Abstract
In this paper we present findings from our empirical study of software process improvement (SPI) implementation. We aim to provide SPI practitioners with insight into designing appropriate SPI implementation initiatives in order to achieve better results. Thirty-four interviews were conducted with Australian practitioners. Three SPI implementation issues were investigated: reasons for embarking on SPI initiatives, SPI benefits to the management, and factors that play a positive role in SPI implementation.
We have found that most common reasons for embarking on SPI initiatives are to: improve the quality of software developed, reduce software development cost, and increase productivity. Our results show that 71% of the practitioners said that SPI initiatives provided clear benefits to the management. We have also found that most frequently cited SPI implementation factors are: SPI awareness, defined SPI implementation methodology, experienced staff, staff time and resources, senior management commitment and training.
Our aim of conducting this study is to provide a SPI implementation framework for the design of effective SPI implementation initiatives.
Keywords
- Software Quality
- Staff Time
- Software Industry
- Critical Success Factor
- Mature Company
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Standish-Group: Chaos - the state of the software industry (2003)
Standish-Group: Chaos - the state of the software industry. Standish group international technical report, 1–11 (1995)
The-Royal-Academy-of-Engineering: The Challenges of Complex IT Projects, The report of a working group from The Royal Academy of Engineering and The British Computer Society (2004) ISBN 1-903496-15-2
Randell, B.: Airbus A320, The Risks Digest: Forum on Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems 8(57) (1989)
Finkelstein, A.: Report of the Inquiry Into The London Ambulance Service. In: International Workshop on Software Specification and Design Case Study Electronic (1993) (Site visited, 4-3-2003), http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/A.Finkelstein/las/lascase0.9.pdf
Lions, J.L.: (1997) (Site visited, 4-3-2003), http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/ariane5rep.html
Tomsho, R.: Real Dog: How Greyhound Lines Re-Engineered Itself Right Into A Deep Hole. Wall Street Journal 20, A1–A6 (1994)
Scott, J.E.: The FoxMeyer Drugs’ Bankruptcy: Was it a Failure of ERP? In: Proc. of the Association for Information Systems 5th Americas Conference on IS, Milwaukee, WI, pp. 223–225 (August 1999)
Khasru, B.Z.: Former Oxford Health Directors Settle Lawsuit. Fairfield County Business Journal, Stamford, 5 (July 2, 2001)
Paul, B.: On for young and old as James and Kerry began to fret. The Sydney Morning Herald (2002) (Site visited, 12-9-2003), http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/20/Pbonetel.htm
Crosby, P.: Philip Crosby’s reflections on quality. McGraw-Hill, New York (1996)
Pitterman, B.: Telcordia Technologies: The journey to high maturity. IEEE Software, 89–96 (July/August 2000)
Yamamura, G.: Software process satisfied employees. IEEE Software, 83–85 (September/October 1999)
SEI: Process maturity profile of the software community. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (2002)
McDermid, J., Bennet, K.: Software Engineering research: A critical appraisal. IEE Proceedings on software engineering 146(4), 179–186 (1999)
Hall, T., Wilson, D.: Views of software quality: a field report. IEEE Proceedings on Software Engineering 144 (2) (1997)
Hall, T., Wilson, D.: Perceptions of software quality: a pilot study. Software quality journal (7), 67–75 (1998)
Goldenson, D. R., Herbsleb, J. D.: After the appraisal: A systematic survey of Process Improvement, Its benefits. And Factors That Influence Success. SEI, CMU/SEI-95-TR-009 (1995)
Stelzer, D., Werner, M.: Success factors of organizational change in software process improvement. Software process improvement and practice 4(4) (1999)
El-Emam, K., Fusaro, P., Smith, B.: Success factors and barriers for software process improvement. In: Better software practice for business benefit: Principles and experience. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1999)
Rainer, A., Hall, T.: Key success factors for implementing software process improvement: a maturity-based analysis. Journal of Systems & Software (62), 71–84 (2002)
Rainer, A., Hall, T.: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors affecting software processes. Journal of Systems & Software (accepted awaiting publication, 2002)
Herbsleb, J. D., Goldenson, D. R.: A systematic survey of CMM experience and results. In: 18th international conference on software engineering (ICSE-18). Germany, pp. 323–330 (1996)
Walker, R., Briand, L., Noktin, D., Seaman, C., Tichy, W.: Panel: Empirical validation - what, why, when, and how. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2003) (2003)
Burnard, P.: A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse education today (11), 461–466 (1991)
Seaman, C.: Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25(4), 557–572 (1999)
Bryman, A.: Quantity and quality in social research. Routledge, London (1996)
Perry, D., Porter, A., Votta, L.: Empirical studies of software engineering: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-second Conference on Software Engineering, Ireland, pp. 347–355 (2000)
Baddoo, N., Hall, T.: Motivators of software process improvement: An analysis of practitioner’s views. Journal of Systems and Software (62), 85–96 (2002)
Coolican, H.: Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. Hodder and Stoughton, London (1999)
Butler, K.: The economics benefits of software process improvement, CrossTalk, pp. 14–17 (July 1995)
Ashrafi, N.: The impact of software process improvement on quality: in theory and practice. Information & Management 40(7), 677–690 (2003)
Jiang, J., Klein, G., Hwang, H.-G., Huang, J., Hung, S.-y.: An exploration of the relationship between software development process maturity and project performance. Information & Management (41), 279–288 (2004)
SEI: Process Maturity Profile. Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University (2004)
Rockart, J.F.: Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review (2), 81–93 (1979)
Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D.: A Framework for Assisting the Design of Effective Software Process Improvement Implementation Strategies. Journal of Systems and Software 78(2), 204–222 (2005)
Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D.: A Maturity Model for the Implementation of Software Process Improvement: An empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software 74(2), 155–172 (2005)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D. (2006). Implementing Software Process Improvement Initiatives: An Empirical Study. In: Münch, J., Vierimaa, M. (eds) Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4034. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11767718_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11767718_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-34682-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-34683-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)