Empirical Software Engineering

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 93–114

Software Process Improvement Motivators: An Analysis using Multidimensional Scaling

  • Nathan Baddoo
  • Tracy Hall


In this paper we present an analysis of software practitioners' motivations for software process improvement (SPI). Our findings are based on an empirical study of SPI in 13 software companies where we conducted focus groups with nearly 200 software practitioners. Our aim is to better understand how companies can maximise practitioner support for SPI. This insight should help SPI managers establish more effective SPI implementation strategies. In this paper we introduce the use of multidimensional scaling (MDS) in SPI research. MDS is a social science data analysis technique designed to generate a rich visual understanding of human issues. By using MDS we found evidence to suggest distinct clusters of punitive and rewarding SPI motivators. Furthermore our analysis also suggests that different clusters of motivations exist for different staff groups.

Software process improvement multidimensional scaling software practitioners motivators SSA 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baddoo, N., and Hall, T. to appear in 2002. Motivators of software process improvement: an analysis of practitioners' views. Journal of Systems and Software.Google Scholar
  2. Baddoo, N., Hall T., and Wilson, D. 2000. Implementing a people focused SPI programme. Proceedings of the 11th European Software Control And Metrics Conference and the Third SCOPE Conference On Software Product Quality, Munich, 373–381, April 18- 20.Google Scholar
  3. Canter, D., and Heritage, R. 1990. A multivariate model of sexual offence behaviour: developments in 'offence profiling'. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 1: 185–212.Google Scholar
  4. Couger, J. D., and Zawacki, R. A. 1980. Motivating and Managing Computer Personnel. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Donald, I. 1994. The structure of office worker's experience of organisational environments. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology 67(3): 241–258.Google Scholar
  6. Guttman, L. 1968. A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika 33: 469–506.Google Scholar
  7. Guttman, R., and Greenbaum, C. W. 1998. Facet theory: it's development and current status. European Psychologist, 3(1): 13–36.Google Scholar
  8. Hackman, J. R., and Oldman G. R. 1976. Motivation Through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hall, T., and Wilson, D. 1997. Views of software quality: a field report. IEE Proceedings on Software Engineering 114(2): 111–118.Google Scholar
  10. Herbsleb, J. D., and Goldenson, D. R. 1996. A systematic survey of CMM experience and results. 18th International Conference on Software Engineering — ICSE. Berlin, Germany, 323–330, 25- 29 March.Google Scholar
  11. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. B. 1959. The Motivation to Work. New York. John Wiley and Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Humphrey, W.S. 1989. Managing the Software Process. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  13. Kaltio, T., and Kinnula, A. 2000. Deploying the defined software process. Software Process—Improvement and Practice 5: 65–83.Google Scholar
  14. Khalil, O. E. M., Zawacki, R. A., Zawacki, P. A., and Selim A. 1997. What Motivates Egyptian IS Managers and Personnel: Some Preliminary Results. SIGCPR 97.Google Scholar
  15. Kitson, D. H., and Masters, S. M. 1993. An Analysis of SEI Software Process Assessment Results: 1987- 1991. 15th International Conference on Software Engineering. Baltimore, Maryland, May 17- 21.Google Scholar
  16. Krueger, R. A., and Casey, M. A. 2000. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. (3rd Ed.) CA, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  18. Mead, A. 1992. Review of the development of multidimensional scaling methods. The Statistician 41(1): 27–39.Google Scholar
  19. Morgan, D. L. and Krueger, R. A. 1993. When to use focus groups and why. In: D. L. Morgan (ed.): Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. CA, London: Sage. pp. 3–19.Google Scholar
  20. Nicholson, I., Holmes, D., Richards, J., and Warden, R. 1995. Motivation of quality practitioners. In: M.M. Ross, C.A. Brebbia, G. Staples, and J. Stapleton (eds.): Quality Management III. Vol. 1. Southampton, UK Computational Mechanics Publications. pp. 347–357.Google Scholar
  21. Paulk, M., Chrissis, M., Curtis, B., and Weber, C. 1994a. The capability maturity model: guidelines for improving the software process. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  22. Paulk, M. C., and Chrissis, M. B. 2000. The November 1999 High Maturity Workshop. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  23. Paulk, M., Weber, C., Curtis, B., and Chrissis, M. 1994b. A high maturity example: space shuttle onboard software, the capability maturity model: guidelines for improving software process. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. Shye, S., Elizur, D., and Hoffman, M. 1994. Introduction to Facet Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Skinner, B. F. 1976. Walden Two. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathan Baddoo
    • 1
  • Tracy Hall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HertfordshireUK

Personalised recommendations