Advertisement

An Empirical Study Identifying High Perceived Value Practices of CMMI Level 2

  • Mahmood Niazi
  • Muhammad Ali Babar
  • Suhaimi Ibrahim
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5089)

Abstract

We have conducted face-to-face questionnaire based interview sessions with twenty-three Malaysian software practitioners in order to determine the perceived value associated with the specific practices of “requirements management”, “process and product quality assurance” and “configuration management” process areas of CMMI level 2 in the stage representation. The objective of this study is to identify the extent to which a CMMI practice is used in order to develop a finer-grained framework, which encompasses the notion of perceived value within specific practices. This will provide software process improvement (SPI) practitioners with some insight into designing appropriate SPI implementation strategies.

We asked practitioners to choose and rank “requirements management”, “process and product quality assurance” and “configuration management” practices against the five types of assessments (high, medium, low, zero or do not know). From this, we propose the notion of ’perceived value’ associated with each practice. We have identified ’high’ and ‘medium’ perceived values CMMI level 2 practices. We have also identified the viewpoints of developers and managers about these practices.

Keywords

Specific Practice Process Area Requirement Management Configuration Management 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.
    Chrissis, M., Konrad, M., Shrum, S.: CMMI Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brodman, J.G., Johnson, D.L.: What Small Businesses and Small Organizations Say About the CMMI. In: Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1994). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batista, J., Dias, d.F.: Software Process Improvement in a Very Small Team: a Case with CMM. Software Process-Improvement and Practice (5), 243–250 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paulk, M.: Using the Software CMM in small organizations. In: The Joint 1998 Proceedings of the Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference and the Eighth International Conference on Software Quality, Portland, pp. 350–361 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conradi, R., Fuggetta, A.: Improving Software Process Improvement, July/August (2002), pp. 92–99. IEEE Software (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilkie, F.G., McFall, D., McCaffery, F.: An Evaluation of CMMI Process Areas for Small to Medium-sized Software Development Organisations. SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT AND PRACTICE 10, 189–201 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Niazi, M., Babar, M.: Ali: De-motivators for software process improvement: An Analysis of Vietnamese Practitioners’ Views. In: Münch, J., Abrahamsson, P. (eds.) PROFES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4589, pp. 118–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Niazi, M., Babar, M.: Ali: Motivators of Software Process Improvement: An Analysis of Vietnamese Practitioners’ Views. In: International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2007), pp. 79–88 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rainer, A., Hall, T.: Key success factors for implementing software process improvement: a maturity-based analysis. Journal of Systems & Software 62(2), 71–84 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D.: A Maturity Model for the Implementation of Software Process Improvement: An empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software 74(2), 155–172 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coolican, H.: Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. Hodder and Stoughton, London (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trewin and D: Small Business in Australia: 2001. Australian Bureau of Statistics report 1321.0 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    El Emam, K., Madhavji, H.N.: A Field Study of Requirements Engineering Practices in Information Systems Development. In: Second International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 68–80 (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Standish-Group: Chaos: A Recipe for Success. Standish Group International (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hall, T., Beecham, S., Rainer, A.: Requirements Problems in Twelve Software Companies: An Empirical Analysis. In: IEE Proceedings - Software, August 2002, pp. 153–160 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jobserve.com: UK Wasting Billions on IT Projects (21/4/2004), http://www.jobserve.com/news/NewsStory.asp?e=e&SID=SID2598
  17. 17.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 5th edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rauterberg, M., Strohm, O.: About the Benefits of User-Oriented Requirements Engineering. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation of Software Quality (REFSQ 1994) (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    DeBillis, M., Haapala, C.: User-Centric Software Engineering. IEEE Expert 10(1), 34–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Niazi, M.: An empirical study for the improvement of requirements engineering process. In: The 17th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Taiwan, Republic of China, July 14-16, 2005, pp. 396–399 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Niazi, M., Shastry, S.: Role of Requirements Engineering in Software development Process: An empirical study. In: IEEE International Multi-Topic Conference (INMIC 2003), pp. 402–407 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Niazi, M., Cox, K., Verner, J.: An empirical study identifying high perceived value requirements engineering practices. In: Fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems Development (ISD 2005), Karlstad University, Sweden, August 15-17 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sommerville, I., Ransom, J.: An empirical study of industrial requirements engineering process assessment and improvement. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 14(1), 85–117 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barry, E.J., Mukhopadhyay, T., Slaughter, S.A.: Software Project Duration and Effort: An Empirical Study. Information Technology and Management 3(1-2), 113–136 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zowghi, D., Nurmuliani, N.: A study of the impact of requirements volatility on software project performance. In: Ninth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 3–11 (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stark, G., Skillicorn, A., Ameele, R.: An Examination of the Effects of Requirements Changes on Software Maintenance Releases. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice 11, 293–309 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zowghi, D., Nurmuliani, N., Powell, S.: The Impact of Requirements Volatility on Software Development Lifecycle. In: Proceedings of Software Engineering Conference, Australian, pp. 28–37 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verner, J., Evanco, W.M.: In-house Software Development: What Software Project Management Practices Lead to Success? IEEE Software 22(1), 86–93 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kobitzsch, W., Rombach, D., Feldmann, R.L.: Outsourcing in India. IEEE Software, 78–86 (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jarvis, A., Crandall, V.: INROADS to software quality. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs (1997)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Beecham, S., Hall, T., Rainer, A.: Software Process Problems in Twelve Software Companies: An Empirical Analysis. Empirical software engineering 8, 7–42 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D.: A Framework for Assisting the Design of Effective Software Process Improvement Implementation Strategies. Journal of Systems and Software 78(2), 204–222 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahmood Niazi
    • 1
  • Muhammad Ali Babar
    • 2
  • Suhaimi Ibrahim
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Computing and MathematicsKeele UniversityUK
  2. 2.LeroUniversity of LimerickIreland
  3. 3.Centre for Advanced Software EngineeringUniversity Technology MalaysiaJalan SemarakMalaysia

Personalised recommendations