Implementing Software Process Improvement Initiatives: An Empirical Study

  • Mahmood Niazi
  • David Wilson
  • Didar Zowghi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4034)


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.


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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Standish-Group: Chaos - the state of the software industry (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Standish-Group: Chaos - the state of the software industry. Standish group international technical report, 1–11 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 1-903496-15-2Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Randell, B.: Airbus A320, The Risks Digest: Forum on Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems 8(57) (1989)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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),
  6. 6.
    Lions, J.L.: (1997) (Site visited, 4-3-2003),
  7. 7.
    Tomsho, R.: Real Dog: How Greyhound Lines Re-Engineered Itself Right Into A Deep Hole. Wall Street Journal 20, A1–A6 (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khasru, B.Z.: Former Oxford Health Directors Settle Lawsuit. Fairfield County Business Journal, Stamford, 5 (July 2, 2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paul, B.: On for young and old as James and Kerry began to fret. The Sydney Morning Herald (2002) (Site visited, 12-9-2003),
  11. 11.
    Crosby, P.: Philip Crosby’s reflections on quality. McGraw-Hill, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pitterman, B.: Telcordia Technologies: The journey to high maturity. IEEE Software, 89–96 (July/August 2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yamamura, G.: Software process satisfied employees. IEEE Software, 83–85 (September/October 1999) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    SEI: Process maturity profile of the software community. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (2002) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McDermid, J., Bennet, K.: Software Engineering research: A critical appraisal. IEE Proceedings on software engineering 146(4), 179–186 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hall, T., Wilson, D.: Views of software quality: a field report. IEEE Proceedings on Software Engineering 144 (2) (1997) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hall, T., Wilson, D.: Perceptions of software quality: a pilot study. Software quality journal (7), 67–75 (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stelzer, D., Werner, M.: Success factors of organizational change in software process improvement. Software process improvement and practice 4(4) (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rainer, A., Hall, T.: Key success factors for implementing software process improvement: a maturity-based analysis. Journal of Systems & Software (62), 71–84 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rainer, A., Hall, T.: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors affecting software processes. Journal of Systems & Software (accepted awaiting publication, 2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burnard, P.: A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse education today (11), 461–466 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seaman, C.: Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25(4), 557–572 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bryman, A.: Quantity and quality in social research. Routledge, London (1996)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    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)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baddoo, N., Hall, T.: Motivators of software process improvement: An analysis of practitioner’s views. Journal of Systems and Software (62), 85–96 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Coolican, H.: Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. Hodder and Stoughton, London (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Butler, K.: The economics benefits of software process improvement, CrossTalk, pp. 14–17 (July 1995)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ashrafi, N.: The impact of software process improvement on quality: in theory and practice. Information & Management 40(7), 677–690 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    SEI: Process Maturity Profile. Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rockart, J.F.: Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review (2), 81–93 (1979)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahmood Niazi
    • 1
  • David Wilson
    • 2
  • Didar Zowghi
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computing and MathematicsKeele UniversityUK
  2. 2.Faculty of Information TechnologyUniversity of Technology SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations