A practitioner’s guide to light weight software process assessment and improvement planning

SUMMARYFor the effective promotion of software process improvement (SPI) activities in a large organization, it is necessary to establish an organizational structure and a deployment method for promotion and to develop training courses, support tools, and other materials. Even if an organizational promotion system is established, the SPI activities of each development department cannot be promoted effectively without an SPI community. To promote SPI activities throughout Toshiba Group, we organized a Corporate Software Engineering Process Group in April 2000. We also proposed an SPI framework. This framework extracts the features of organizations in which improvement activities were successful in the 1990s and combines them systematically. For over 10 years, we have been constructing Toshiba's SPI framework based on the SPI framework that we proposed and promoting process improvement activities using it. As a result, maturity levels were improved in many development departments, and the applicability of the SPI framework has been confirmed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This chapter discusses knowledge management (KM) aspects of how software process and software process improvement (SPI) is practiced within very small entities (VSEs) in the context of Irish software development industry. In particular, this study is concerned with the process of software development knowledge management in supporting the SPI. In order to understand the support process, the authors of this chapter have studied how KM processes are practiced within VSEs which includes communication, learning, sharing, and documentation process. This study also focuses in detail on the issues of the knowledge atrophy problem in VSEs. The findings explain how KM has been practiced and influenced the software development process and process improvement in VSEs. This result indicates that KM processes in VSEs are being undertaken in a very informal manner and also in indirect way. This is due to a small team size, autonomous working and macro-management style and caused VSEs to be more informal in their KM processes specifically and SPI generally. In addition, the results have indicated that the informal environment and culture helped VSEs to easily create and share knowledge between staff members and also assisted VSEs to mitigate the knowledge atrophy problem in their organization.

The emerging international standard ISO/IEC 15504 on ‘Information Technology – Software Process Assessment’ aims to harmonize the various assessment approaches used in software process improvement (SPI). While approaches based on the organization-focused ‘staged model’ (SW-CMM etc.) provide a ‘roadmap’ generally true for most organizations, the process-focused ‘continuous model’ of ISO/IEC 15504 does not prescribe any particular improvement path. SPI projects using the ISO/IEC 15504 approach are thus considered to have to deal with increased complexity in improvement planning. Targeting this problem, the basic ideas behind a generalized system dynamics model of ‘a set of improving software processes’ currently under development to support SPI action planning at a tactical level are presented. The basic intention is to determine the impact of a set of scheduled improvement actions on the strategic target variables of SPI (time-to-market, cost, quality). The approach integrates the two main ‘mental models’ behind ISO/IEC 15504: the process model described textually as a network of processes and work products, and the model of maturing single processes. The development of the model is oriented at organizations with lower capability and medium sized development projects. The results of preceding software process assessments are used as a major source for model initialization. How simulation can support software process improvement is discussed, and insights from sample applications are presented. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is becoming a vital part of present day research in software process improvement (SPI). Nevertheless, there is no available study that provides detail review of the published software process improvement SLRs. Objective: The aim of this article is to classify the SLRs of SPI in order to identify the main research areas covered and evaluate the quality of the published SLRs. Methodology: A tertiary study was conducted to review the SLRs published by other researchers on the topic of SPI. Results: Twenty-four SLR articles were identified in the field of SPI. Results show that the quality of the selected SLRs on SPI is decreasing over the recent years. The most popular research topics are factors affecting SPI and process models. Conclusions: This study provides the review and state of the art in the context of SPI research. The results of this article would be of great interest for future SPI researchers by providing in depth understanding of various research areas in SPI. The number of process improvement SLRs is increasing and the overall quality is decreasing, which could lessen their potential impact on SPI practice. Currently, SPI literature is weak in the knowledge areas such as quality and software testing process improvement.

This paper describes a software process improvement (SPI) framework to ensure regulatory compliance for the software developed in medical devices. The software framework introduced here (known as MedeSPI - medical devices software process improvement) will address an opportunity to integrate the regulatory issues and process improvement mechanisms in order to achieve improved software processes.

Software process and product improvement: an empirical assessment

Problems in measuring effectiveness in software process improvement: A longitudinal study of organizational change at Danske Data

A process capability based assessment model for software workforce in emergent software organizations

The emergence of agile methods and practices has not only changed the development processes but might also have affected how companies conduct software process improvement (SPI). Through a set of complementary studies, we aim to understand how SPI has changed in times of agile software development. Specifically, we aim (a) to identify and characterize the set of publications that connect elements of agility to SPI, (b) to explore to which extent agile methods/practices have been used in the context of SPI, and (c) to understand whether the topics addressed in the literature are relevant and useful for industry professionals. To study these questions, we conducted an in‐depth analysis of the literature identified in a previous mapping study, an interview study, and an analysis of the responses given by industry professionals to SPI‐related questions stemming from an independently conducted survey study. Regarding the first question, we identified 55 publications that focus on both SPI and agility of which 48 present and discuss how agile methods/practices are used to steer SPI initiatives. Regarding the second question, we found that the two most frequently mentioned agile methods in the context of SPI are Scrum and Extreme Programming (XP), while the most frequently mentioned agile practices are integrate often, test‐first, daily meeting, pair programming, retrospective, on‐site customer, and product backlog. Regarding the third question, we found that a majority of the interviewed and surveyed industry professionals see SPI as a continuous activity. They agree with the agile SPI literature that agile methods/practices play an important role in SPI activities but that the importance given to specific agile methods/practices does not always coincide with the frequency with which these methods/practices are mentioned in the literature.

A critical aspect of software process education in general and software process improvement (SPI) education in particular is to give students the chance to experience processes and issues associated with process at first hand. This is, however, often difficult in an educational setting since providing a meaningful project in which to apply a process can take away time and focus from the intended learning objectives. Instead, miniatures and simulations can be used to create an environment in which students can interact with processes directly without taking up large parts of the curriculum. In this paper, we report on our experience of using Lego Scrum simulations in an SPI course at the Bachelor level. The simulations are used both to introduce a baseline for the students to let them experience process issues directly, create an improvement plan that addresses observed issues, and to apply and evaluate the plan in a second simulation. This allows students to engage with SPI methods practically, instead of purely theoretically, and allows the teacher to refer to the shared experience throughout the course. The collected data shows that the approach is suitable, but that students struggle with the demand of putting an improvement plan into practice. We show which issues commonly occur in the simulations and thus allow teachers who adopt the practice to scaffold it and react accordingly, in particular to empower the students to take on responsibility for the improvement of the process.

Calculating Software Process Improvement's Return on Investment

The importance of software process improvement (SPI) is gaining increasing acknowledgement in software companies. Many companies have started SPI and try to extend it in all the functional units. However, some units may have problems initiating SPI. In this paper an initial level requirements and design practice assessment is presented. The assessment was conducted with a method that was specifically developed to pay attention to the organizational readiness for SPI and trying to obtain organizational support for it. The study summarizes the findings that establish a solid understanding of the current practices in the company, and identify concrete improvement areas. Even if the assessment method needs to be customized for each company, the case study suggests that it can help to establish a positive attitude towards SPI.

