Software Quality Journal

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 261–273 | Cite as

Experiences in the Application of Software Process Improvement in SMES

  • Jose A. Calvo-Manzano Villalón
  • Gonzalo Cuevas Agustín
  • Tomás San Feliu Gilabert
  • Antonio De Amescua Seco
  • Luis García Sánchez
  • Manuel Pérez Cota

Abstract

During the last few years, many Software Process Improvement methods (SPI) have been presented to increase the quality of products and services provided by a software organization. Current Software Process Improvement (SPI) methods (i.e. ISO 15504, CBA-IPI,...), are difficult to apply to Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMES) due to the costs (financial, time, and resource) associated with their application. Also, these methods are principally focused on the assessment stage. This paper presents a new SPI method, called MESOPYME, which main focus is to reduce effort and time on the SPI implementation. This method focuses on the improvement implementation stage, which is based on a concept called Action Package, whose components are described (in Section 2.1.). The results obtained in the application of a Requirements Engineering Action Package in three organizations are also presented.

software process improvement action packages process assessment software processes transition packages requirements engineering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burwick, Diane M. 1999. How to Implement the CMM, Fredericksburg, BPS Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Byrnes, Paul and Philips, Mike. 1996. Software Capability Evaluation Version 3.0: Method Description, Technical Report: CMU/SEI-96-TR-002, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  3. Calvo-Manzano, J.A., Cervera, J., San Feliu, T. 1997. Software process improvement: MESOPYME model, Journal of Computing and Information Technology (CIT), 43: 159-165.Google Scholar
  4. Dunaway, D.K. and Masters, S. 1996. CMM-Based Appraisal for Internal Process Improvement (CBA IPI): Method Description, Technical Report: CMU/SEI-96-TR-007, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  5. ESSI. 1993. European Software and System Initiative, http://www.cordis.lu/ESPRIT/src/stessi.htm.Google Scholar
  6. ESSI, IBERIA, LAE. 1994. SPIE: Software Process Improvement and Experimentation, ESSI Project: No 10344, February.Google Scholar
  7. ESSI, EROSKI, SCOOP. 1997a. SYMQUAD: System Requirements and Quality Assurance in a Distribution Company, ESSI Project: No 23947, March.Google Scholar
  8. ESSI, Lantik S.A. 1997b. LANHOBEK: Client Relationships and Requirement Management Improvement, ESSI Project: No 24155, March.Google Scholar
  9. ESSI, G.O.C., 1997c. HOSPUR: User Requirements and Reuse in Health Management Systems, ESSI Project: No 24181, March.Google Scholar
  10. Fowler, P. and Patrick, M. 1998. Transition Packages for Expediting Technology Adoption: The Prototype Requirements Management Transition Package, Technical Report: CMU/SEI-98-TR-004, September. Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  11. Herbsleb, J., Carleton, A., Rozum, J., Siegel, J., and Zubrow, D. 1994. Benefits of CMM-Based Software Process Improvement: Initial Results, Technical Report: CMU/SEI-94-TR-013, August. Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  12. ISO/IEC. 1998. ISO/IEC Software Process Assessment Information TechnologyVersion 3.3, JTC1/SC7/ WG10, TR 15504: 1998.Google Scholar
  13. McFeeley, Bob. 1996. IDEALSM: a user'2 guide for software process improvement, Handbook CMU/SEI-96-HB-001, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, February.Google Scholar
  14. SPIRE. 1997. Software Process Improvement in Regions of Europe, ESSI Project: No. 23873, http://www.cse.dcu.ie/spire.Google Scholar
  15. SPIRE. 1999. Software Process Improvement in Regions of Europe, European Analysis Report v2.0, ESSI Project: No. 23873, Dissemination action, http://www.cse.dcu.ie/spire April.Google Scholar
  16. VASIE. 1994. VASIE: Value Added Software Information for Europe, ESSI Project: No. 24119, http://www.esi.es/VASIE/.Google Scholar
  17. Wieggers, K.E., Sturzenberger, D. C. 2000. A Modular Software Process Mini-Assessment Method, IEEE Software, 171: 62-69.Google Scholar
  18. Zahran, S. 1998. Software Process Improvement: Practical Guidelines for Business Success, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jose A. Calvo-Manzano Villalón
    • 1
  • Gonzalo Cuevas Agustín
    • 1
  • Tomás San Feliu Gilabert
    • 1
  • Antonio De Amescua Seco
    • 2
  • Luis García Sánchez
    • 2
  • Manuel Pérez Cota
    • 3
  1. 1.Facultad de Informática, Departamento de Lenguajes y Sistemas Informáticos e Ingeniería del Software, Campus de MontegancedoUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Escuela Politécnica Superior, Departamento de InformáticaUniversidad Carlos III de MadridLeganés, MadridSpain
  3. 3.Escuela Universitaria de Ingeniería Técnica Industrial, Departamento de Informática, Área de Lenguajes y Sistemas InformáticosUniversidad de VigoVigo, PontevedraSpain

Personalised recommendations