Improving software management: the industry model, the knowledge model, the network model

Abstract

Thinking about improving the management of software development in software firms has been dominated by one approach: the capability maturity model (CMM) devised and administered at Carnegie Mellon University. Although widely known and used, there are a number of well-understood difficulties and limitations with this approach. This article examines, through the lens of modern management theory, the governing assumptions about management and organizational improvement behind the CMM approach. It characterizes this assumption set as the industry model of software management improvement. We take a dialectic approach to propose antithetical assumptions and a configuration approach to weave these different assumptions into alternative assumption platforms: the knowledge model and the network model. These two models, we suggest, might be better foundations for some types of software managements in a world responding to globalization and rapid technology change. If these assumption platforms were used to underpin improvements in software management, we ask, what kinds of approaches would they lead to?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.isospice.com/spice/spiceproject.htm.

References

  1. 1.

    Ahern DM, Clouse A, Turner R (2001) CMMI distilled: an introduction to multi-discipline process improvement. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bach J (1994) The immaturity of the CMM. Am Progr 7(9):13–18

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bach J (1995) Enough about process: what we need are heroes. IEEE Softw 12:96–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Basili V, Caldiera G (1995) The experience factory strategy and practice

  5. 5.

    Basili V, Caldiera G, Rombach HD (1994) Tthe experience factory. Encyclopedia of software engineering—2 volume set. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Basili VR (1992) Software modeling and measurement: The goal/question/metric paradigm. College Park, MD 20742, University of Maryland

  7. 7.

    Beck K (2000) Extreme programming explained: embracing change. Addison Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bollinger TB, McGowan C (1991) A critical look at software capability evaluations. IEEE Softw 8:25–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Brodman JG, Johnson DL (1994) What small businesses and small organizations say about the CMM. In: 16th international conference on software engineering. Sorrento, Italy

  10. 10.

    Brodman JG, Johnson DL (1996) Return on investment (ROI) from software process improvement as measured by US industry. Crosstalk 9(4):35–47

  11. 11.

    Brooks FP (1987) No silver bullet: essence and accidents of software engineering. Computer 20(4):10–19

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Castells M (2001) The internet galaxy—reflections on the internet. Business and Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    CMMI PT (2002) CMMI for Software Engineering, Version 1.1, Continuous Representation (CMMI-SW, V1.1, Continuous) (Tech. report No. CMU/SEI-2002-TR-028). Pittsburgh, PA, Software Engineering Institute

  14. 14.

    Cockburn A (2001) Agile software development: software through people. Addison Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Conradi R, Dingsoyr T (2000) Software experience bases, a consolidated evaluation and status report. Product Focused Software Process Improvement

  16. 16.

    Cooper R (2005) Thought experiments. Metaphilosophy 36:328–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Deck M (2001) Managing process diversity while improving your practices. IEEE Softw 18:21–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Dess GG, Newport S, Rasheed AMA (1993) Configuration research in strategic management—key issues and suggestions. 19:775–795

  19. 19.

    Emam KE, Madhavji N (1995) The reliability of measuring organizational maturity. Softw Process Improv Pract 1:3–25

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Endres A, Rombach D (2003) Empirical software and systems engineering: a handbook of observations. Laws and Theories. Pearson/Addison Wesley, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Fernström C (1991) The eureka software factory: concepts and accomplishments. In: Lamsweerde A, Fugetta A (eds) 3rd European software engineering conference. Springer, Berlin

  22. 22.

    Frederiksen HD, Rose J (2003) The social construction of the software operation: reinforcing effects in metrics programs. Scand J Inf Syst 15:23–38

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Hansen B, Rose J, Tjørnehøj G (2004) Prescription, description, reflection: the shape of the software process improvement field. Int J Inf Manag 24:457–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Henry J, Rossman A, Snyder J (1995) Quantitative-evaluation of software process improvement. J Syst Softw 28:169–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Humphrey W (1989) Managing the software process. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Humphrey W, Florac WA, Carleton AD (1999) Measuring the software process: statistical process control for software process improvement (SEI). Addison Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Humphrey WS (1988) Characterizing the software process. IEEE Softw 5:73–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Introna L (1997) Imagine: thought experiments in information systems research? In: Degross Ji AL, Liebenau J (eds) Information systems and qualitative research. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Jakobsen AB (1998) Bottom-up process improvement tricks. IEEE Softw 15:64–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Jørgensen M, Sjøberg DIK (2001) Software process improvement and human judgement heuristics. Scand J Inf Syst 13:99–122

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kaplan RS, Norto DP (1992) The balanced scorecard–measures that drive performance. Harv Bus Rev 70(1):71–79

  32. 32.

    Kelly DP, Culleton B (1999) Process improvement for small organizations. Computer 32:41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Konrad M, Chrissis MB, Ferguson J, Garcia S, Hefley B, Kitson D, Paulk M (1996) Capability maturity modeling at the SEI. Softw Process Improv Pract 2:21–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Kuvaja P, Bicego A (1994) BOOTSTRAP—a European assessment methodology. Softw Qual J 3:117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Kuvaja P, Palo J, Bicego A (1999) TAPISTRY—a software process improvement approach tailored for small enterprises. Softw Qual J 8:149–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kuvaja P, Similä J, Krzanik L, Bicego A, Saukkonen S, Koch G (1994) Software process assessment & improvement—the bootstrap approach. Blackwell Publisher, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Larsen EÅ, Kautz K (1997) Quality assurance and software process improvement in Norway. Softw Process Improv Pract 3:71–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Mason RO, Mitroff II (1973) A program for research on management information systems. Manag Sci 19:475–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Mathiassen L, Nielsen PA (1989) Soft systems and hard contradictions. J Appl Syst Anal 16:75–88

  40. 40.

