Advertisement

Comparing SPI Survival Studies in Small Settings

  • Xabier LarruceaEmail author
  • Izaskun Santamaria
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 770)

Abstract

Small organisations have been applying several quality approaches such as CMMI-DEV or ISO/IEC 15504-5 with quite diverse results. In order to build an experience factory we are gathering our experiences in a database containing the assessment results of more than 90 initiatives. This paper provides an empirical comparison of survival analysis for different improvement initiatives in the context of very small entities. We compare the Cox Proportional Hazard Regression models of our 90 initiatives, and we discriminated them by the reference model used: ISO/IEC29110, CMMI-DEV or ITMark.

Keywords

ISO/IEC2 9110 Survival analysis Product life cycle 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper has been partially funded by the AQUAS project with number 737475.

References

  1. 1.
    Software Engineering Institute: CMMI® for Development, Version 1.3 (2010). https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/TechnicalReport/2010_005_001_15287.pdf
  2. 2.
    International Standard Organisation: ISO/IEC 15504-5:2012 - Information technology – Process assessment – Part 5: An exemplar software life cycle process assessment model (2012). https://www.iso.org/standard/60555.html
  3. 3.
    O’Connor, R.V., Coleman, G.: Ignoring “Best Practice”: why Irish software SMEs are rejecting CMMI and ISO 9000. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 16(1), 7–30 (2009)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Laporte, C.Y., O’Connor, R.V.: A systems process lifecycle standard for very small entities: development and pilot trials. In: Barafort, B., O’Connor, R.V., Poth, A., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2014. CCIS, vol. 425, pp. 13–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-43896-1_2 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Polgar, P.B., Kazinci, F.: Report on an assessment experience based on ISO/IEC 29110. J. Softw.-Evol. Process. 26, 313–320 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tripathi, N., Annanperä, E., Oivo, M., Liukkunen, K.: Exploring processes in small software companies: a systematic review. In: Clarke, P.M., O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2016. CCIS, vol. 609, pp. 150–165. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-38980-6_12 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC TR 29110-1. Software engineering — Lifecycle profiles for Very Small Entities (VSEs) — 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Larrucea, X., O’Connor, R.V., Colomo-Palacios, R., Laporte, C.Y.: Software process improvement in very small organizations. IEEE Softw. 33, 85–89 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Charette, R.N.: Why software fails (software failure). IEEE Spectr. 42, 42–49 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boronowsky, M., Mitasiunas, A., Ragaisis, J., Woronowicz, T.: An approach to development of an application dependent SPICE conformant process capability model. In: Woronowicz, T., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2013. CCIS, vol. 349, pp. 61–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38833-0_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ebert, C., Dumke, R.: Improving processes and products. In: Ebert, C., Dumke, R. (eds.) Software Measurement, pp. 329–434. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-71649-5_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peldzius, S., Ragaisis, S.: Usage of multiple process assessment models. In: Woronowicz, T., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2013. CCIS, vol. 349, pp. 223–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-38833-0_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Larrucea, X., Santamaria, I.: Towards a survival analysis of very small organisations. In: Presented at the EuroSPI 2017, Ostrava (2017). (to be published)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 29110-4-1. Software engineering — Lifecycle profiles for Very Small Entities (VSEs) (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ribaud, V., Saliou, P., O’Connor, R.V., Laporte, C.Y.: Software engineering support activities for very small entities. In: Riel, A., O’Connor, R., Tichkiewitch, S., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2010. CCIS, vol. 99, pp. 165–176. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-15666-3_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pino, F.J., García, F., Piattini, M.: Software process improvement in small and medium software enterprises: a systematic review. Softw. Qual. J. 16, 237–261 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sánchez-Gordón, M.-L., Colomo-Palacios, R., de Amescua Seco, A., O’Connor, R.V.: The route to software process improvement in small- and medium-sized enterprises. In: Kuhrmann, M., Münch, J., Richardson, I., Rausch, A., Zhang, H. (eds.) Managing Software Process Evolution, pp. 109–136. Springer, Cham (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Varkoi, T.: Process assessment in very small entities. In: 2010 Seventh International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology Process, pp. 436–440 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sánchez-Gordón, M.-L., O’Connor, R.V., Colomo-Palacios, R., Sanchez-Gordon, S.: A learning tool for the ISO/IEC 29110 standard: understanding the project management of basic profile. In: Clarke, P.M., O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., Dorling, A. (eds.) Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, pp. 270–283. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sanchez-Gordón, M.-L., O’Connor, R.V., Colomo-Palacios, R., Herranz, E.: Bridging the gap between SPI and SMEs in educational settings: a learning tool supporting ISO/IEC 29110. In: Kreiner, C., O’Connor, R.V., Poth, A., Messnarz, R. (eds.) Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement, pp. 3–14. Springer, Cham (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moreno-Campos, E., Sanchez-Gordón, M.-L., Colomo-Palacios, R., de Amescua Seco, A.: Towards measuring the impact of the ISO/IEC 29110 standard: a systematic review. In: Barafort, B., O’Connor, R.V., Poth, A., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2014. CCIS, vol. 425, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-43896-1_1 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Connor, R.V., Laporte, C.Y.: Software project management in very small entities with ISO/IEC 29110. In: Winkler, D., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2012. CCIS, vol. 301, pp. 330–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31199-4_29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Althouse, A.D.: Basic principles of survival analysis with composite endpoints: why you must use the “first” event, not the “worst” event. Int. J. Cardiol. 201, 319–320 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fenech, J.P., Yap, Y.K., Shafik, S.: Modelling the recovery outcomes for defaulted loans: a survival analysis approach. Econ. Lett. 145, 79–82 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Datta, S., del Carmen Pardo, M., Scheike, T., Yuen, K.C.: Special issue on advances in survival analysis. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 93, 255–256 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sentas, P., Angelis, L., Stamelos, I.: A statistical framework for analyzing the duration of software projects. Empir. Softw. Eng. 13, 147–184 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cox, D.R.: Regression models and life-tables (1972). http://www.jstor.org/stable/2985181
  28. 28.
    Kaplan, E.L., Meier, P.: Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 53, 457–481 (1958)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    The R project of statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Dingsoyr, T., Moe, N.B., Fægri, T.E., Seim, E.A.: Exploring software development at the very large-scale: a revelatory case study and research agenda for agile method adaptation. Empir. Softw. Eng. 22, 1–31 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Choetkiertikul, M., Dam, H.K., Tran, T., Ghose, A.: Predicting the delay of issues with due dates in software projects. Empir. Softw. Eng. 22, 1223–1263 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Carver, J.: The use of grounded theory in empirical software engineering. In: Basili, V.R., Rombach, D., Schneider, K., Kitchenham, B., Pfahl, D., Selby, R.W. (eds.) Empirical Software Engineering Issues. Critical Assessment and Future Directions. LNCS, vol. 4336, p. 42. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-71301-2_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Larrucea, X., Santamaría, I., Colomo-Palacios, R.: Assessing ISO/IEC29110 by means of ITMark: results from an experience factory. J. Softw. Evol. Process. 28, 969–980 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TecnaliaDerioSpain

Personalised recommendations