Advertisement

The Route to Software Process Improvement in Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises

  • Mary-Luz Sánchez-Gordón
  • Ricardo Colomo-Palacios
  • Antonio de Amescua Seco
  • Rory V. O’Connor
Chapter

Abstract

The software development industry is dominated by a myriad of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The main goal of this chapter is to provide a characterization of SMEs based on previous studies. It also includes an overview of a number of software process models and software process improvement (SPI) models, which are aimed at assisting SMEs in improving the way they develop software. Furthermore, this chapter discusses the extent of SPI approaches published in the literature as a way to understand the particular context and some of the major challenges faced. From there, we propose an approach to integrate software process practices. This proposal is based on the results of our study on this topic carried out in small software companies. It is focused on what small organizations could actually do, more than on what they are currently practicing.

Keywords

Software Development Software Process Software Development Process Small Organization Software Process Improvement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrahamsson, P., Oza, N., Siponen, M.T.: Agile software development methods: a comparative review. In: Dingsøyr, T., Dybå, T., Moe, N.B. (eds.) Agile Software Development, pp. 31–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahonen, J.J., Forsell, M., Taskinen, S.K.: A modest but practical software process modeling technique for software process improvement. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 7(1), 33–44 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahonen, J., Junttila, T.: A case study on quality-affecting problems in software engineering projects. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software: Science. Technology and Engineering, pp. 145–153. IEEE, Washington (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahonen, J.J., Junttila, T., Sakkinen, M.: Impacts of the organizational model on testing: three industrial cases. empir. softw. eng. 9(4), 275–296 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alvarez, J.J., Hurtado, J.A.: Implementing the software requirements engineering practices of the ISO 29110-5-1-1 standard with the unified process. In: Proceedings of the Computing Colombian Conference, pp. 175–183. IEEE, Washington (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anacleto, A., Von Wangenheim, G., Salviano, C., Savi, R.: A method for process assessment in small software companies. In: Proceedings of the International SPICE Conference on Process Assessment and Improvement, pp. 69–76. ICSOFT, Portugal (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ariza, P., Pineres, M., Santiago, L., Mercado, N., De la Hoz, A.: Implementation of moprosoft level I and II in software development companies in the colombian caribbean, a commitment to the software product quality region. In: Proceedings of the Central America and Panama Convention, pp. 1–5. IEEE, Washington (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ayyagari, M., Beck, T., Demirgüc, A.: Small and medium enterprises across the globe: a new database. Policy Research Working Papers. The World Bank, Washington (2003). URL http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/book/10.1596/1813-9450-3127
  9. 9.
    Baddoo, N., Hall, T.: De-motivators for software process improvement: an analysis of practitioners’ views. J. Syst. Softw. 66(1), 23–33 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barafort, B., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.): Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 425. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Basri, S., O’Connor, R.V.: Understanding the perception of very small software companies towards the adoption of process standards. In: Riel, A., O’Connor, R.V., Tichkiewitch, S., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 99, pp. 153–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boas, G., da Rocha, A., Pecegueiro do Amaral, M.: An approach to implement software process improvement in small and mid sized organizations. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 447–452. IEEE, Washington (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boehm, B., Turner, R.: Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boucher, Q., Perrouin, G., Deprez, J.C., Heymans, P.: Towards configurable ISO/IEC 29110-compliant software development processes for very small entities. In: Winkler, D., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 301, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buchalcevova, A.: Software process improvement in small companies as a path to enterprise architecture. In: Pooley, R., Coady, J., Schneider, C., Linger, H., Barry, C., Lang, M. (eds.) Information Systems Development, pp. 243–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Calvo-Manzano Villalón, J.A., Gonzalo Cuevas, A., San Feliu Gilabert, T., de Amescua Seco, A., García Sánchez, L., Cota, M.P.: Experiences in the application of software process improvement in SME’s. Softw. Qual J 10(3), 261–273 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cater-Steel, A.: Process improvement in four small software companies. In: Proceedings of the Australian Software Engineering Conference, pp. 262–272. IEEE, Washington (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cater-Steel, A.: Low-rigour, rapid software process assessments for small software development firms. In: Proceedings of the Australian Software Engineering Conference, pp. 368–377. IEEE, Washington (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cater-Steel, A., Toleman, M., Rout, T.: Process improvement for small firms: an evaluation of the RAPID assessment-based method. Inf. Softw. Technol. 48(5), 323–334 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cater-Steel, A.P.: COTS developers lead best practice adoption. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 23–30. Los Alamitos (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chaves Weber, K., Ramalho de Araujo, E., Scaler, D., Pereira de Andrade, E., Cavalcanti da Rocha, A., Montoni, M.: MPS model-based software acquisition process improvement in brazil. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 110–122. IEEE, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cholez, H., Girard, F.: Maturity assessment and process improvement for information security management in small and medium enterprises. J. Softw. Evolut. Process 26(5), 496–503 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: The influence of SPI on business success in software SMEs: an empirical study. J. Syst. Softw. 85(10), 2356–2367 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: The situational factors that affect the software development process: towards a comprehensive reference framework. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(5), 433–447 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: An empirical examination of the extent of software process improvement in software SMEs. J. Softw. Evolut. Process 25(9), 981–998 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coleman, G., O’Connor, R.: Investigating software process in practice: a grounded theory perspective. J. Syst. Softw. 81(5), 772–784 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cruz, P., Villarroel, R., Mancilla, F., Visconti, M.: A software testing process for the reference model of competisoft. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society, pp. 51–59. IEEE, Washington (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Davila, A., Basurto, C., Flores, L., Arisaca, R., Manrique, R., Sánchez, J., de Paula Pessôa, M.: The peruvian component of Competisoft project: Lesson learned from academic perspective. In: Proceedings of the Conferencia Latinoamericana En Informatica, pp. 1–7. IEEE, Washington (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    European Commission: The new SME definition. Enterprise and industry publications. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eurostat: Annual enterprise statistics by size class for special aggregates of activities (nace rev. 2). Available from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php (2014)
  31. 31.
    Ferreira, A., Santos, G., Cerqueira, R., Montoni, M., Barreto, A., Barreto, A., Rocha, A.: Applying ISO 9001:2000, MPS.BR and CMMI to achieve software process maturity: Bl informatica’s pathway. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 642–651. IEEE, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ferreira, A.I.F., Santos, G., Cerqueira, R., Montoni, M., Barreto, A., Rocha, A.R., Figueiredo, S., Barreto, A., Filho, R.C.S., Lupo, P., Cerdeiral, C.: Taba workstation: Supporting software process improvement initiatives based on software standards and maturity models. In: Richardson, I., Runeson, P., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Software Process Improvement, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4257, pp. 207–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fontana, R.M., Meyer Jr., V., Reinehr, S., Malucelli, A.: Progressive outcomes: a framework for maturing in agile software development. J. Syst. Softw. 102, 88–108 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Garcia, I., Pacheco, C., A Calvo, J.: Quantitative project management in small and medium-sized software enterprises. Latin America Trans., IEEE (Revista IEEE America Latina) 12(3), 508–513 (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Garcia, I., Pacheco, C., Cruz, D.: Adopting an RIA-based tool for supporting assessment, implementation and learning in software process improvement under the NMX-I-059/02-NYCE-2005 standard in small software enterprises. In: Proceedings of the ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications, pp. 29–35. IEEE, Washington (2010)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Garcia, I., Pacheco, C., Cruz, D., Calvo-Manzano, J.A.: Implementing the modeling-based approach for supporting the software process assessment in SPI Initiatives Inside a Small Software Company. In: Lee., R. (ed.) Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications, Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 377, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Garcia, I.A., Calvo-Manzano, J.A., Pacheco, C.L., Perez, C.A.: Software engineering education for a graduate course: a web-based tool for conducting process improvement initiatives with local industry collaboration. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 23(1), 117–136 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Giardino, C., Unterkalmsteiner, M., Paternoster, N., Gorschek, T., Abrahamsson, P.: What do we know about software development in startups? IEEE Softw. 31(5), 28–32 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Habra, N., Alexandre, S., Desharnais, J.M., Laporte, C.Y., Renault, A.: Initiating software process improvement in very small enterprises: experience with a light assessment tool. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(7–8), 763–771 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hauck, J.C.R., Wangenheim, C.G.v., Souza, R.H.d., Thiry, M.: Process reference guides—support for improving software processes in alignment with reference models and standards. In: O’Connor, R.V., Baddoo, N., Smolander, K., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Software Process Improvement, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 16, pp. 70–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Horvat, R.V., Rozman, I., Györkös, J.: Managing the complexity of SPI in small companies. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 5(1), 45–54 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jeffery, R., Raffo, D., Armbrust, O., Huang, L. (eds.): Proceedings of International Conference on Software and System Process (ICSSP). IEEE, New Jersey (2012)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jeners, S., Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V., Buglione, L., Lepmets, M.: Harmonizing software development processes with software development settings—a systematic approach. Systems. Software and Services Process Improvement, pp. 167–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    JTC 1, SC 7: Software engineering – lifecycle profiles for very small entities (VSEs) part 5-1-1: Management and engineering guide: Generic profile group: Basic profile. International Standard ISO/IEC TR 29110-5-1-2:2011(E), International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2011)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kalinowski, M., Weber, K., Franco, N., Barroso, E., Duarte, V., Zanetti, D., Santos, G.: Results of 10 years of software process improvement in Brazil based on the MPS-SW model. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 28–37. IEEE, Washington (2014)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kautz, K.: Software process improvement in very small enterprises—does it pay? Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 4(4), 209–226 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kitchenham, B., Charters, S.: Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical report EBSE-2007-01, Keele University, Staffordshire (2007)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kroeger, T.A., Davidson, N.J., Cook, S.C.: Understanding the characteristics of quality for software engineering processes: a grounded theory investigation. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(2), 252–271 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kuhrmann, M., Beecham, S.: Artifact-based software process improvement and management: a method proposal. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Process, pp. 119–123. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kuhrmann, M., Méndez Fernández, D.: From pragmatic to systematic software process improvement: an evaluated approach. IET Softw. 9(6), 157–165 (2015)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Laporte, C., O’Connor, R.: Systems and software engineering standards for very small entities: implementation and initial results. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 38–47. IEEE, Washington (2014)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Laporte, C.Y., Alexandre, S., O’Connor, R.V.: A software engineering lifecycle standard for very small enterprises. In: O’Connor, R.V., Baddoo, N., Smolander, K., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Software Process Improvement, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 16, pp. 129–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Laporte, C.Y., O’Connor, R.V.: A systems process lifecycle standard for very small entities: Development and pilot trials. In: Barafort, B., O’Connor, R.V., Poth, A., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 425, pp. 13–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Laporte, C.Y., Renault, A., Alexandre, S.: The application of international software engineering standards in very small enterprises. In: Oktaba, H., Piattini, M. (eds.) Software Process Improvement for Small and Medium Enterprises Techniques and Case Studies, pp. 42–70. Information Science Reference, Hershey, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Larrucea, X., Santamaria, I.: An industrial assessment for a multimodel framework. J. Softw. Evolut. Process 26(9), 837–845 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Laryd, A., Orci, T.: Dynamic CMM for small organizations. In: Proceedings of the Argentine Symposium on Software Engineering (2000). URL http://www.uml.org.cn/cmm/pdf/1116/laryd00dynamic.pdf
  57. 57.
    Lee, S., Yong, H.S.: Agile software development framework in a small project environment. J. Inf. Process. Syst. 9(1), 69–88 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lester, N., Wilkie, F., McFall, D., Ware, M.: Evaluating the internal consistency of the base questions in the express process appraisal. In: Proceedings of the EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, pp. 289–296. IEEE, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lester, N.G., Wilkie, F.G., McFall, D., Ware, M.P.: Investigating the role of CMMI with expanding company size for small- to medium-sized enterprises. J. Softw. Maint. Evolut. Res. Pract. 22(1), 17–31 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Luzuriaga, J.M., Martínez, R., Cechich, A.: Setting SPI practices in Latin America: an exploratory case study in the justice area. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 172–177. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Martínez-Ruiz, T., Pino, F.J., León-Pavón, E., García, F., Piattini, M.: Supporting the process assessment through a flexible software environment. In: Cordeiro, J., Shishkov, B., Ranchordas, A., Helfert, M. (eds.) Software and Data Technologies,Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 47, pp. 187–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mas, A., Lluis Mesquida, A.: Software project management in small and very small entities. In: Proceedings of the Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies, pp. 1–6. IEEE, Washington (2013)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mc Caffery, F., Richardson, I., Moller, P.: Automotive-adept: a lightweight assessment method for the automotive software industry. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 13(4), 345–353 (2008)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mc Caffery, F., Taylor, P.S., Coleman, G.: Adept: a unified assessment method for small software companies. IEEE Softw. 24(1), 24–31 (2007)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    McCaffery, F., Coleman, G.: Lightweight SPI assessments: what is the real cost? Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 14(5), 271–278 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    McCaffery, F., McFall, D., Wilkie, F.G.: Improving the express process appraisal method. In: Bomarius, F., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3547, pp. 286–298. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    McCaffery, F., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.): Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 364. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    McFall, D., Wilkie, F.G., McCaffery, F., Lester, N., Sterritt, R.: Software processes and process improvement in Northern Ireland. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of Software and Systems Engineering and their Applications, pp. 1–10. Paris (2003)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Mesquida, A.L., Mas, A.: A project management improvement program according to ISO/IEC 29110 and PMBOK. J. Softw. Evolut. Process 26(9), 846–854 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mishra, D., Mishra, A.: Software process improvement methodologies for small and medium enterprises. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5089, pp. 273–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mishra, D., Mishra, A.: Software process improvement in SMEs: a comparative view. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 6(1), 111–140 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Mitasiunas, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.): Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 477. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Montoni, M., Santos, G., Rocha, A., Weber, K., de Araujo, E.: MPS model and TABA workstation: Implementing software process improvement initiatives in small settings. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Quality, p. 4 ff. IEEE, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Montoni, M., Santos, G., Rocha, A.R., Figueiredo, S., Cabral, R., Barcellos, R., Barreto, A., Soares, A., Cerdeiral, C., Lupo, P.: Taba workstation: Supporting software process deployment based on CMMI and MR-MPS.BR. In: Münch, J., Vierimaa, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4034, pp. 249–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Montoni, M.A., Rocha, A.R., Weber, K.C.: MPS.BR: a successful program for software process improvement in Brazil. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 14(5), 289–300 (2009)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Moreno, E., Sánchez-Gordón, M.L., Colomo-Palacios, R.: ISO/IEC 29110: current overview of the standard. Revista de Procesos y Métricas (RPM) 10(2), 24–40 (2013)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Moreno-Campos, E., Sánchez-Gordón, M.L., Colomo-Palacios, R.: Amescua Seco, A.: Towards measuring the impact of the ISO/IEC 29110 standard: a systematic review. In: Proceedings of European System and Software Process Improvement and Innovation Conference. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 425, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg, Luxembourg (2014)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    \(\tilde{{\rm {N}}}\)aupac, V., Arisaca, R., Dávila, A.: Software process improvement and certification of a small company using the NTP 291 100 (MoProSoft). In: Dieste, O., Jedlitschka, A., Juristo., N. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7343, pp. 32–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Nawrocki, J., Walter, B., Wojciechowski, A.: Toward maturity model for extreme programming. In: Proceedings of the Euromicro Conference, pp. 233–239. IEEE, Washington (2001)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Nawrocki, J.R., Jasiñski, M., Walter, B., Wojciechowski, A.: Combining extreme programming with ISO 9000. In: Shafazand, H., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) EurAsia-ICT 2002: Information and Communication Technology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2510, pp. 786–794. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Niazi, M.: Software process improvement: a road to success. In: Münch, J., Vierimaa, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4034, pp. 395–401. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Niazi, M.: An exploratory study of software process improvement implementation risks. J. Softw. Evolut. Process 24(8), 877–894 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    O’Connor, R.V.: Early stage adoption of ISO/IEC 29110 software project management practices: A case study. In: Mitasiunas, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 477, pp. 226–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    O’Connor, R.V., Coleman, G.: An investigation of barriers to the adoption of software process best practice models. In: Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems, pp. 780–789 (2007)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    O’Connor, R.V., Laporte, C.Y.: Towards the provision of assistance for very small entities in deploying software lifecycle standards. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, pp. 4–7. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    O’Connor, R.V., Laporte, C.Y.: Deploying lifecycle profiles for very small entities: An early stage industry view. In: O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., McCaffery, F., Dorling, A. (eds.) Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 155, pp. 227–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    O’Connor, R.V., Laporte, C.Y.: Software project management in very small entities with ISO/IEC 29110. In: Winkler, D., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 301, pp. 330–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    O’Connor, R.V., Laporte, C.Y.: An innovative approach to the development of an international software process lifecycle standard for very small entities. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Syst. Approach 7(1), 1–22 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    O’Connor, R.V., Sanders, M.: Lessons from a pilot implementation of ISO/IEC 29110 in a group of very small irish companies. In: Woronowicz, T., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 349, pp. 243–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Oktaba, H., Garcia, F., Piattini, M., Ruiz, F., Pino, F., Alquicira, C.: Software process improvement: the competisoft project. Computer 40(10), 21–28 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2005. OECD Publishing, Paris (2005)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Osorio Martinez, Z., Irrazabal, E., Garzas, J.: Toward improving agile mantema: measurement, control and evaluation of maintenance projects in SME’s. In: Proceedings of the Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies, pp. 1–6. IEEE, Washington (2011)Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Paternoster, N., Giardino, C., Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T., Abrahamsson, P.: Software development in startup companies: a systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(10), 1200–1218 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Pernstå l, J., Gorschek, T., Feldt, R., Florén, D.: Software process improvement in inter-departmental development of software-intensive automotive systems—a case study. In: Heidrich, J., Oivo, M., Jedlitschka, A., Baldassarre, M.T. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7983, pp. 93–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Pettersson, F., Ivarsson, M., Gorschek, T., Öhman, P.: A practitioner’s guide to light weight software process assessment and improvement planning. J. Syst. Softw. 81(6), 972–995 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Pino, F.J., García, F., Piattini, M.: Software process improvement in small and medium software enterprises: a systematic review. Softw. Qual. Control J. 16(2), 237–261 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Pino, F.J., García, F., Piattini, M.: An integrated framework to guide software process improvement in small organizations. In: O’Connor, R.V., Baddoo, N., Gallego, J.C., Muslera, R.R., Smolander, K., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Software Process Improvement. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 42, pp. 213–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Pino, F.J., Garcia, F., Piattini, M.: Key processes to start software process improvement in small companies. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 509–516. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Pino, F.J., Pardo, C., García, F., Piattini, M.: Assessment methodology for software process improvement in small organizations. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(10), 1044–1061 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Pino, F.J., Pedreira, O., García, F., Luaces, M.R., Piattini, M.: Using scrum to guide the execution of software process improvement in small organizations. J. Syst. Softw. 83(10), 1662–1677 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Pino, F.J., Ruiz, F., García, F., Piattini, M.: A software maintenance methodology for small organizations: Agile\(\_\)MANTEMA. J. Softw. Evolut. Process 24(8), 851–876 (2011)Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Pressman, R.: Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill Science, New York (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Raninen, A., Ahonen, J.J., Sihvonen, H.M., Savolainen, P., Beecham, S.: LAPPI: a light-weight technique to practical process modeling and improvement target identification. J. Softw. Evolut. Process 25(9), 915–933 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Ribaud, V., Saliou, P.: Process assessment issues of the ISO/IEC 29110 emerging standard. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, pp. 24–27. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ribaud, V., Saliou, P., Laporte, C.: Experience management for very small entities: Improving the copy-paste model. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering Advances, pp. 311–318. IEEE, Washington (2010)Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Ribaud, V., Saliou, P., O’Connor, R.V., Laporte, C.Y.: Software engineering support activities for very small entities. In: Riel, A., O’Connor, R., Tichkiewitch, S., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 99, pp. 165–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Richardson, I.: SPI models: what characteristics are required for small software development companies? Softw. Qual. J. 10(2), 101–114 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Richardson, I., Ryan, K.: Software process improvements in a very small company. Softw. Qual. Prof. 3(2), 23–35 (2001)Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Richardson, I., von Wangenheim, G.C.: Why are small software organizations different? IEEE Softw. 24(1), 18–22 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Rios, B., Vargas, M., Espinoza, J., Peralta, M.: Experiences on the implementation of MoProSoft and assessment of processes under the NMX-I-059/02-NYCE-2005 standard in a small software development enterprise. In: Proceedings of the Mexican International Conference on Computer Science, pp. 323–328. IEEE, Washington (2008)Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    da Rocha, A., Montoni, M., Weber, K., de Araujo, E.: A nationwide program for software process improvement in Brazil. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 167–176. IEEE, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Rocha, A.R., Montoni, M., Santos, G., Mafra, S., Figueiredo, S., Albuquerque, A., Mian, P.: Reference model for software process improvement: A brazilian experience. In: Richardson, I., Abrahamsson, P., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Software Process Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3792, pp. 130–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Rozman, I., Horvat, R.V., Györkös, J., Hericòko, M.: PROCESSUS—integration of SEI CMM and ISO quality models. Softw. Qual. J. 6(1), 37–63 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Sánchez-Gordón, M.L., Colomo-Palacios, R., Amescua, A.: Towards measuring the impact of the spi manifesto: a systematic review. In: Proceedings of European System and Software Process Improvement and Innovation Conference, pp. 100–110. DELTA, Dundalk Institute of Technology, Ireland (2013)Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Sánchez-Gordón, M.L., O’Connor, R.V., Colomo-Palacios, R.: Evaluating vses viewpoint and sentiment towards the ISO/IEC 29110 standard: a two country grounded theory study. In: Rout, T., O’Connor, R., Dorling, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the SPICE Conference, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 526. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Santos, G., Kalinowski, M., Rocha, A., Travassos, G., Weber, K., Antonioni, J.: MPS.BR: A tale of software process improvement and performance results in the Brazilian software industry. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 412–417. IEEE, Washington (2010)Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Santos, G., Kalinowski, M., Rocha, A., Travassos, G., Weber, K., Antonioni, J.: MPS.BR program and MPS model: Main results, benefits and beneficiaries of software process improvement in Brazil. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 137–142. IEEE, Washington (2012)Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Santos, G., Montoni, M., Vasconcellos, J., Figueiredo, S., Cabral, R., Cerdeiral, C., Katsurayama, A., Lupo, P., Zanetti, D., Rocha, A.: Implementing software process improvement initiatives in small and medium-size enterprises in brazil. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 187–198. IEEE, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Savolainen, P., Sihvonen, H.M., Ahonen, J.J.: SPI with lightweight software process modeling in a small software company. In: Abrahamsson, P., Baddoo, N., Margaria, T., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Software Process Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4764, pp. 71–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Schoeffel, P., Benitti, F.B.V.: Factors of influence in software process improvement: a comparative survey between micro and small enterprises (MSE) and medium and large enterprises (MLE). IEEE Latin America Trans. 10(2), 1634–1643 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Schweigert, T., Nevalainen, R., Vohwinkel, D., Korsaa, M., Biro, M.: Agile maturity model: oxymoron or the next level of understanding. In: Mas, A., Mesquida, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 290, pp. 289–294. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Scott, L., Jeffery, R., Carvalho, L., D’Ambra, J., Rutherford, P.: Practical software process improvement—the IMPACT project. In: Proceedings of the Australian Software Engineering Conference, pp. 182–189. IEEE, Washington (2001)Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 9 edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P., Murphy, R.: An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI. J. Syst. Softw. 80(6), 883–895 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Sulayman, M., Mendes, E.: An extended systematic review of software process improvement in small and medium web companies. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 134–143. IET, London (2011)Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Sulayman, M., Urquhart, C., Mendes, E., Seidel, S.: Software process improvement success factors for small and medium web companies: a qualitative study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54(5), 479–500 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Takeuchi, M., Kohtake, N., Shirasaka, S., Koishi, Y., Shioya, K.: Report on an assessment experience based on ISO/IEC 29110. J. Softw. Evolut. Process 26(3), 306–312 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Taylor, P.S., Greer, D., Sage, P., Coleman, G., McDaid, K., Lawthers, I., Corr, R.: Applying an agility/discipline assessment for a small software organisation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4034, pp. 290–304. