Advertisement

Documenting Evolutionary Process Improvements with Method Increment Case Descriptions

  • Peter van Stijn
  • Kevin Vlaanderen
  • Sjaak Brinkkemper
  • Inge van de Weerd
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 301)

Abstract

Evolutionary process improvement is a common approach to manage the complexity and risk of large software process improvement efforts. Performing SPI through a sequence of small steps allows organizations to reflect and steer the effort often and avoid failed improvements. However, few methods currently exist to structure improvement paths in a clear and concise manner. In this paper, we present a template for such a structuring method, based on Use Case Descriptions and method engineering techniques. A concise description of improvement paths allow organizations to reflect on their implementation and to guide similar improvement efforts. A case study of two large improvements within a small Dutch software company is used for evaluation.

Keywords

Process Improvement Case Description Requirement Management Case Company Software Process Improvement 
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.
    Ågerfalk, P.J., Brinkkemper, S., Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B., Karlsson, F., Kelly, S., Ralyté, J.: Modularization Constructs in Method Engineering: Towards Common Ground? Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences 244, 359–368 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aaen, I., Arent, J., Mathiassen, L., Ngwenyama, O.: A Conceptual MAP of Software Process Improvement. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 13, 81–101 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ashrafi, N.: The Impact of Software Process Improvement on Quality: in Theory and practice. Information and Management 40, 677–690 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bekkers, W., Spruit, M., van de Weerd, I., van Vliet, R., Mahieu, A.: A situational assessment method for software product management. In: Alexander, T., Turpin, M., van Deventer, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems, Pretoria, South-Africa, pp. 22–34 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bekkers, W., van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S., Mahieu, A.: The Influence of Situational Factors in Software Product Management: An Empirical Study. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Product Management, pp. 41–48. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bekkers, W., van de Weerd, I., Spruit, M., Brinkkemper, S.: A Framework for Process Improvement in Software Product Management. In: Riel, A., O’Connor, R., Tichkiewitch, S., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2010. CCIS, vol. 99, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brinkkemper, S.: Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology 38(4), 275–280 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cockburn, A.: Structuring Use Cases with Goals. Technology 84121(801), 1–13 (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cossentino, M., Gaglio, S., Henderson-Sellers, B., Seidita, V.: A metamodelling-based approach for method fragment comparison. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davenport, T.H.: Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Ernst & Young, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deneckère, R., Iacovelli, A., Kornyshova, E., Souveyet, C.: From Method Fragments to Method Services. In: Proceedings of EMMSAD 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ebert, C.: The Impacts of Software Product Management. Journal of Systems and Software 6(80), 850–861 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    El Emam, K.: SPICE: The theory and practice of software process improvement and capability determination (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harmsen, F., Brinkkemper, S., Oei, J.L.H.: Situational method engineering for informational system project approaches. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.1 Working Conference on Methods and Associated Tools for the Information Systems Life Cycle, pp. 169–194. Elsevier Science Inc., New York (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Humphrey, W.: Managing the Software Process, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Massachusetts (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iversen, J.H., Mathiassen, L., Nielsen, P.A.: Managing Risk in Software Process Improvement: An Action Research Approach. Mis Quarterly 25(3), 395–433 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Komi-Sirvio, S.: Development and Evaluation of Software Process Improvement Methods. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oulo (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuvaja, P., Simila, J., Krzanik, L., Bicego, A., Saukkonen, S., Koch, G.: Software Process Assessment and Improvement - The Bootstrap Approach (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science research on information technology (Invited Paper). Decision Support Systems (Special issue on WITS 1992) 15(4), 251–266 (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McFeeley, B.: IDEAL: A User’s Guide for Software Process Improvement. Tech. rep., Carnegie Mellon University (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McGarry, F., Pajerski, R., Page, G., Waligora, S., Basili, V., Zelkowitz, M.: Software Process Improvement in the NASA Software Engineering Laboratory. Tech. rep., Software Engineering Institute, Pitssburgh (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paulk, M.C., Weber, C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B.: The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rolland, C., Prakash, N., Benjamen, A.: A multi-model view of process modelling. Requirements Engineering 4(4), 169–187 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thiagarajan, R.K., Srivastava, A.K., Pujari, A.K., Bulusu, V.K.: BPML: A Process Modeling Language for Dynamic Business Models, p. 239 (June 2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vlaanderen, K., van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S.: The Online Method Engine: From Process Assessment to Method Execution. In: Ralyté, J., Mirbel, I., Deneckère, R. (eds.) ME 2011. IFIP AICT, vol. 351, pp. 108–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S.: Meta-modeling for situational analysis and design methods. In: Handbook of Research on Modern Systems Analysis and Design Technologies and Applications, ch. III, p. 35. Information Science Publishing (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S., Souer, J., Versendaal, J.: A situational implementation method for web-based content management system-applications: method engineering and validation in practice. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 11(5), 521–538 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S., Versendaal, J.: Concepts for Incremental Method Evolution: Empirical Exploration and Validation in Requirements Management. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 469–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S., Versendaal, J.: Incremental method evolution in global software product management: A retrospective case study. Information and Software Technology 52(7), 720–732 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weinberg, G.M.: Quality Software Management: Anticipating change. Quality Software Management. Dorset House Pub. (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter van Stijn
    • 1
  • Kevin Vlaanderen
    • 1
  • Sjaak Brinkkemper
    • 1
  • Inge van de Weerd
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations