Which Process Model Practices Support Project Success?

  • Marion Lepmets
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 99)


In this research the relevance of the guidance of software process models to industry was studied - more precisely, how relevant are the basic project management practices to the industry projects and to the success of these projects. The focus of the research is on project management and its related practices - the processes that support the achievement of capability levels 1 and 2 in CMMI and ISO/IEC 15504. These project management practices can also be viewed as best practices, the application of which can lead to project success. We aimed to discover whether the implementation of basic project management practices supports project success. There is evidence that higher process capability supports increased project performance. The question remains about the significance of basic project management practices to project performance.


Software Process Improvement (SPI) project management project success process models CMMI ISO/IEC 15504 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hunter, R.B., Thayer, R.H.: Software Process Improvement, pp. 1–5. IEEE Computer Society, CA (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koskela, L., Howell, G.: The underlying theory of project management is obsolete. In: Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference, Seattle, USA, pp. 293–302 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lepmets, M.: Evaluation of Basic Project Management Activities - Study in Software Industry. TUT 699, Pori, Finland, p. 223 (2007),
  4. 4.
    CMMI for Development. CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008, ESC-TR-2006-008, Version 1.2, CMMI Product Team, Software Engineering Institute, p. 573 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO/IEC 15504-5. ISO/IEC 15504-5 Information Technology – Process Assessment – Part 5: An Exemplar Process Assessment Model, 1st edition, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7, 162p. (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Project Management Body of Knowledge: A guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge. In: PMI, 209 p. Pennsylvania (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Komi-Sirviö, S.: Development and Evaluation of Software Process Improvement Methods. Univeristy of Oulu, Finland, 175 p. (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kinnula, A.: Software Process Engineering Systems: Models and Industry Cases, 117 p. University of Oulu, Finland (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Järvinen, J.: Measurement based continuous assessment of software engineering processes. Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, 119 p. (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paulk, M.C.: A Comparison of ISO 9001 and the CMM for Software - Technical Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-12, 78 p. Software Engineering Institute (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Hara, F.: European Experiences with Software Process Improvement. In: Proceedings of ICSE, Limerick, Ireland, pp. 635–640 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iversen, J.H.: Data-driven Intervention in SPI Practice. University, Denmark, p. 166. Aalborg (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herbsleb, J., Carleton, A., Rozum, J., Siegel, J., Zubrow, D.: Benefits of CMM-Based Software Process Improvement: Initial Results - Technical Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-13, p. 53. Software Engineering Institute (August 1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paulk, M.C.: Analyzing the Conceptual Relationship between ISO/IEC 15504 (Software Process Assessment) and the CMM for Software. In: Proceedings of ICSQ, Cambridge, MA (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rout, T.P.: SPICE and the CMM: is the CMM compatible with ISO/IEC 15504? (1998),
  16. 16.
    Mäkinen, T.: On modeling software process assessment – thesis for the degree of licentiate in information technology, 84 p. Tampere University of Technology, Pori (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kautz, K.: Software Process Improvement in Very Small Enterprises: Does It Pay Off? Software Process – Improvement and Practice (4), 209–226 (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baskerville, R., Pries-Heje, J.: Knowledge Capability and Maturity in Software Management. DATA BASE for the advances of Information Systems 30(2), 26–43 (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Varkoi, T.: Software Process Improvement Priorities in Small Enterprises – thesis for the degree of Licentiate of Technology, 47 p. TUT, Information Technology, Pori, Finland (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ward, R.P., Fayad, M.E., Laitinen, M.: Software Process Improvement in the Small. Communications of the ACM 44(4), 105–107 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pino, J., Garcia, F., Piattini, M.: Software Process Improvement in Small and Medium Software Enterprises: A Systematic Review. Software Quality Journal 16(2), 237–261 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Verner, J.M., Evanco, W.M.: In-house Software Development: What Project Management Practices Lead to Success. IEEE Software, 86–93 (January/February 2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Verner, J.M., Cerpa, N.: Australian Software Development: What Software Project Management Practices Lead to Success? In: Proceedings of ASEC, pp. 70–77. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goldenson, D.R., Herbsleb, J.: After the Appraisal: A Systematic Survey of Process Improvement, Its Benefits, and Factors that Influence Success. Technical Report CMU/SEI-95-TR-009, Software Engineering Institute, 66 p. (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    El Emam, K., Birk, A.: Validating the ISO/IEC 15504 Measure of Software Requirements Analysis Process Capability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(6), 541–566 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jiang, J.J., Klein, G., Hwang, H., Huang, J., Hung, S.: An exploration of the relationship between software development process maturity and project performance. Information and Management 41, 279–288 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Järvinen, P.: On Research Methods. Juvenes Print, Tampere, Finland, 190 p. (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lepmets, M.: Survey questionnaire (2006),
  29. 29.
    SOM Toolbox: The SOM Toolbox version 2, Helsinki University of Technology (1999),
  30. 30.
    Lepmets, M.: Factor analysis (2006a),
  31. 31.
    Pinto, J.K., Kharbanda, O.P.: Successful Project Managers – Leading Your Team to Success, Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 11-86. International Thomson Publishing, NY (1995)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    O’Suilleabhain, G., Jordan, M., Messnarz, R., Biro, M., Street, K.: The Perception of Quality Based on Different Cultural Factors and Value Systems. In: Proceedings of EuroSPI 2000, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 2-32–2-44 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marion Lepmets
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Cybernetics at Tallinn University of TechnologyTallinn

Personalised recommendations