Advertisement

Achieving Software Development Performance Improvement Through Process Change

  • Ross Jeffery
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3840)

Abstract

This paper summarizes the results of process improvement activities in two small software organizations. One of these made use of macro process modelling. These results, along with the reported results of CMMi adoption, are interpreted in the light of organizational theory, a process improvement research framework, and process innovation theory. It is concluded that the evidence supports process innovation or variations on innovation as a means of achieving large scale improvements in productivity or quality. It also argues (1) for the use of the process research framework to identify research limitations, and (2) that consideration of process alone is unlikely to provide sufficient evidence for generalization.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jeffery, R.: Presentation at Pre-ICSE 2006 Workshop on Research Directions in Software Process, Shanghai, China, October 14 and 15 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scott Morton, M.R.: The Corporation of the Nineties. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sambamurthy, V., Kirsch, L.J.: An Integrative Framework of the Infortmation Systems Development Process. Decision Sciences 31(2), 391–411 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davenport, T.H.: Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through IT. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Craig, J., Yetton, P.: Business Process Redesign: A Critique of Process Innovation by Thomas Davenport as a Case Study in the Literature. Australian Journal of Management, Australian Graduate School of Management 17(2) (December 1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kurniawati, F., Jeffery, R.: The Use and Effects of an EPG/ER in a Small Software Organization. Journal of Information & Software Technology (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kruchten, P.: Rational Unified Process – An Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Object-Oriented, Managing Successful Software Projects with Process MeNtOR, Object Oriented Pty Ltd. (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Becker-Kornstaedt, U., Hammann, D., Kempkens, R., Roesch, P., Verlage, M., Zettel, J.: Support for the Process Engineer: The Spearmint Approach to Software Process Definition and Process Guidance. In: Jarke, M., Oberweis, A. (eds.) CAiSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1626, pp. 119–133. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Adonis (2001), http://www.boc.at
  12. 12.
    Basili, V., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: The Experience Factory. In: Marciniak, J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 469–476. John Wiley Sons, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schneider, K.: LIDs: A Light-Weight Approach to Experience Elicitation and Reuse. In: Bomarius, F., Oivo, M. (eds.) PROFES 2000. LNCS, vol. 1840, pp. 407–424. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Althoff, K., Birk, A., Hartkopf, S., Muller, W., Nick, M., Surmann, D., Tautz, C.: Systematic Population, Utilization and Maintenance of a Repository for Comprehensive Reuse. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 25–50 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Houdek, F., Kempter, H.: Quality Patterns – An approach to packaging software engineering experience. In: Proceedings of the 1997 Symposium on Software Reusability, vol. 22, pp. 81–88 (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henninger, S., Schlabach, J.: A Tool for Managing Software Development Knowledge. In: Bomarius, F., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds.) PROFES 2001. LNCS, vol. 2188, pp. 182–195. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewis, B.: On-Demand KM: A Two-Tier Architecture. IT Professional 4, 27–33 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ye, Y., Fischer, G.: Supporting Reuse by Delivering Task-Relevant and Personalized Information. In: Proceedings of 2002 International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 513–523 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Conradi, R., Dingsoyr, T.: Software Experiences Bases: a Consolidated Evaluation and Status Report. In: Bomarius, F., Oivo, M. (eds.) PROFES 2000. LNCS, vol. 1840, pp. 391–406. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lindvall, M., Frey, M., Costa, P., Tesoriero, R.: Lessons learned about Structuring and Describing Experience for Three Experience Bases. In: Proceedings of the third International Workshop. Advances in Learning Software Organisations (LSO 2001), pp. 106–119 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brossler, P.: Knowledge Management at a Software Engineering Company – An Experience Report. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Learning Software Organisations, pp. 77–86 (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schneider, K., von Hunnius, J.: Effective Experience Repositories for Software Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 534–539 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Enterprise Architect (2003), http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Holz, H., Konnecker, A., Maurer, F.: Task-Specific Knowledge Management in a Process-centered SEE. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Advances in Learning Software Organisations, pp. 163–177 (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ruhe, M., Jeffery, R., Wieczorek, I.: Cost Estimation for Web Applications. In: Proceedings of 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 285–294. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    The Report of the Software Quality Accreditation Working Party, Software Quality Accreditation in the Australian Context, Australian Government, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, pp. 39 (February 2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ross Jeffery
    • 1
  1. 1.Empirical Software Engineering Program, National ICT Australia & School of Computer Science and EngineeringThe University of New South WalesAlexandriaAustralia

Personalised recommendations