: Software Engineering Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Carnegie Mellon University. (2001). Capability maturity model integration. Pittsburgh: Software Engineering Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Dwyer, B. (2001). Successful training strategies for the twenty-first century. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(9), 312–318.Google Scholar
  4. Elliott, M., Dawson, R. J., & Edwards, J. (2005). Approaches to internal auditing—a software quality assurance case study. In Bennets, P., Ross, M., & Staples, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of software quality management xiii: Current issues in software quality, BCS, SQM 2005 (pp. 43–55). Cheltenham, UK, March 2005.Google Scholar
  5. Elliott, M., Dawson, R. J., & Edwards, J. (2006). An analysis of software quality management at AWE plc. In Bennets, P., Ross, M., & Staples, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of software quality management xiv, BCS, SQM 2006 (pp. 17–30). Cheltenham, UK, April 2006.Google Scholar
  6. Fagan, M. E. (1976). Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Systems Journal, 12(7), 741–744.Google Scholar
  7. Guerrero-Cusumano, J. L. & Selen, S. J. (1997), A comparison of international quality standards: Divergence and agreement. Business Process Management Journal, 3(3), 205–217.Google Scholar
  8. ISO 15504. (1998). Software process assessment. Geneva: International Standards Organisation.Google Scholar
  9. ISO 9001:2000. (2000). ISO 9001: 2000 quality management system requirements. Geneva: International Standards Organisation.Google Scholar
  10. Kerstin, S. V., Kleoniki, N. S., & Eleni, V. A. (2006). Integrating six sigma with CMMI. In Bennets, P., Ross, M., & Staples, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of software quality management XIV, BCS, SQM 2006 (pp. 85–95). Cheltenham, UK, April 2006.Google Scholar
  11. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Lee, P., & Quazi, H. A. (2001). A methodology for developing a self-assessment tool to measure quality performance in organisations. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 18(2), 118–141.Google Scholar
  13. Phillips, J. J. (2002). Return on investment in training and performance improvement programs (2nd ed.). Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  14. Rico, D. F. (2002). Software process improvement: Modelling return on investment (ROI). In Software engineering process group conference (SEPG 2002), Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Phoenix.Google Scholar
  15. Samuelson, P., & Nilson, L. (2002). Self-assessment practices in large organisations, experiences from using the EFQM excellence model. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 19(1), 10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sandi, M., & Robertson, I. T. (1996). What should training evaluations evaluate? Journal of European Industrial Training, 20(9), 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Standish Group International. (2001). Extreme Chaos. Standish Group web site, www.standishgroup.com. Retrieved November 2005.
  18. Tennant, C., Boonkrong, M., & Roberts, P. A. B. (2002). The design of a training programme measurement model. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(5), 230–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Van der Wiele, T., Dale, B., Carter, G., Kolb, F., Luzon, D. M., Schmidt, A., et al. (1995). Self-assessment: A study of progress in Europe’s leading organisations in quality management practice. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 13(1), 84–104.Google Scholar
  20. Waina, R. B. (2001). Five critical questions in process improvement. http://www.chips.navy.mil/archives/01_summer/five_critical_questions_in_proce.htm. Retrieved April 2006.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AWE plc.ReadingUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations