Organizational Transition to Object Technology: Theory and Practice

  • M. K. Serour
  • B. Henderson-Sellers
  • J. Hughes
  • D. Winder
  • L. Chow
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2425)


The use of object technology (OT) has been highly successful for many software development companies, yet there are still a large number of organizations who have not yet adopted OT. For those companies currently adopting object technology, the transition from traditional procedurally-oriented technologies remains a challenge. Indeed, there is sparse empirical evidence to suggest the best ways to undertake this culture change. Here, we reports on action research results of two case studies within the software development arm of a large multinational professional information solutions provider. The company used the Trans-OPEN process for their transition process. This transition process has seven major activities: initiation, planning, technology insertion, deployment, the use of a retrospective for evaluation, improvement planning and further improvement. the process is incremental and iterative. Furthermore, the case studies underline the need for a more formal approach to culture change in the context of the adoption of object technology.


Software Development Pilot Project Culture Change Organizational Transition Object Technology 
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.
    Parkhill, D., 1992, Object-oriented technology transfer: techniques and guidelines for a smooth transition, Object Magazine, 2(1), 57–59Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dick, M., 1999, The benefits of object technology in a greenfield site, TOOLS32, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 286–294Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGregor, J. and Sykes, D., 1992, Object-Oriented Software Development: Engineering Software for Reuse, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Webster, B.F., 1995, Pitfalls of Object-Oriented Development, M&T Books, New York, NY, USA, 256ppGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stallinger, F., Dorling, A., Rout, T., Henderson-Sellers, B., Lefever, B. and Woodman, M., 2002, Software process improvement for component-based software engineering: An introduction to the OOSPICE project, Procs. Euromicro2002 (in press)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ushakov, I.B., 2000, Introducing an OO technology in non-OO standard environment, Procs. Fourth IEEE Int. Symp. and Forum on Software Eng. Standards (Curitiba, Brazil, 17–21 May 1999), 1–5Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henderson-Sellers, B. and Serour, M.K., 2000, Creating a process for transitioning to object technology, Proceedings Seventh Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference. APSEC 2000, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 436–440Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belbin, M., 1981, Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 171ppGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beck, K., 2000, Extreme Programming Explained, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USA, 190ppGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kruchten, Ph., 1999, The Rational Unified Process. An Introduction, Addison Wesley Longman Inc., Reading, MA, USA, 255ppGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Constantine, L.L. and Lockwood, L.A.D., 1994, Fitting practices to the people, American Programmer, 7(12), 21–27Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paulk, C., Weber, C.V., Garcia, S., Chrissis, M.B. and Bush, M., 1993, Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model, Version 1.1, CMU/SEI?93?TR?25, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (February 1993)Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Graham, I., Henderson-Sellers, B. and Younessi, H., 1997, The OPEN Process Specification, Addison-Wesley, Harlow, UK, 314ppGoogle Scholar
  14. 15.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Simons, A.J.H. and Younessi, H., 1998, The OPEN Toolbox of Techniques, Addison-Wesley, Harlow, UK, 426pp + CDGoogle Scholar
  15. 16.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Bohling, J. and Rout, T., 2002, Creating the OOSPICE model architecture-a case of reuse, Procs. SPICE 2002, Palazzo Papafava, Venice, 13–15 March 2002 (ed. T. Rout), Qualital, Italy, 171–181Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Mumford, E., 2001, Advice for an action researcher, Information Technology & People, 14(1), 12–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. K. Serour
    • 1
  • B. Henderson-Sellers
    • 1
  • J. Hughes
    • 1
  • D. Winder
    • 2
  • L. Chow
    • 2
  1. 1.University of TechnologySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Thomson Legal and Regulatory Group Asia Pacific Ltd.Level 5PyrmontAustralia

Personalised recommendations