Using Practice Outcome Areas to Understand Perceived Value of CMMI Specific Practices for SMEs

  • Xi Chen
  • Mark Staples
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4764)

Abstract

In this article, we present a categorization of CMMI Specific Practices, and use this to reanalyze prior work describing the perceived value of those practices for Small-to-Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), in order to better understand the software engineering practice needs of SMEs. Our categorization is based not on process areas, but on outcome areas (covering organizational, process, project, and product outcomes) and on the nature of activities leading to outcomes in those areas (covering planning, doing, checking, and improvement activities). Our reanalysis of the perceived value of Specific Practices for the CMMI Level 2 Process Areas shows that SMEs most value practices for working on project-related outcomes, and for planning and doing work on product-related outcomes. Our categorization of practices will serve as a framework for further study about CMMI and other SPI approaches.

Keywords

SME Software Process Improvement CMMI Specific Practice 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Diaz, M., Sligo, J.: How Software Process Improvement Helped Motorola. IEEE Software 14, 75–81 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basili, V.R., McGarry, F.E., Pajerski, R., Zelkowitz, M.V.: Lessons Learned From 25 Years of Process Improvement: The Rise and Fall of the NASA Software Engineering Laboratory. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference of Software Engineering, pp. 69–79 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haliey, T.J.: Software Process Improvement at Raytheon. IEEE Software 13, 32–41 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Humphrey, W.S., Snyder, T.R., Willis, R.R.: Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software 8, 11–23 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chrissis, M.B., Konrad, M., Shrum, S.: CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. Addison Wesley, Boston, MA, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO 9001:2000: Quality Management System – Requirement. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (2000) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO/IEC 90003: Software Engineering – Guidelines for the application of ISO 9001:2000 to computer software. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (2004) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO/IEC 15504:2005: Information technology – Process assessment, Part 1-5. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (2005) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gremba, J., Myers, C.: The IDEAL(SM) Model: A Practical Guide for Improvement. In: Bridge, Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Pittsburgh, PA, USA (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reifer, D.J.: The CMMI: it’s formidable. The Journal of Systems and Software 50, 97–98 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Desharnais, J.M., Laporte, C.Y., Abouelfattah, M.M., Bamba, J.C., Renault, A., Habra, N.: Initiating Software Process Improvement in SMEs: Experiments with Micro-Evaluation Framework. In: Proceedings of the SWDC-REK International Conference on Software Development, Reykjavik, Iceland (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Niazi, M., Staples, M.: Systematic Review of Organizational Motivations for Adopting CMM-based SPI. Technical Report PA005957, NICTA (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Turgeon, J.: CMMI on the Sly for the CMMI Shy - Implementing Software Process Improvement in Small Teams and Organizations. Presentation in SEPG (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Improving Processes in Small Settings (IPSS): white paper, the International Process Research Consortium (IPRC). Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA (2006) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilkie, F.G., McFall, D., McCaffery, F.: An Evaluation of CMMI Process Areas for Small-to Medium-sized Software Development Organizations. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 10, 189–201 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gibson, D.L., Goldenson, D.R., Kost, K.: Performance Results of CMMI-Based Process Improvement. Technical Report, Software Engineering Institute, CMU (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P., Murphy, R.: An Exploratory Study of Why Organizations do not Adopt CMMI. Journal of Systems and Software 80(6), 883–895 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Conradi, R., Fuggetta, A.: Improving Software Process Improvement. IEEE Software, 92–99 (July-August 2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    SEI: Appraisal Requirements for CMMI, Version 1.1. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2001-TR-034, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA (2001) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Royce, W.: Managing the Development of Large Software Systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE WESCON, pp. 328–338. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1970)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shewart, W.A.: Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control. Dover (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xi Chen
    • 1
  • Mark Staples
    • 1
  1. 1.NICTA, Australia Technology Park, Eveleigh, NSW, 1430, Sydney, Australia, School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations