Analysis of environmental factors in the adoption of ISO/IEC 29110. Multiple case study

  • Stuardo Lucho
  • Karin Melendez
  • Abraham Dávila
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 688)


The software industry comprising small companies represents an interesting opportunity for economic development. But these still have problems in productivity and the quality of their delivered products. In this context, the ISO/IEC 29110 standard has been developed, which represents an opportunity for small companies whose adoption depends on several factors, in particular, those related to the environment. In this paper, we study the influence of environmental factors on the adoption of ISO/IEC 29110 standard. For this research, a multiple case study was carried out, which includes four organizations as units of analysis. In a controlled environment, each organization implemented the processes belonging to the basic profile of the ISO/IEC 29110 standard. After the implementation, an analysis has been made of the environmental factors that influenced the adoption of the standard. Of the 16 environmental factors analyzed, it was found that 6 factors influenced all the organizations and those related to the support and trust of the partners had the greatest positive influence on the standard adoption, while the defense factor of the partners had the most negative influence. All other factors had minimal or no influence.


ISO/IEC 29110 adoption factors software process improvement 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Humphrey, W.S.: A Discipline for Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA (1995).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T., Islam, a. K.M.M., Permadi, R.B., Feldt, R.: Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 38, 398–424 (2012).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vasconcellos, F.J.S., Landre, G.B., Cunha, J.A.O.G., Oliveira, J.L., Ferreira, R.A., Vincenzi, A.M.R.: Approaches to strategic alignment of software process improvement: A systematic literature review. J. Syst. Softw. 123, 45–63 (2017).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huang, D.B., Zhang, W.: CMMI in medium & small enterprises: Problems and solutions, (2010).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dávila, A., Cano, C.: Revisión sistemática de comparación de modelos de procesos software,
  6. 6.
    Horvat, R.V., Rozman, I., Györkös, J.: Managing the complexity of SPI in small companies. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 5, 45–54 (2000).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basri, S. Bin, O’Connor, R. V.: Organizational commitment towards software process improvement: An Irish software VSEs case study. Proc. 2010 Int. Symp. Inf. Technol. - Syst. Dev. Appl. Knowl. Soc. ITSim’10. 3, 1456–1461 (2010).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ebert, C.: Technical controlling and software process improvement. J. Syst. Softw. 46, 25–39 (1999).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larrucea, X., O’Connor, R. V., Colomo-Palacios, R., Laporte, C.Y.: Software Process Improvement in Very Small Organizations. IEEE Softw. 33, 85–89 (2010).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Basri, S., O’Connor, R. V.: Understanding the perception of very small software companies towards the adoption of process standards. Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci. 99 CCIS, 153–164 (2010).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hameed, M.A., Counsell, S., Swift, S.: A conceptual model for the process of IT innovation adoption in organizations. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. - JET-M. 29, 358–390 (2012).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bayona, S., Calvo-manzano, J.A., Feliu, T.S.: Review of Critical Success Factors Related to People in Software Process Improvement. 20th EuroSPI Conf. 179–189 (2013).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bayona, L.S., Villalon, J.A.C.-M., Agustin, G.C., Gilabert, T.S.F.: Taxonomia de Factores Criticos para el Despliegue de Procesos Software. REICIS, Rev. Española Innovación, Calid. e Ing. del Softw. 6, 6–22 (2010).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sulayman, M., Urquhart, C., Mendes, E., Seidel, S.: Software process improvement success factors for small and medium Web companies: A qualitative study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 479–500 (2012).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dávila, A., Pessoa, M.: Factors driving the adoption of ISO/IEC 29110: A case study of a small software enterprise. Proc. - 2015 41st Lat. Am. Comput. Conf. CLEI 2015. (2015).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scholar, P.G., Science, C., Coimbatore, T.: Automated Testcase Generation for Software Quality Assurance. 2016 10th Int. Conf. Intell. Syst. Control. (2016).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Svensson, R.B., Gorschek, T., Regnell, B., Torkar, R., Shahrokni, A., Feldt, R.: Quality Requirements in Industrial Practice - An Extended Interview Study at Eleven Companies. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 38, 923–935 (2012).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elhag, A.A.M., Elshaikh, M.A., Mohamed, R., Babar, M.I.: Problems and future trends of software process improvement in some Sudanese software organizations. Proc. - 2013 Int. Conf. Comput. Electr. Electron. Eng. ’Research Makes a Differ. ICCEEE 2013. 263–268.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Equipo del Producto CMMI: CMMI ® para Desarrollo, Versión 1.3. (2010).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7: ISO/IEC 12207:2008,
  21. 21.
    Brodman, J.G., Johnson, D.L.: A Software Process Improvement Approach Tailored for Small Organizations and SmaU Projects. In: Proceedings of the (19th) International Conference on Software Engineering. pp. 661–662 (1997).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ruiz, J.C., Osorio, Z.B., Mejia, J., Muñoz, M., Chávez, A.M., Olivares, B.A.: Definition of a hybrid measurement process for the models ISO/IEC 15504-ISO/IEC 12207:2008 and CMMI Dev 1.3 in SMEs. Proc. - 2011 IEEE Electron. Robot. Automot. Mech. Conf. CERMA 2011. 421–426 (2011).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oktaba, H., Alquicira, C., Angélica, E., Ramos, S., Martínez, A., Quintanilla, G., Mara, O., López, R., López, F., Hinojo María, L., Rivera, E., María, L., Orozco, J., Yolanda, M., Ordóñez, F., Ángel, M., Lemus Versión, F., Índice, A.: Modelo de Procesos para la Industria de Software: MoProSoft, (2005).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Piattini, M., Oktaba, H., Orozco, J., Alquicira, C.: Competisoft. Mejora de procesos software para pequeñas y medianas empresas y proyectos. RA-MA EDITORIAL (2008).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kalinowski, M., Weber, K., Santos, G., Franco, N., Duarte, V., Travassos, G.: Software Process Improvement Results in Brazil Based on the MPS-SW Model. Softw. Qual. Prof. 17, (2015).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ISO/IEC-JTC-1/SC-7: ISO/IEC TR 29110-1 Lifecycle profiles for Very Small Entities (VSEs) — Part 1: Overview. (2011).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Laporte, C.Y., O’Connor, R. V., Paucar, L.H.G.: The implementation of ISO/IEC 29110 software engineering standards and guides in very small entities. Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci. 599, 162–179 (2016).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    ISO/IEC-JTC-1/SC-7: ISO/IEC TR 29110-1 Lifecycle profiles for Very Small Entities (VSEs) — Part 5-1-2:Management and engineering guide: Generic profile group: Basic profile. (2011).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Anacona, D., Bastidas, M.I., Pino, F.J., Pardo, C.: Innova-Procedure : A procedure to guide the innovation of software development processes in VSEs Innova-Procedure : Un procedimiento para guiar la innovación de procesos de desarrollo software en VSEs. 108–115 (2015).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jezreel, M., Mirna, M., Pablo, N., Edgar, O., Alejandro, G., Sandra, M.: Identifying findings for software process improvement in SMEs: An experience. Proc. - 2012 9th Electron. Robot. Automot. Mech. Conf. CERMA 2012. 141–146 (2012).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jezreel, M., Mirna, M., Edrisi, M., Diego, E., Al Rumeni, a, Juan, M.: Leading the effort of software process improvement in SMEs. Inf. Syst. Technol. (CISTI), 2013 8th Iber. Conf. 1–7 (2013).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cuevas, G., Calvo-Manzano, J.A., García, I.: Some Key Topics to be Considered in Software Process Improvement. 119–142 (2014).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sulayman, M., Mendes, E., Urquhart, C., Riaz, M., Tempero, E.: Towards a theoretical framework of SPI success factors for small and medium web companies. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56, 807–820 (2014).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee, J.-C., Shiue, Y.-C., Chen, C.-Y.: Examining the impacts of organizational culture and top management support of knowledge sharing on the success of software process improvement. Comput. Human Behav. 54, 462–474 (2016).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Paulk, M.C., Duncan, S., Garzás, J.: On Empirical Research into Scrum Adoption. Presented at the (2011).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sánchez-Gordón, M.L., O’Connor, R. V.: Understanding the gap between software process practices and actual practice in very small companies. Softw. Qual. J. 24, 549–570 (2016).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    O’Connor, R. V., Laporte, C.Y.: Using ISO/IEC 29110 to harness process improvement in very small entities. Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci. 172, 225–235 (2011).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    O’Connor, R. V., Sanders, M.: Lessons from a Pilot Implementation of ISO/IEC 29110 in a Group of Very Small Irish Companies. Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci. 349 CCIS, 243–246 (2013).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Paucar, L.G., Laporte, C.Y., Arteaga, J., Bruggmann, M.: Implementation and Certification of ISO/IEC 29110 in an IT Startup in Peru. 17, 14 (2015).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    O’Connor, R. V.: Early Stage Adoption of ISO/IEC 29110 Software Project Management Practices: A Case Study. 226–237 (2014).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wongsai, N., Siddoo, V., Wetprasit, R.: Factors of influence in software process improvement: An ISO/IEC 29110 for very-small entities. Proc. - 2015 7th Int. Conf. Inf. Technol. Electr. Eng. Envisioning Trend Comput. Inf. Eng. ICITEE 2015. 12–17 (2016).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sanchez-Gordon, M.L., O’Connor, R. V., Colomo-Palacios, R.: Evaluating VSES viewpoint and sentiment towards the ISO/IEC 29110 standard: A two Country grounded theory study. Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci. 526, 114–127 (2015).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    O’Connor, R. V.: Evaluating management sentiment towards ISO/IEC 29110 in very small software development companies. Commun. Comput. Inf. Sci. 290 CCIS, 277–281 (2012).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dávila, A.: Presentación ProCal-ProSer,
  45. 45.
    Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., Duffy, S.: Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. A Prod. from ESRC Methods Program. 211–219 (2006).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuardo Lucho
    • 1
  • Karin Melendez
    • 2
  • Abraham Dávila
    • 2
  1. 1.Escuela de PosgradoPontificia Universidad Católica del PerúLimaPerú
  2. 2.Departamento de IngenieríaPontificia Universidad Católica del PerúLimaPerú

Personalised recommendations