    Matsumoto Y (1981) SWB system: a software factory. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Matsumoto Y (1987) A software factory: an overall approach to software production, IEEE

  42. 42.

    McGregor D (1960) The human side of enterprise. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Messnarz R, Tully C (eds) (1999) Better software practice for business benefit. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, California

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Miller D (1987) The genesis of configuration. Acad Manag Rev 12:686–701

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Mintzberg H (1983) Structure in fives. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Mintzberg H (1990) Strategy formation: schools of thought. In: Fredrickson JW (ed) Perspectives on strategic management. Harper Business, New York

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Mitroff II, Williams J, Rathswoh E (1972) Dialectical inquiring systems—new methodology for information science. J Am Soc Inf Sci 23:365–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Nielsen PA, Nørbjerg J (2001) Software process maturity and organizational politics. In: Fitzgerald B, Russo N (eds) Realigning research and practice in information systems development: the social and organizational perspective, proceedings of IFIP WG 8.2 conference. Boise, Idaho

  49. 49.

    Niessink F, van Vliet H (2001) Measurement program success factors revisited. Inf Softw Technol 43:617–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Nonaka I (1991) The knowledge-creating company. Harv Bus Rev 69(6):96–104

  51. 51.

    Paulish DJ (1993) Case-studies of software process improvement methods. Pittsburgh, Software Engineering Institute

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Paulk MC, Curtis B, Chrissis MB, Weber C (1993) Capability maturity model for software ver. 1.1. Software Enginering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Paulk MC, Weber C, Curtis B, Chrissis MB (1995) The capability maturity model: guidelines for improving the software process. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Porter M (1985) Competititve advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Pulford K, Kuntzmann-Combelles A, Shirlaw S, Harutunian K (1992) A quantitative approach to software management: the ami handbook. CSSE South Bank University, London

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Reifer DJ (2002) The CMMI: it’s formidable. J Syst Softw 50:97–98 Guest editor’s corner

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Richardson I (2002) SPI models: what characteristics are required for small software development companies? Softw Qual J 10:101–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Rifkin S (2001) What makes measuring software so hard? IEEE Softw 18:41–+

  59. 59.

    Rifkin S (2002) Is process improvement irrelevant to produce new era software? Softw Qual—Ecsq 2002

  60. 60.

    Sakamoto K, Kishida K, Nakakoji K (1996) Cultural adaptation of the CMM: a case study of a software engineering process group in a Japanes manufacturing factory. In: Fuggetta A, Wolf A (eds) Software process, 0th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Schneider K (2002) Experience based process improvement. Softw Qual—Ecsq 2002

  62. 62.

    Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline. Century, London

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Siakas KV, Georgiadou E (2002) Empirical measurement of the effects of cultural diversity on software quality management. Softw Qual J 10:169–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Sweeney A, Bustard DW (1997) Software process improvement: making it happen in practice. Softw Qual J 6:265–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Trienekens J, Kusters R, van Solingen R (2001) Product focused software process improvement: concepts and experiences from industry. Softw Qual J 9:269–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    van Solingen R, Berghout E, Kusters R, Trienekens J (2000) No improvement without learning: Prerequisites for learning the relations between process and product quality in practice. Product focused software process improvement, Berlin. Springer, Berlin

  67. 67.

    van Solingen R, Kusters RJ, Trienekens JJM, van Uijtregt A (1999) Product-focused software process improvement (P-SPI): concepts and their application. Qual Reliab Eng Int 15:475–483

  68. 68.

    Villalon J, Agustin GC, Gilabert TSF, Seco AD, Sanchez LG, Cota MP (2002) Experiences in the application of software process improvement in SMES. Softw Qual J 10:261–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    von Hippel E, von Krogh G (2003) Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: issues for organization science. Org Sci 14:209–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    von Krogh G, Spaeth S, Lakhani KR (2003) Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: a case study. Res Policy 32:1217–1241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Wang YX, Bryant A (2002) Process-based software engineering: building the infrastructures—editors’ introduction. Ann Softw Eng 14:9–37

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Ward RP, Fayad ME, Laitinen M (2001) Software process improvement in the small—a small software development company’s most difficult challenge: changing processes to match changing circumstances. Commun Acm 44:105–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Weber H (1997) The software factory challenge. IOS Press, Amsterdam

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Weinberg GM (1992) Quality software management. Dorset House Publishing, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Wohlwend H, Rosenbaum S (1994) Schlumberger’s software improvement program. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 20:833–839

  77. 77.

    Aaen I (2003) Software process improvement: blueprints versus Recipes. IEEE Softw 20(5):86–93

  78. 78.

    Aaen I, Pries-Heje J (2004) Standardising software processes—an obstacle for innovation? IFIP TC8/WG8.6 seventh working conference on IT innovation for adaptability and competitiveness. Leixlip, Ireland, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research was in part made possible by the Danish Government through their sponsorship of the Software Processes and Knowledge (SPV) project.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Rose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rose, J. Improving software management: the industry model, the knowledge model, the network model. Innovations Syst Softw Eng 11, 9–23 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-014-0240-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Software management
  • Software process improvement
  • Systems development