work of W. Edwards Deming has convinced industry that must first measure quality and then emphasise process to improve quality. In response to Deming's arguments and in light of perception that software industry is unable to produce quality products on schedule, and within budget, more software development organisations are now emphasising process measurement, monitoring, and assessment. This paper describes what is meant by software process and discusses an approach for its measurement and improvement. INTRODUCTION Unreliable software makes big news, from emergency services disasters to social security payment blunders. Improved software quality is essential to ensure reliable products and services, and gain customer satisfaction. While software development has existed for more than four decades, we failed so far to make as an industry and as an engineering discipline rather than craft. Developing reliable and usable software that is delivered on and within budget still represents difficult endeavour for many organisations. As role of software becomes increasingly critical for businesses as well as for human lives, problems caused by software products that are late, over budget, or that do not work, become magnified. If lives are lost or people inconvenienced due to incapable computer software, news media is there to make big stories. Organisations are realising that their fundamental problems is immaturity of their software process. Robert Lai (1993) proposes that process improvement is second maturity wave of software industry. He states that the first wave of software was developed using waterfall model in 1970's. Today we are Transactions on Information and Communications Technologies vol 8, © 1994 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3517 216 Software Management in midst of second wave maturity movement as we attempt to formally define development process and best ways to continuously improve it (Lai 1993). Taking lead in this area has been Watts Humphrey (Humphrey 1989, 1990, 1991), and Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University. SEI started in 1986 to develop process maturity framework to help organisations appraise maturity of their software process, and to provide guidance for organisations to improve their software process capability. A brief description of framework was released in September 1987, including maturity questionnaire. SEI evolved model and questionnaire into 5 -Level Capability Maturity Model (CMM) in 1991. In February 1993, released CMM version 1.1 (Paulk et al 1993). This paper discusses software process and describes capability maturity model (CMM). It also shows how CMM can be used as basis to measure maturity of software process of an organisation and plan its improvement. SOFTWARE QUALITY AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENT In his book Quality is Free Phil Crosby states that: Quality is free. It is not gift, is free. What cost money are unqualify of things all actions that involve not doing jobs right first time (Crosby 1980). If such statement is true for many disciplines, is particularly true for evidence is abundant in number of software products which exceeded their budget, were produced late, failed to satisfy user requirements, and are full of bugs. demand for improved software quality is increasing to ensure reliable products and services. benefits of improved quality comes in form of reduction in failure costs. For software projects failure costs include (DTI 1992): • costs of correcting defects, both before and after delivery • overruns against and budget • unnecessary high maintenance costs • indirect costs which users incur due to poor quality software link between process maturity and software quality is expressed in premise that The quality of software system is governed by quality of process used to develop and maintain it. One stumbling block to improving software quality seems to be that not enough attention is paid to overall development process itself. While software professionals typically devote their to developing, testing or documenting software products, no one has prime responsibility for improving software process. Experience has shown that if Transactions on Information and Communications Technologies vol 8, © 1994 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3517 Managing Systems 217 no one is working on software process, orderly improvement is unlikely. process certainly won't improve itself, rather, most likely, will deteriorate over time. Continuous improvement can occur only if process infrastructure is in place. Watts Humphrey argues in an early article published in Datamation, April 1989 that: Without work on process, there will be little or no progress in improving software. THE SOFTWARE PROCESS Adopting process view of software development represents revolutionary change in perspective. A process orientation to software development involves elements of structure, focus, measurement, ownership, skills, and supporting technology. In this section we investigate what is meant by software process. What Is Software Process According to Webster's dictionary, process is a system of operations in producing something .. series of actions, changes, or functions that achieve an end result. Chambers Concise Dictionary defines process as a series of actions or events .. sequence of operations or changes undergone. IEEE defines process as a sequence of steps performed for given purpose. In general business context, process is defined as a structured, measured set of activities designed to produce specified output for particular customer or market (Davenport 1993). These definitions put strong emphasis on HOW work is done, in contrast to product focus's emphasis on WHAT. Accordingly, process can be considered as a specific ordering of work activities across and place, with beginning, an end, and clearly identified inputs and outputs: structure for action. In this paper we will adopt following definitions quoted in (Humphrey 1990, Paulk et al 1993) are intended to encompass software throughout its life, which covers new development, enhancement, and repair. software process is The set of activities, methods, and practices used in production and evolution of software. software engineering process is The total set of software engineering activities needed to transform user's requirements into software. Transactions on Information and Communications Technologies vol 8, © 1994 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3517 218 Software Management People and Software Process Software development is still people-intensive activity. Talented people are most important element in any software organisation. Even if you get best people available, if they do not follow common process, if everyone wrote in different programming languages, used different conventions, or didn't co-ordinate their design and code changes with their peers, results will be chaos. Successful software organisations have learned that even best professionals need structured and disciplined environment in which to do cooperative work. Software organisations that do not establish such disciplines condemn their people to endless hours of repetitively solving technically trivial problems. obvious fact is that attracting best people is vital, but is also essential to support them with an effectively managed software process. Technology and Software Process Another myth is widespread belief that some technologically advanced tool or method will provide magic answer to software crisis. This is not only wrong, but is dangerous. Organisations which jumped on bandwagon of CASE tools, and ended up in failure and wasted and effort have learned their lesson hard way. Just ask yourself before introducing technology: What do I want to automate? In absence of defined, practised, and managed process, introducing automation can lead to increased chaos. There are several factors which limit effective use of software technology: an illdefined process, inconsistent process implementation, and poor process management. Software technology cannot be fully effective until these problems have been properly addressed. Need for Defined Process If no effort is made to define and enhance software development process across whole organisation, each software development project latches on to its own tools, methods, and practices with little guidance available on how to use them. This ad hoc approach will not be sufficient to tackle task of developing complex software systems. goal of software process management is to enable organisations to produce software that meets cost, schedules, and quality objectives. principles are same that underpins statistical process control-principles that have been successfully used in controlling scientific experiments and in high -volume manufacturing operations. Statistical concepts have been found to be just as applicable to software development as they are to production of manufactured goods such as motor cars. Applying such concepts will only be possible if there is defined and managed process. Software Process Models Transactions on Information and Communications Technologies vol 8, © 1994 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3517

We have conducted an empirical study with 23 Vietnamese software practitioners to determine Software Process Improvement (SPI) demotivators. We have compared the demotivators identified by the Vietnamese practitioners with the demotivators identified by UK practitioners. The main objective of this study is to provide SPI managers with insight into the nature of factors that can hinder the success of a SPI program, so that SPI managers can better manage those demotivators to maximize practitioners' support for an SPI program.We used face‐to‐face questionnaire‐based survey sessions for gathering data. We also asked the participants to rank each identified SPI demotivator on a five‐point scale (high, medium, low, zero or do not know) to determine the perceived importance of each demotivator. From this, we proposed the notion of ‘perceived value’ associated with each identified demotivator.Our findings identify the ‘high’ and ‘medium’ perceived value demotivators that can undermine SPI initiatives. The findings also show that there are differences in SPI demotivators across practitioners' groups (i.e., developers and managers) and across organisational sizes (i.e. large and small‐to‐medium). Moreover, our results reveal the similarities and differences between SPI demotivators as perceived by practitioners in Vietnam and the United Kingdom. The findings are expected to provide SPI managers with insight to design and implement suitable strategies to deal with the identified SPI demotivators. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Systematic literature review and empirical investigation of barriers to process improvement in global software development: Client–vendor perspective