Software Quality Journal

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 21–48 | Cite as

Critical success factors taxonomy for software process deployment

  • Sussy Bayona-Oré
  • Jose A. Calvo-Manzano
  • Gonzalo Cuevas
  • Tomas San-Feliu
Article

Abstract

Many organizations have adopted methods, models, and standards to improve their software processes. However, despite these efforts, they can still find it difficult to deploy processes throughout the organization because most of them focus more on the technical rather than human aspects. This paper proposes a taxonomy of critical success factors for software process deployment. A method to create this taxonomy was developed and applied based on a systematic review of existing literature and is complemented with industry experiences where software processes have been deployed or implemented. Finally, the categories, subcategories, and items of this taxonomy are presented.

Keywords

Critical success factors Taxonomy Process deployment CMMI 

References

  1. Ayala, C. (2006). Systematic construction of goal-oriented COTS taxonomies. In Proceedings of 3rd doctoral consortium at the 18th conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAISE 2006). Google Scholar
  2. Baddoo, N., & Hall, T. (2002a). Motivators of software process improvement: An analysis of practitioners’ views. Journal of Systems and Software, 62(02), 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baddoo, N., & Hall, T. (2002b). Software process improvement motivators: An analysis using multidimensional scaling. Journal of Empirical Software Engineering, 7(2), 93–114.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddoo, N., & Hall, T. (2003). De-motivators for software process improvement: An analysis of practitioners’ views. Journal of Systems and Software, 66(1), 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayona, S., Calvo-Manzano, J., Cuevas, G., & San Feliu, T. (2008). Process deployment in a multi-site CMMI level 3 organization: A case study. In L. Roger (Eds.), Studies in computational intelligence (Vol. 131, pp. 147–153). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Bayona, S., Calvo-Manzano, J. A., Cuevas, G., & San Feliu, T. (2010). Taxonomía de factores críticos para el despliegue de procesos software. Revista Española de Innovación Calidad e Ingeniería del Software (REICIS), 6(3), 6–21.Google Scholar
  7. Beecham, S., Hall, T., & Rainer, A. (2003). Software process problems in twelve software companies: An empirical analysis. Empirical Software Engineering, 8(1), 7–42.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Biolchini, J., Gomes, M., Cruz, N., & Horta, T. (2005). Systematic Review in Software Engineering, Software Engineering and Computer Science Department, Technical Report RT-ES679/05.Google Scholar
  9. Bruno, D., & Richmond, H. (2003). The truth about taxonomies. Information Management Journal, 37, 48–50, 52–53. http://news-business.vlex.com/vid/the-truth-about-taxonomies-54584663.Google Scholar
  10. Busch, J. (2008). Teaching taxonomy methodology. http://www.taxonomystrategies.com/presentations/2008/Woodley-2008-07-24.pdf.
  11. Centelles, M. (2005). Taxonomías para la Categorización y la Organización de la Información en Sitios Web. Hipertext.net, http://www.hipertext.net.
  12. Chrissis, M., Konrad, M., & Shrum, S. (2007). CMMI second edition guidelines for process integration and product improvement. United States, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  13. Crandall M. (2000). Using taxonomies effectively in the organization. Microsoft information services. http://www.infotoday.com/kmworld2000/presentations/crandall.ppt.
  14. Debar, H., & Dacier, W. (2000). A revised taxonomy for intrusion-detection systems. Journal Annals of Telecommunications, Paris: Springer, 55, 361–378.Google Scholar
  15. Dyba, T. (2000). An instrument for measuring the key factors of success in software process improvement. Empirical Software Engineering, 5(4), 357–390.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Dyba, T. (2005). An empirical investigation of the key factors for success in software process improvement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(5), 410–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. El Emam, K., Goldenson, D., McCurley, J., & Herbsleb, J. (2001). Modeling the likelihood of software process improvement: An exploratory study. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(3), 207–229.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 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, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Eng. Inst.Google Scholar
  19. Graef, J. (2001). Managing taxonomies strategically. Montague Institute Review. http://www.montague.com/abstracts/taxonomy3.html.
  20. Guerrero, F., & Eterovic, Y. (2004). Adopting the SW-CMM in a small IT organization. IEEE Software, 21(4), 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, T., Rainer, A., & Baddoo, N. (2002). Implementing software process improvement: An empirical study. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 7(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Humphrey, W. (1998). Managing the software process. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  23. Kaltio, T., & Kinnula, A. (2000). Deploying the defined software process. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 5(1), 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kitchenham, B. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in software engineering, EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, Keele University.Google Scholar
  25. Lepasaar, M., Varkoi, T., & Jaakkola, H. (2001). Models and success factor of process change. In Proceedings of product focused software process improvement (PROFES 2001) (pp. 68–77), Sept. 2001. doi:10.1007/3-540-44813-6_9.
  26. MacDonell, S., Shepperd, M., Kitchenham, B., & Mendes, E. (2010). How reliable are systematic reviews in empirical software engineering? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 36(5), 676–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McDermid, J., & Bennet, K. (1999). Software engineering research a critical appraisal. Proceedings of IEEE on Software Engineering, 146(4), 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Messnarz, R., Ekert, D., Reiner, M., & O’Suilleabhain, G. (2008). Human resources based improvement strategies-the learning factor. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 13(4), 355–362.Google Scholar
  29. Montoni, M., Santos, G., Rocha, A., Figueiredo, S., Cabral, R., Barcellos, R., Barreto, A., Soares, A., Cerdeiral, C., & Lupo P. (2006). Taba Workstation: Supporting software process deployment based on CMMI and MR-MPS.BR COPPE/UFRJ. In Proceedings of PROFES 2006, LNCS 4034 (pp. 249–262). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Niazi, M., Willson, D., & Zowghi, D. (2006). Critical success factors for software process improvement implementation: An empirical study. Software Process: Improvement and Practice Journal, 11(2), 193–211.Google Scholar
  31. Niazi, M., Wilson, D., & Zowghi, A. (2005). A framework for assisting the design of effective software process improvement implementation strategies. Journal of Systems and Software, 78(2), 204–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pino, J., García, F., & Piattini, M. (2008). Software process improvement in small and medium software enterprises: A systematic review. Software Quality Journal, Springer, 16(2), 237–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rainer, A., & Hall, T. (2002). Key success factors for implementing software process improvement: A maturity-based analysis. Journal of Systems and Software, 62(2), 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Regli, T., & Daniel, R. (2005). Taxonomies and meta data for business impact. Taxonomy strategies. http://www.taxonomystrategies.com/presentations/Taxonomy_Tutorial_Regli_and_Daniel(final).ppt.
  35. Stelzer, D., & Mellis, W. (1998). Success factors of organizational change in software process improvement. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 4(4), 227–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Verity. (2004). Classification, Taxonomies and You. Verity White Paper. http://www.weitkamper.com/download/verity/verity_mk0648.pdf.
  37. Whittaker, M., & Breininger, K. (2008). Taxonomy development for knowledge management. In Proceedings of world library and information congress 74th IFLA conference and council, Aug.Google Scholar
  38. Wilson, D., Hall, T., & Baddoo, N. (2007). A framework for evaluation and prediction of software process improvement success. Journal of Systems and Software, 59(2), 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zahran, S. (1998). Software process improvement: Practical guidelines for business success. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sussy Bayona-Oré
    • 1
  • Jose A. Calvo-Manzano
    • 1
  • Gonzalo Cuevas
    • 1
  • Tomas San-Feliu
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Lenguajes y Sistemas Informáticos e Ingeniería de Software, Facultad de InformáticaUniversidad Politécnica de MadridBoadilla del Monte, MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations