Advertisement

A Study on How Software Engineering Supports Projects Management

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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Project Management Software Engineering Management Process Software Project Software Development Project 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  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