A Study on How Software Engineering Supports Projects Management

  • Maria-Isabel Sanchez-Segura
  • Javier García
  • Antonio Amescua
  • Fuensanta Medina-Dominguez
  • Arturo Mora-Soto


This paper contains the results of the study of the following Software Process Reference Models for Improvement Programmes: CMMI, ISO 15504, and the UP, XP, PSP, TSP Methodologies, from a project management point of view. The project management processes analyzed in the above software engineering formalisms were: estimation, planning and quality management. As a result of this study, we offer an overview of the presence, integration, and ease of use of each project management process in the software engineering formalism selected. Results obtained reveal a good degree of integration among processes but a low level of ease of use in most part of the selected formalisms.




Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    PMBOK: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. (2000). Project Management Institute. Pennsylvania, USA.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Standish Group, “CHAOS,” http://www.standishgroup.com/chaos.htm.
  3. [3]
    R. Nienaber, E. Cloete. A software agent framework for the support of software project management. (2003). Proceedings of the SAICSIT 2003. Pp 16-23.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    E. McConnell. Nine Deadly Sins of Project Management. From the Editor IEEE Software, September/October 2001. Available at: http://www.stevemcconnell.com/ieeesoftware/iec19.htm
  5. [5]
    T. Cooke-Davis. A real success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management. (2002). Vol. 20, issue 3, pp. 185-190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    D. White, J. Fortune. Current practice in project management – an empirical study. (2002). International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 20, issue 1, pp. 1-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    S. Guckenheimer, J. Perez. Software Engineering with Microsoft Visual Studio Team System (Microsoft .Net Development). (2006). Addison Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    C. Gelbard, N. Pliskin. Integrating system analysis and project management tools. (2002). International Journal of Project Management. Vol 20, issue 6, pp. 461-468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    B. Boehm, R. Turner. Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed. (2003). Addison Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. García. How standards enable adoption of project management practices. (2005). IEEE software. October-November 2005. Pp 22-29Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    CMMISM Product Suite, www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/products/products.html, Sept. 2001.
  12. [12]
    ISO/IEC 15504(1-5):2005 Standard for Information Technology-Software process assessment. 2005.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    I. Jacobson, G. Booch, and J. Rumbaugh. 1999. The Unified development process. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    F. Kruchten. The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, Third Edition (2003) Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    K. Beck. eXtreme Programming Explained. (2002) Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. Jeffries. Extreme Programming Adventures in C# (2004) Microsoft PressGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    W.S. Humphrey. PSP(sm): A Self-Improvement Process for Software Engineers, (2005a) Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    W.S. Humphrey. TSP(SM)-Leading a Development Team. (2005b). Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    W.S. Humphrey. TSP(SM)-Coaching Development Teams. (2006). Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    P. Dorsey. Top 10 Reasons Why Systems Projects Fail. (2000). Dulcian, Inc. Available at: http://www.niwotridge.com/Resources/PM-SWEResources/PmReasonsFail.htm
  21. [21]
    C. Tully. How seriously should we take our evolutionary metaphor?. International workshop on Feedback And Evolution In Software And Business Processes. Imperial College, London, U.K. July 10 - 12, 2000.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    J. Venable. The Role of Theory and Theorizing in Design Science Research. February 24-25, 2006. Claremont CA. International conference on Design Science research in information systems and technology.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    A. Amescua, J. García, M. Sánchez-Segura, F. Medina-Domínguez. A pattern-Based Solution to Bridge the gap between theory and practice in using process models. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. ISSN0302-9743 Vol. 3966 pp. 97-104. Book Software Process Change. 2006Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    F. Medina-Domínguez, M. Sanchez-Segura, A. Amescua, J. García. Extending Microsoft Team Foundation Server Architecture to support Collaborative Product Patterns. ICSP 2007, International Conference on Software Process. Minneapolis, USA. May 19 - 20, 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria-Isabel Sanchez-Segura
    • 1
  • Javier García
    • 1
  • Antonio Amescua
    • 1
  • Fuensanta Medina-Dominguez
    • 1
  • Arturo Mora-Soto
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentCarlos III Technical University of MadridLeganes 28911SPAIN

Personalised recommendations