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Theocharis, G., Kuhrmann, M., Münch, J., Diebold, P.: Is water-scrum-fall reality? on the use of agile and traditional development practices. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9459, pp. 149–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Tigre, P.B., Marques, F.S. (eds.): Desafíos y oportunidades de la industria del software en América Latina, primera edn. Mayol Ediciones S.A, Colombia (2009)Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    UNCTAD: Information economy report 2012: the software industry and developing countries. Technical report, United Nations Publications, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Valdés, G., Astudillo, H., Visconti, M., López, C.: The tutelkan SPI framework for smallsettings: A methodology transfer vehicle. In: Riel, A., O’Connor, R., Tichkiewitch, S. Messnarz, R. (eds.) Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 99, pp. 142–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Valdés, G., Visconti, M., Astudillo, H.: The tutelkan reference process: A reusable process model for enabling SPI in small settings. In: O’Connor, R.V., Pries-Heje, J., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Systems, Software and Service Process Improvement, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 172, pp. 179–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Valtanen, A., Ahonen, J.J.: Big improvements with small changes: improving the processes of a small software company. In: Jedlitschka, A., Salo, O. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5089, pp. 258–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Valtierra, C., Munoz, M., Mejia, J.: Characterization of software processes improvement needs in SMEs. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechatronics. Electronics and Automotive Engineering, pp. 223–228. IEEE, Washington (2013)Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Vargas, E., Oktaba, H., Guardati, S., Laureano, A.: Agents, case-based reasoning and their relation to the mexican software process (MoProSoft). In: Proceedings of the International Computer Software and Applications Conference, vol. 2, pp. 326–334. IEEE, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Varkoi, T.: Process assessment in very small entities—an ISO/IEC 29110 based method. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, pp. 436–440. IEEE, Washington (2010)Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Vijayasarathy, L., Butler, C.: Choice of software development methodologies—do project, team and organizational characteristics matter? IEEE Softw. (99), 1ff. (2015)Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Villarroel, R., Gómez, Y., Gajardo, R., Rodríguez, O.: Implementation of an improvement cycle using the competisoft methodological framework and the tutelkan platform. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society, pp. 97–104. IEEE, Washington (2009)Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    von Wangenheim, C.G., Anacleto, A., Salviano, C.: Helping small companies assess software processes. IEEE Softw. 23(1), 91–98 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    von Wangenheim, C.G., Varkoi, T., Salviano, C.F.: Standard based software process assessments in small companies. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 11(3), 329–335 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Wangenheim, C.G.v., Weber, S., Hauck, J.C.R., Trentin, G.: Experiences on establishing software processes in small companies. Inf. Softw. Technol. 48(9), 890–900 (2006)Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Weber, K.C., Araújo, E.E.R., Rocha, A.R.C.d., Machado, C.A.F., Scalet, D., Salviano, C.F.: Brazilian software process reference model and assessment method. In: Yolum, P., Güngör, T., Gürgen, F., Özturan, C. (eds.) Computer and Information Sciences. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3733, pp. 402–411. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Wilkie, F.G., Mc Caffery, F., McFall, D., Lester, N., Wilkinson, E.: A low-overhead method for software process appraisal. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 12(4), 339–349 (2007)Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Wilkie, F.G., McFall, D., McCaffery, F.: An evaluation of CMMI process areas for small- to medium-sized software development organisations. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 10(2), 189–201 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Woronowicz, T., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.): Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 349. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Zahran, S.: Software Process Improvement-Practical Guidelines for Business Success. Addison Wesley, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Zarour, M., Abran, A., Desharnais, J.M.: Evaluation of software process assessment methods – case study. In: O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., McCaffery, F., Dorling, A. (eds.) Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 155, pp. 42–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Zarour, M., Desharnais, J.M., Alarifi, A., Habra, N., Cassiers, G., Robaeys, A.: Gained experience by making intervention to improve software process in very small organizations. In: Mas, A., Mesquida, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 290, pp. 51–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary-Luz Sánchez-Gordón
    • 1
  • Ricardo Colomo-Palacios
    • 2
  • Antonio de Amescua Seco
    • 1
  • Rory V. O’Connor
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidad Carlos III de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceØstfold University CollegeHaldenNorway
  3. 3.Dublin City UniversityDublin 9Ireland

Personalised recommendations