Software Process Improvement: A Road to Success

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


Software process improvement (SPI) has received much attention in both academia and industry. SPI aims to improve the effectiveness of the software development process. Several different approaches have been developed for SPI, including the SEI’s Capability Maturity Model (CMM), more recently the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) and ISO’s SPICE. Research shows that the effort put into these approaches can assist in producing high quality software.

This paper has a two-fold objectives: first to review and summarise the empirical evidence thus far on the costs and benefits of SPI approaches; second to establish a relationship between different approaches to SPI and to seek and identify whether these approaches fulfil all the needs for an effective SPI initiative. The aim of this review is to analyse material about SPI approach and to set the scene for future research in the area of Software Process Improvement.


Customer Satisfaction Software Process Improvement Capability Maturity Model Capability Maturity Model Integration IEEE Software 
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.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 5th edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Standish-Group: Chaos - the state of the software industry (2003)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.
    Crosby, P.: Philip Crosby’s reflections on quality. McGraw-Hill, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pitterman, B.: Telcordia Technologies: The journey to high maturity. IEEE Software, 89–96 (July/August 2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yamamura, G.: Software process satisfied employees. IEEE Software, 83–85 (September/October 1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Hally, T.: Software process improvement at Raytheon. IEEE Software (November 1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Humphrey, W.S., Synder, T.R., Willis, R.R.: Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software 8(4), 11–23 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diaz, M., Sligo, J.: How Software Process Improvement helped Motorola. IEEE software 14(5), 75–81 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dion, R.: Process improvement and the corporate balance sheet. IEEE Software 10(4), 28–35 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herbsleb, J., Caarleton, A., Rozum, J., Siegel, J., Zubrow, D.: Benefits of CMM-based software process improvement: Initial results. Technical report, CMU/SEI-94-TR-013 (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    Butler, K.: The economics benefits of software process improvement. CrossTalk, 14–17 (July 1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Cater-Steel, A.: Process Improvement in Four Small Software Companies. In: 13th Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC 2001) (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    SEI: Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMISM), Version 1.1. SEI, CMU/SEI-2002-TR-029 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO/IEC-15504: Information technology - Software process assessment. Technical report - Type 2 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO-9000: Internation Standard Organization (2004) (Site visited, 23-02-2004),
  21. 21.
    Ashrafi, N.: The impact of software process improvement on quality: in theory and practice. Information & Management 40(7), 677–690 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leung, H.: Slow change of information system development practice. Software quality journal 8(3), 197–210 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    SEI: Process Maturity Profile. Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    SEI: Process maturity profile of the software community. Software Engineering Institute (2002) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ngwenyama, O., Nielsen, P.A.: Competing values in software process improvement: An assumption analysis of CMM from an organizational culture perspective. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 50, 100–112 (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Butler, K.: Process lessons learned while reaching Level 4. CrossTalk, 1–4 (May 1997) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dyba, T.: Factors of software process improvement success in small and large organizations: an empirical study in the scandinavian context. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 28(5), 148–157 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zahran, S.: Software process improvement - practical guidelines for business success. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahmood Niazi
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing and MathematicsKeele UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations