Motivation and Empowerment in Process Improvement

  • Marion Lepmets
  • Eric Ras
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 172)

Abstract

Clarity in goals, tasks, and responsibilities empowers employees to undertake an organizational change. Assessing processes prior to process improvement allows high involvement in setting the improvement goals, awareness of the organization’s business goals, and understanding the roles and responsibilities in process improvement. This study describes the results of an international survey about goal internalization, motivation, and empowerment in process improvement. The results indicate that process assessment contributes to the goal internalization of process improvement. However, process assessment alone does not contribute extensively to the empowerment and motivation of employees.

Keywords

process improvement process assessment goal internalization motivation involvement empowerment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arent, J.: Transforming Software Organizations with the Capability Maturity Model. In: Bomarius, F., Oivo, M. (eds.) PROFES 2000. LNCS, vol. 1840, pp. 103–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lepasaar, M., Varkoi, T., Jaakkola, H.: Models and success factors of process change. In: Bomarius, F., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds.) PROFES 2001. LNCS, vol. 2188, p. 68. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paulk, M.C., Weber, C.V., Chrissis, M.B.: The Capability Maturity Model for Software. In: Elements of Software Process Assessment and Improvement, pp. 3–15. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Varkoi, T.: Software Process Improvement Priorities in Small Enterprises. In: Information Technology. Licentiate of Technology. Tampere University of Technology, Pori (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Humphrey, S.W.: Managing the Software Process, Software Engineering Institute (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grover, V.: From Business Reengineering to Business Process Change Management: A Longitudinal Study of Trends and Practices. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 46, 36–46 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zahran, S.: Software Process Improvement - Practical Guidelines for Business Success. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morten Korsaa, M.B., Messnarz, R., Johansen, J., Vohwinkel, D., Nevalainen, R., Schweigert, T.: The SPI manifesto and the ECQA SPI manager certification scheme. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bo, Y.: Influence of Organizational Boundary on Psychological Empowerment in Multi-organization Network. In: Maoshan, Q. (ed.), vol. 5, pp. 195–198 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spreitzer, G.M.: Toward a common ground in defining empowerment. Research in Organizational Change and Development 10, 31–62 (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Menon, S.T.: Psychological Empowerment: Definition, Measurement and Validation. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 31(3), 161–164 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baddoo, N.a.H.: Tracy: Motivators of Software Process Improvement: an Analysis of Practitioners’ Views. Journal of Systems and Software 62, 85–96 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spreitzer, G.M.: Social Structural Characteristics of Psychological Empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 39, 11 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tracy Hall, H.S., Beecham, S., Baddoo, N., Robinson, H.: What Do We Know about Developer Motivation? IEEE Software, 92–94 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barafort, B., Di Renzo, B., Merlan, O.: Benefits resulting from the combined use of ISO/IEC 15504 with the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL). In: Product Focused Software Process Improvement (SPI 2002). Springer, Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones, C.: The economics of software process improvement. Computer 29(1), 95–97 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weiss D.M., Bennett, D., Payseur, J.Y., Tendick, P., Zhang, P.: Goal-Oriented Software Assessment. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 221–231 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marion Lepmets
    • 1
  • Eric Ras
    • 1
  1. 1.Public Research Centre Henri TudorLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations