Abstract
Since the starting point of successful software process improvement begins with a formal software process assessment, it is essential that this assessment is effective and reliable. However, recently, critics and proponents have engaged in a debate on the reliability of such assessments. Until more scientific assessment methods are ready, how can the current kind of assessments be made more reliable? This paper argues that it is possible to reduce variability of software process assessments and improve their reliability. An assessment is an intensive human process of decision taking, subject to different interpretations by the evaluators. To overcome this, automation and quantitative data that could help in decision taking are needed. This paper discusses the need for widespread participation by everybody from the organisational unit (the part of the organisation being assessed), its implications for project selection and proposes the use of an automatic method for a better project selection. Better selection of projects for the visit, and better information about the organisation, could imply a visit in less time and with fewer costs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aldenderfer, M.S., Blashfield, R.K., 1984, Cluster analysis, in: Sage University Paper, Sage Publications.
Bach, J., 1994, The immaturity of the CMM, American Programmer 7:9, 13–18.
Bollinger, T.B., and McGowan, C., 1991, A critical look at software capability evaluations, IEEE Software 8:4,25–41.
Bouguettaya, A., 1996, On-Line clustering, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 8:2, 333–339.
Craigmyle, M., 1998, Process assessment using SPICE: the ratings framework, in: SPICE: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, K. El Emam, J. Drouin, and W. Melo, eds., IEEE CS Press.
Daskalantonakis, M. K., 1994, Achieving higher SEI levels, IEEE Software, 11:4, 17–24
Demirors, O., and Demirors, E., 1998, Software process improvement in a small organisation: difficulties and suggestions, in: Software Process Technology, V. Gruhn, ed., Springer Verlag, Lecture Notes in Com-puter Science, Vol. 1487.
Diaz, M and Sligo, J, 1997, How software process improvement helped Motorola, IEEE Software, 14:5, 75–81.
Diday, E., Lemaire, J., Pouget, J., and Testu, F., 1985, Eléments d’ Analyse de Données, Dunod.
Dion., R, 1993, Process improvement and the corporate balance sheet, IEEE Sofhvare, July, pp. 28–35.
Dunaway, D. K., and Masters, S., 1996, CMM-Based Appraisal for Internal Process Improvement (CBA-IPI)VIA: Method Description, Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-96-TR-007.
El Emam, K., Simon, J., Rouseau, S., and Jacquet, E., 1998, Cost implications of interrater agreement for software process assessments, in Proceedings of the Fifth Int. Software Metrics Sympo-sium, IEEE CS Press.
El Emam, K., Drouin, J., and Melo, W., 1998, SPICE: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, K. El Emam, K., J. Drouin, and W. Melo, eds.,IEEE CS Press.
El Emam, K.. and Madhavji, N., 1995, The reliability of measuring organisational maturity,Software Process-Improvement and Practice, 1:1, pp. 3–25.
El Emam, K., 1998, The internal consistency of the ISO/IEC 15504 software process capabilityscale, in: Proceedings of the Fifth Int. Software Metrics Symposium, IEEE CS.
El Emam, K., and Marshall, P., 1998, Interrater agreement in assessment ratings, in: SPICE: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, K. El Emam, K.,J. Drouin, and W. Melo, eds., IEEE CS Press.
Fusaro, P., El Eman, K., Smith, B., 1997, The Internal Consistencies of the 1987 SEI Maturity Questionnaire and the SPICE Capability Dimension, Technical Report, International Software Engineering Research Network, ISER-97-01.
Goldenson, D. R. and Herbsleb, J. D., 1995 After the Appraisal: A Systematic Survey of Process Improvement,Its Benefits, and Factors that Influence Success, Technical Report CMU/SEI-95-TR-009.
Gray, E.M. and Smith, W.L., 1998, On the limitations of software process assessment and the recognition of a required re-orientation for global process improvement, Software Quality Journal,7.
Hayes. W and Zubrow, D, 1995, Moving On Up: Data and Experience Doing CMM-Based Process Improvement, Technical Report CMU/SEI-95-TR-008.
Herbsleb, J., et al., 1994, Software process improvement: state of the payoff, American Programmer, Septem-ber.
Hetzel, B., 1995, The sorry state of software practice measurement and evaluation, in: Software Quality Assur-ance and Measurement: A Worldwide Perspective, N Fenton, R Whitty, Y. Iizuka, eds., Thomson Comp.Press.
Hirscheim, R., Newman, M., 1985, Information systems and user resistance: theory and practice, Comp. Jour-nal, 31:5.
Hsia, P., Hsu, C. T., Kung, D. C., and Holder, L. B., 1996, User-centered system decomposition: Z-based requirements clustering, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Requirements Engineering,IEEE Press.
Humphrey, W.S., and Curtis, B., 1991, Comments on ‘a critical look’, IEEE Software, 8:4, July.
Humphrey, W.S., Snyder T.R., and Willis R.R., 1991 Software process improvement at Hughes aircraft,IEEE Software, July .pp 11–23.
ISO/IEC, 1998, Information technology — Software process assessment — Part 7: Guide for use in process improvement, ISO/IEC TR 15504.
Iversen, J. J., Nielsen, P. A., and Heje, J. P., 1998, Combining quantitative and qualitative assessment methods in software process improvement, in: Proceedings of 6th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Aix-en-Provence, France, pp. 451–466
Jones, C, 2001, Measuring software process improvement, in: Software Process Improvement, R. Hunter, and R. Thayer, eds., IEEE Computer Society Press, Under review.
Lawlis, P.K., Flowe, R.M., and Thordahl, J.B., 1995, A Correlational Study of the CMM and Software Devel-opment Performance, Crosstalk, STSC, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, pp. 21–25.
Tou, J., and Gonzalez, R., 1974, Pattern Recognition Principles, Addison-Wesley.
Wohlwend, H., and Rosenbaum, S.,1994, Schlumberger’s software improvement program, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 11, pp. 833–839.
Woodman, I., and Hunter, R., 1998, Analysis of assessment ratings from the trials, in: SPICE: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, K. El Emam, K., J. Drouin,and W. Melo, eds., IEEE CS Press.
Yamamura, G., and Wigle, G. B., 1997, SEI CMM Level 5: For the Right Reasons, Crosstalk, STSC, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, pp. 3–6.
Zubrow, D., Hayes, W., Siegel, J., and Goldenson, D., 1994, Maturity Questionnaire, Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-94-SR-007.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sampaio, A., Gray, E., Moreira, H., Martins, M. (2002). Selection of Projects in Software Process Assessment: New Perspectives. In: Harindranath, G., et al. New Perspectives on Information Systems Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0595-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0595-2_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-5149-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-0595-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive