Harmonizing Software Development Processes with Software Development Settings – A Systematic Approach

  • Simona Jeners
  • Paul Clarke
  • Rory V. O’Connor
  • Luigi Buglione
  • Marion Lepmets
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 364)


The software process landscape is rich in complexity and many alternative software development approaches have emerged over the past 40 years. However, no single software development approach is universally implemented and it seems likely that no single approach can be universally useful. One of the primary reasons that no single approach is universally useful is that no two software development settings are identical. We have assembled a team of recognized academics, who together with industrial collaborators, plan to map the complex world of software processes with the context of software development projects. The results of our initial mapping efforts, reported in this paper, demonstrate that although there are challenges in an undertaking such as this, the outcomes are potentially of considerable value to both software researchers and practitioners.


Software Process Situational Factors Process Improvement Mappings Systematic Approach 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Jacobson, I., Ng, P., McMahon, P., Spence, I., Lidman, S.: The Essence of Software Engineering: The SEMAT Kernel. Queue 10(10), 40–51 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schaefer, R.: Software Maturity: Design as Dark Art. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 34(1), 1–36 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Denning, P.J., Riehle, R.D.: The Profession of IT. is Software Engineering Engineering? Communications of the ACM 52(3), 24–26 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    SEI: CMMI for development, version 1.3. Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (2010) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO/IEC: IS0/IEC 15504: Information technology - process assessment, part 1 to part 5. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herbsleb, J., Goldenson, D.: A systematic survey of CMM experience and results. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1996), pp. 323–330. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gibson, D., Goldenson, D., Kost, K.: Performance results of CMMI-Based Process Improvement. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-004, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cepeda, S., Garcia, S.: Is CMMI Useful and Usable in Small Settings? CrossTalk. The Journal of Defense Software Engineering 21(2), 14–18 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cater-Steel, A., Rout, T.: SPI long-term benefits: Case studies of five small firms. In: Oktaba, H. (ed.) Software Process Improvement for Small and Medium Enterprises - Techniques and Case Studies. IGI Global, Hershey (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laporte, C.Y., Desharnais, J.M., Abouelfattah, M., Bamba, J.C., Renault, A., Habra, N.: Initiating Software Process Improvement in Small Enterprises: Experiments with Micro-Evaluation Framework. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Development, pp. 153–163 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dyba, T., Dingsoyr, T.: Empirical Studies of Agile Software Development: A Systematic Review. Information and Software Technology 50(9-10), 833–859 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fowler, M., Highsmith, J.: The Agile Manifesto. Software Development, 28–32 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beck, K.: Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile software development with SCRUM. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reifer, D.J.: How Good are Agile Methods? IEEE Software 19(4), 16–18 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fitzgerald, B., Hartnett, G., Conboy, K.: Customising Agile Methods to Software Practices at Intel Shannon. European Journal of Information Systems 15(2), 200–213 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Constantine, L.: Methodological Agility,
  18. 18.
    Greer, D., Conradi, R.: Software Project Initiation and Planning - an Empirical Study. IET Software 3(5), 356–368 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coleman, G., O’Connor, R.: Investigating Software Process in Practice: A Grounded Theory Perspective. Journal of Systems and Software 81(5), 772–784 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feiler, P., Humphrey, W.: Software process development and enactment: Concepts and definitions. SEI, Carnegie Mellon University, CMU/SEI-92-TR-004, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA (1992)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taylor, S., Cannon, D., Wheeldon, D.: ITIL The Cabinet Office (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    SEI: CMMI for Services, Version 1.3, CMU/SEI-2012-TR-034. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (2010) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 12207-2008 - systems and software engineering – software life cycle processes. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xu, P., Ramesh, B.: Software Process Tailoring: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Management Information Systems 24(2), 293–328 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Petersen, K., Wohlin, C.: Context in industrial software engineering research. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 401–404. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bekkers, W., van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S., Mahieu, A.: The Influence of Situational Factors in Software Product Management: An Empirical Study. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Software Product Management (IWSPM 2008), pp. 41–48. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: The Situational Factors that Affect the Software Development Process: Towards a Comprehensive Reference Framework. Journal of Information and Software Technology 54(5), 433–447 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Benaroch, M., Appari, A.: Financial Pricing of Software Development Risk Factors. IEEE Software 27(5), 65–73 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Boehm, B., Clark, B., Horowitz, E., et al.: Software cost estimation with cocomo II. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2000)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cameron, J.: Configurable Development Processes. Communications of the ACM 45(3), 72–77 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    SEI: CMMI for SCAMPI SM Class A Appraisal Results 2012 Mid-Year Update, SEI, CMU (2012) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grenning, J.: Planning Poker. Renaissance Consulting – April 2012 (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    IFPUG: Counting Practices Manual (Version 4.3). International Function Points User Group (October 2009),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simona Jeners
    • 1
  • Paul Clarke
    • 2
  • Rory V. O’Connor
    • 3
  • Luigi Buglione
    • 4
  • Marion Lepmets
    • 2
  1. 1.Research Group Software ConstructionRWTH Aachen UniversityGermany
  2. 2.Regulated Software Research GroupDundalk Institute of TechnologyIreland
  3. 3.Dublin City UniversityIreland
  4. 4.ETS Montréal / Engineering.IT SpAItaly

Personalised recommendations