Software Quality Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 237–261 | Cite as

Software process improvement in small and medium software enterprises: a systematic review

  • Francisco J. Pino
  • Félix García
  • Mario Piattini
Article

Abstract

Small and medium enterprises are a very important cog in the gears of the world economy. The software industry in most countries is composed of an industrial scheme that is made up mainly of small and medium software enterprises—SMEs. To strengthen these types of organizations, efficient Software Engineering practices are needed—practices which have been adapted to their size and type of business. Over the last two decades, the Software Engineering community has expressed special interest in software process improvement (SPI) in an effort to increase software product quality, as well as the productivity of software development. However, there is a widespread tendency to make a point of stressing that the success of SPI is only possible for large companies. In this article, a systematic review of published case studies on the SPI efforts carried out in SMEs is presented. Its objective is to analyse the existing approaches towards SPI which focus on SMEs and which report a case study carried out in industry. A further objective is that of discussing the significant issues related to this area of knowledge, and to provide an up-to-date state of the art, from which innovative research activities can be thought of and planned.

Keywords

Software process improvement SPI Small and medium software enterprises SMEs Systematic Review 

References

  1. Biolchini, J., Gomes, P., Cruz, A., & Travassos, G. (2005). Systematic review in software engineering. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Systems Engineering and Computer Science Department, UFRJ. http://www.cronos.cos.ufrj.br/publicacoes/reltec/es67905.pdf.
  2. Biolchini, J., Gomes, P., Cruz, A., Uchôa, T., & Travassos, G. (2007). Scientific research ontology to support systematic review in software engineering. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 21(2), 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brodman, J. G., & Johnson, D. L. (1994). What small business and small organizations say about the CMM: Experience report. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference On Software Engineering, Sorrento, Italy (pp. 331–340).Google Scholar
  4. Calvo-Manzano, J. A., Cuevas, G., San Feliu, T., De Amescua, A., & Pérez, M. (2002). Experiences in the application of software process improvement in SMES. Software Quality Journal, 10(3), 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casey, V., & Richardson, I. (2004). A practical application of the IDEAL model. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 9(3), 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Derniame, J.-C., Kaba, A. B., & Warboys, B. (Eds.). (1999). The software process: Modelling and technology. In Software process: Principles, methodology, and technology (pp. 1–12). Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. El Emam, K., & Birk, A. (2000). Validating the ISO/IEC 15504 measures of software development process capability. Journal of Systems and Software, 51(2), 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EU. (2005). The new SME definition. User guide and model declaration (pp. 1–52). European Commission. http://www.ec.europa.eu/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/sme_user_guide.pdf.
  10. Fayad, M. E., Laitinen, M., & Ward, R. P. (2000). Software engineering in the small. Communications of the ACM, 43(3), 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Florac, W. A., Park, R. E., & Carleton, A. D. (1997). Practical software measurement: Measuring for process management and improvement (pp. 1–12). Pittsburgh: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Hannay, J. E., Sjøberg, D. I. K., & Dybå, T. (2007). A systematic review of theory use in software engineering experiments. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, 33(2), 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hareton, L., & Terence, Y. (2001). A process framework for small projects. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 6(2), 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO. (2004). ISO/IEC 12207:2002/FDAM 2. Information technology – Software life cycle processes. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. www.iso.org.
  16. ISO. (2006). ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 Working Group 24. Available on: http://www.iso-iec-sc7wg24.gelog.etsmtl.ca/Webpage/iso-iec-sc7wg24_english.html. Accessed: January, 2007.
  17. Johnson, D. L., & Brodman, J. G. (1999). Tailoring the CMM for small businesses, small organizations, and small projects. In K. El Eman & N. Madhavji (Eds.), Elements of software process assessment and improvement (pp. 239–259). Los Alamitos: IEEE CS Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jørgensen, M., & Shepperd, M. J. (2007). A systematic review of software development cost estimation studies. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, 33(1), 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews (pp. 1–28). Keele University and ICT Australia Ltd. http://www.idi.ntnu.no/emner/empse/papers/kitchenham_2004.pdf.
  20. Oktaba, H., Garcia, F., Piattini, M., Pino, F., Alquicira, C., & Ruiz, F. (2007). Software process improvement: The COMPETISOFT project. IEEE Computer, 40(10), 21–28.Google Scholar
  21. Paulk, M. C. (1998). Using the software CMM in small organizations. In Proc. Joint 16th Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conf. and 8th Int’l Conf. Software Quality (pp. 350–360).Google Scholar
  22. Pino, F., Garcia, F., Piattini, M., & Oktaba, H. (2006). Revisión sistemática de mejora de procesos software en micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas. COMPETISOFT_IT_1. Ciudad Real, España: CYTED. http://www.alarcos.inf-cr.uclm.es/competisoft/privado/deriverables/COMPETISOFT_IT%201.pdf.
  23. Richardson, I. (2001). Software process matrix: A small company SPI model. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 6(3), 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rout, T., Tuffley, A., Cahill, B., & Hodgen, B. (2000). The RAPID assessment of software process capability. In First International Conference on Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination (pp. 47–56).Google Scholar
  25. Saiedian, H., & Carr, N. (1997). Characterizing a software process maturity model for small organizations. ACM SIGICE Bulletin, 23(1), 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scott, L., Jeffery, R., Carvalho, L., D’Ambra, J., & Rutherford, P. (2001). Practical software process improvement – The IMPACT project. In Proceedings of the Australian Software Engineering Conference (pp. 182–189).Google Scholar
  27. SEI. (2006). Improving processes in small settings (IPSS project). Available on: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/iprc/ipssbackground.html. Accessed: October, 2006.
  28. Staples, M., & Niazi, M. (2007). Systematic review of organizational motivations for adopting CMM-based SPI. Information and Software Technology, doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2007.07.003.
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wangenheim, C. G. v., Anacleto, A., & Salviano, C. F. (2006). Helping small companies assess software processes. IEEE Software, 23(1), 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yoo, C., Yoon, J., Lee, B., Lee, C., Lee, J., Hyun, S., & Wu, C. (2006). A unified model for the implementation of both ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI by ISO-certified organizations. Journal of Systems and Software, 79(7), 954–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco J. Pino
    • 1
    • 2
  • Félix García
    • 2
  • Mario Piattini
    • 2
  1. 1.IDIS Research Group, Electronic and Telecommunications Engineering FacultyUniversity of CaucaPopayanColombia
  2. 2.ALARCOS Research Group, Information Systems and Technologies Department, UCLM-INDRA Research and Development InstituteUniversity of Castilla-La ManchaCiudad RealSpain

Personalised recommendations