The Many Forms of Process Improvement – Results of an International Survey

  • Tom McBride
  • Marion Lepmets
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 94)

Abstract

When discussing process improvement, different authors assign different goals of improvement and describe different methods of improvement. Several process improvement methods and theories of organizational performance are examined to reveal how each might give rise to different concepts and concerns of process improvement. There is little empirical information available to support or refute such expectations about improvements made to software development processes, whether through formal process improvement initiatives or through responses to changes in the development environment. In the absence of such information those involved in process improvement, from standards development through to consultants and those who implement process improvement projects, risk making poor decisions about what changes should be made to the processes. A project to develop and run an international survey was conducted by a number of researchers from different parts of the world to understand various forms of process improvements, their goals and motivations. The result of the study indicates that the motivations for process improvement are not matched by the improvement goals that are themselves not achieved by the implemented improvements. The study also contradicted commonly cited beliefs that process improvement changes are seldom reviewed, are seldom permanent and can make the situation worse.

Keywords

Process improvement motivation software development service management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Clark, B.K.: The Effects of Software Process Maturity on Software Development Effort. Faculty of the Graduate School, University of Southern California, San Diego, p. 140 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldenson, D.R., Gibson, D.L.: Demonstrating the Impact and Benefits of CMMI: An Update and Preliminary Results. Software Engineering Institute (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldenson, D.R., Herbsleb, J.D.: After the Appraisal: A Systematic Survey of Process Improvement, its Benefits, and Factors that Influence Success. Software Engineering Institute (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herbsleb, J.D., Goldenson, D.R.: A systematic survey of CMM experience and results. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering 1996, pp. 323–330 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Humphrey, W.S.: A Discipline for Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilb, T.: Principles of Software Engineering Management. Addison-Wesley (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boehm, B., Clark, B., Horowitz, E., Madachy, R., Selby, R., Westland, C.: An Overview of the Cocomo 2.0 Software Cost Model. In: Software Technology Conference, p. 21 (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO/IEC 9001: Quality Management Systems - Requirements. 9001 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO/IEC 15504-2: Software Engineering - Process Assessment - Part 2: Performing An Assessment. 15504, vol. 2 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schroeder, R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C., Choo, A.S.: Six Sigma: Definition and underlying theory. Journal of Operations Management 26, 536–554 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    SEI: CMMI® for Development, Version 1.3. Software Engineering Institute (2010) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Middleton, P.: Lean Software Development: Two Case Studies. Software Quality Journal 9, 241 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., Roos, D.: The Machine that Changed the World. Rawson Associates, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rummler, G.A., Ramias, A.J., Rummler, R.A.: White Space Revisited: Creating Value Through Process. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO/IEC 12207: Information technology – Software life cycle processes. 12207 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baddoo, N., Hall, T.: Motivators of Software Process Improvement: an analysis of practitioners’ views. The Journal of Systems and Software 62, 85–96 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoverstadt, P.: The Fractal Organization: Creating sustainable organizations with the Viable System Model. Wiley (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cockburn, A.: Agile Software Development: The Cooperative Game, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohn, M.: Succeeding with Agile: Software Development using Scrum. Addison-Wesley (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO/IEC 15504-1: Information Technology - Process Assessment - Part 1: Concepts and Vocabulary. 15504, vol. 1 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salo, O., Abrahamsson, P.: Integrating Agile Software Development and Software Process Improvement: A Longitudinal Study. ISESE, Noosa Heads (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Webber, C.V.: Capability Maturity Model for Software. Software Engineering Institute (1991)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ferdows, K., De Meyer, A.: Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance: In search of a new theory. Journal of Operations Management 9, 168–184 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Flynn, B.B., Flynn, E.J.: An exploratory study of the nature of cumulative capabilities. Journal of Operations Management 22, 439–457 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmenner, R.W.: Service Businesses and Productivity. Decision Sciences 35, 333–347 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schmenner, R.W.: Looking ahead by looking back: Swift Even Flow in the history of manufacturing. Production and Operations Management 10, 87–96 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sterman, J., Kofman, F., Repenning, N.: Unanticipated Side Effects of Successful Quality Programs: Exploring a Paradox of Organizational Improvement. Management Science 43 (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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, pp. 68–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Deming, W.E.: Out of the Crisis. The MIT Press (1986)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gray, E.M., Smith, W.L.: On the limitations of software process assessment and the recognition of a required re-orientation for global process improvement. Software Quality Journal 7, 21–34 (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Davenport, T.H.: Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press (1993)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M.: The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time-paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations. Administration Science Quarterly 42, 1–34 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I., Over, J.: Process Modeling. Association for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM 35, 75–90 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lepmets, M., Ras, E.: Motivation and Empowerment in Process Improvement. In: O‘Connor, R.V., Pries-Heje, J., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2011. CCIS, vol. 172, pp. 109–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brown, J.S., Duguid, P.: Creativity Versus Structure: A Useful Tension. MIT Sloan Management Review 42, 93–94 (2001)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hillmer, S., Karney, D.: In support of the assumptions at the foundation of Deming’s management theory. Journal of Quality Management 6, 371–400 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McBride, T., Henderson-Sellers, B., Zowghi, D.: Software development as a design or a production project; An empirical study of project monitoring and control. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 20, 70 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weick, K.: Managing the Unexpected: Complexity as Distributed Sensemaking. In: McDaniel, R., Driebe, D. (eds.) Uncertainty and Surprise in Complex Systems, vol. 4, pp. 51–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom McBride
    • 1
  • Marion Lepmets
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and ITUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Public Research CentreHenri TudorLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations