On the Role of Software Quality Management in Software Process Improvement

  • Jan Wiedemann Jacobsen
  • Marco KuhrmannEmail author
  • Jürgen Münch
  • Philipp Diebold
  • Michael Felderer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10027)


Software Process Improvement (SPI) programs have been implemented, inter alia, to improve quality and speed of software development. SPI addresses many aspects ranging from individual developer skills to entire organizations. It comprises, for instance, the optimization of specific activities in the software lifecycle as well as the creation of organizational awareness and project culture. In the course of conducting a systematic mapping study on the state-of-the-art in SPI from a general perspective, we observed Software Quality Management (SQM) being of certain relevance in SPI programs. In this paper, we provide a detailed investigation of those papers from the overall systematic mapping study that were classified as addressing SPI in the context of SQM (including testing). From the main study’s result set, 92 papers were selected for an in-depth systematic review to study the contributions and to develop an initial picture of how these topics are addressed in SPI. Our findings show a fairly pragmatic contribution set in which different solutions are proposed, discussed, and evaluated. Among others, our findings indicate a certain reluctance towards standard quality or (test) maturity models and a strong focus on custom review, testing, and documentation techniques, whereas a set of five selected improvement measures is almost equally addressed.


Software process improvement Software quality management Software test Systematic mapping study Systematic literature review 


  1. 1.
    Afzal, W., Alone, S., Glocksien, K., Torkar, R.: Software test process improvement approaches: a systematic literature review and an industrial case study. J. Syst. Softw. 111, 1–33 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashrafi, N.: The impact of software process improvement on quality: in theory and practice. Inf. Manag. 40(7), 677–690 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bayona-Oré, S., Calvo-Manzano, J., Cuevas, G., San-Feliu, T.: Critical success factors taxonomy for software process deployment. Software Qual. J. 22(1), 21–48 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bennett, T., Wennberg, P.: Eliminating embedded software defects prior to integration test. CROSSTALK J. Defense Softw. Eng., pp. 13–18 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertolino, A., Marchetti, E.: A brief essay on software testing. In: Software Engineering: Development Process, 3rd edn., vol. 1, pp. 393–411 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Damian, D., Zowghi, D., Vaidyanathasamy, L., Pal, Y.: An industrial case study of immediate benefits of requirements engineering process improvement at the australian center for unisys software. Empirical Softw. Eng. 9(1), 45–75 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dybå, T.: An instrument for measuring the key factors of success in software process improvement. Empirical Softw. Eng. 5(4), 357–390 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elliott, M., Dawson, R., Edwards, J.: An evolutionary cultural-change approach to successful software process improvement. Software Qual. J. 17(2), 189–202 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farooq, A., Dumke, R.R.: Research directions in verification & validation process improvement. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 32(4), 3 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garcia, C., Dávila, A., Pessoa, M.: Test process models: systematic literature review. In: Mitasiunas, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, pp. 84–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garousi, V., Felderer, M., Mäntylä, M.V.: The need for multivocal literature reviews in software engineering: complementing systematic literature reviews with grey literature. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE 2016, pp. 26:1–26:6. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Camargo, K.G., Ferrari, F.C., Fabbri, S.C.P.F.: Identifying a subset of TMMi practices to establish a streamlined software testing process. In: Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, SBES, pp. 137–146. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Green, G.C., Hevner, A.R., Collins, R.W.: The impacts of quality and productivity perceptions on the use of software process improvement innovations. Inf. Softw. Technol. 47(8), 543–553 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harter, D.E., Krishnan, M.S., Slaughter, S.A.: The life cycle effects of software process improvement: a longitudinal analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS, Atlanta, GA, USA, pp. 346–351. Association for Information Systems (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Helgesson, Y.Y.L., Höst, M., Weyns, K.: A review of methods for evaluation of maturity models for process improvement. J. Softw. Evol. Process 24(4), 436–454 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Huang, L., Boehm, B.: How much software quality investment is enough: a value-based approach. IEEE Softw. 23(5), 88–95 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hull, M., Taylor, P., Hanna, J., Millar, R.: Software development processes - an assessment. Inf. Softw. Technol. 44(1), 1–12 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Humphrey, W.S.: Managing the Software Process. Addison Wesley, Boston (1989)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ivarsson, M., Gorschek, T.: A method for evaluating rigor and industrial relevance of technology evaluations. Empirical Softw. Eng. 16(3), 365–395 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karthikeyan, S., Rao, S.: Adopting the right software test maturity assessment model. Technical report, Cognizant (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kasoju, A., Petersen, K., Mäntylä, M.V.: Analyzing an automotive testing process with evidence-based software engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(7), 1237–1259 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kitchenham,B., Charters, S.: Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, Keele University (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuhrmann, M., Diebold, P., Münch, J.: Software process improvement: a systematic mapping study on the state of the art. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2(1), 1–38 (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuhrmann, M., Diebold, P., Münch, J., Tell, P.: How does software process improvement address global software engineering? In: International Conference on Global Software Engineering, ICGSE, pp. 89–98. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuhrmann, M., Fernández, D.M.: Systematic software development: a state of the practice report from Germany. In: International Conference on Global Software Engineering, ICGSE, pp. 51–60. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kumar, P.: Test process improvement - evaluation of available models. Technical report, Maveric (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Larrucea, X., O’Connor, R.V., Colomo-Palacios, R., Laporte, C.Y.: Software process improvement in very small organizations. IEEE Softw. 33(2), 85–89 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li, J., Moe, N.B., Dybå, T.: Transition from a plan-driven process to scrum: a longitudinal case study on software quality. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2010, pp. 13:1–13:10. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McGarry, F., Burke, S., Decker, B.: Measuring the impacts individual process maturity attributes have on software products. In: Proceedings of Fifth International on Software Metrics Symposium, Metrics 1998, pp. 52–60. IEEE (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Monteiro, L.F.S., de Oliveira, K.M.: Defining a catalog of indicators to support process performance analysis. J. Softw. Maintenance Evol. Res. Pract. 23(6), 395–422 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., Mattson, M.: Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In: International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE, pp. 68–77. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pino, F.J., García, F., Piattini, M.: Software process improvement in small and medium software enterprises: a systematic review. Software Qual. J. 16(2), 237–261 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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
  35. 35.
    Sylemez, M., Tarhan, A.: Using process enactment data analysis to support orthogonal defect classification for software process improvement. In: International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement, IWSM-MENSURA, pp. 120–125, October 2013Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    von Wangenheim, C.G., Hauck, J.C.R., Salviano, C.F., von Wangenheim, A.: Systematic literature review of software process capability/maturity models. In: International Conference on Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination-SPICE (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wieringa, R., Maiden, N., Mead, N., Rolland, C.: Requirements engineering paper classification and evaluation criteria: a proposal and a discussion. Requirements Eng. 11(1), 102–107 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhi, J., Garousi-Yusifoğlu, V., Sun, B., Garousi, G., Shahnewaz, S., Ruhe, G.: Cost, benefits and quality of software development documentation: a systematic mapping. J. Syst. Softw. 99, 175–198 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Wiedemann Jacobsen
    • 1
  • Marco Kuhrmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jürgen Münch
    • 2
  • Philipp Diebold
    • 3
  • Michael Felderer
    • 4
  1. 1.The Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller InstituteUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.Herman Hollerith CenterReutlingen UniversityBöblingenGermany
  3. 3.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software EngineeringKaiserslauternGermany
  4. 4.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations