Supplementing the capability maturity model with the personal software process

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

As the processing power of computers has increased, more complex and larger problems have been introduced. The lack of a disciplined approach to the solution of such problems has created a situation referred to as the crisis. That is, software products have been behind schedule, over budget and unreliable. The Software Engineering Institute (SEI), through the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), has addressed a software organization's capability with five maturity levels. CMM is based on a team approach to software production. Watts Humphrey, in the Personal Software Process (PSP) concept, addresses the roles and processes that individual team members should follow in order to be an effective member of a team. PSP is being taught to software engineers in different industries and also to graduate students in mainly Master of Software Engineering (MSE) programs. In their experiment the authors started teaching a simplified version of PSP to freshmen in the Computer Science program. The result of the experiment has shown that the students have gained better time management and defect management skills, which are the basis for more effective software production. The paper describes how to incorporate a disciplined software development process into the first introductory computer science programming courses, with the major emphasis on the first course. They share some of their initial results.

The Team Software Process (TSP) SM (Team Software Process and TSP are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University.) guides engineering teams in developing software‐intensive products. Early experience with the TSP shows that its use improves the quality and productivity of engineering teams while helping them to more precisely meet cost and schedule commitments. The TSP is designed for use with teams of 2–20 members, and the larger multi‐team TSPm SM (Multi‐team Team Software Process and TSPm are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University.) process is designed for teams of up to about 150 members. While TSP versions are planned for larger projects, they are not available at the time of this writing. This article describes the TSP and how it was developed. Starting with a brief background discussion of software quality, the article provides an overview of the basic elements of teamwork. It then describes the relationships among the TSP, PSP SM , (The Personal Software Process and PSP are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University.) and CMM® (Capability Maturity Model and CMM are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.) process improvement initiatives. The article also describes how the TSP was developed, the TSP process structure, launching a TSP team, the TSP teamworking process, and the issues and methods for introducing the TSP. The article concludes with a review of TSP experience, current status, and trends.

The Personal Software Process (PSP) is launched as a means for improving software development capabilities for the individual engineer. It is proposed that it should be used in software engineering curricula: some authors propose it to be used already during the first student year: The PSP course is successfully given for graduate students at Lund University since 1996. During the spring semester of 1999, it was given to undergraduate students at the Software Engineering program in their first year of university studies, directly after their first programming course. This paper reports results and experiences from the course given to these freshmen students. A quantitative analysis is conducted to compare the freshmen student data to data from graduate student courses, and a qualitative evaluation is conducted concerning the differences between the courses. It can be concluded that mostly the same improvement trends can be identified with freshmen students as with graduate students. However, the qualitative analysis shows that the freshmen students are more concerned with programming than with the Software process issues. Based on the results, it is decided to move the PSP course to the second year in order to enable the programming skills to be better established before the PSP is launched.

The personal software process is a process improvement methodology aimed at individual software engineers. It claims to improve software quality (in particular defect content), effort estimation capability, and process adaptation and improvement capabilities. We have tested some of these claims in an experiment comparing the performance of participants who had just previously received a PSP course to a different group of participants who had received other technical training instead. Each participant of both groups performed the same task. We found the following positive effects: the PSP group estimated their productivity (though not their effort) more accurately, made fewer trivial mistakes, and their programs performed more careful error-checking; further, the performance variability was smaller in the PSP group in various respects. However, the improvements are smaller than the PSP proponents usually assume, possibly due to the low actual usage of PSP techniques in the PSP group. We conjecture that PSP training alone does not automatically realize the PSP's potential benefits (as seen in some industrial PSP success stories) when programmers are left alone with motivating themselves to actually use the PSP techniques.

The Personal Software Process (PSP) is used by software engineers to gather and analyze data about their work. Published studies typically use data collected using the PSP to draw quantitative conclusions about its impact upon programmer behavior and product quality. However, our experience using PSP in both industrial and academic settings revealed problems both in collection of data and its later analysis. We hypothesized that these two kinds of data quality problems could make a significant impact upon the value of PSP measures. To test this hypothesis, we built a tool to automate the PSP and then examined 89 projects completed by ten subjects using the PSP manually in an educational setting. We discovered 1539 primary errors and categorized them by type, subtype, severity, and age. To examine the collection problem we looked at the 90 errors that represented impossible combinations of data and at other less concrete anomalies in Time Recording Logs and Defect Recording Logs. To examine the analysis problem we developed a rule set, corrected the errors as far as possible, and compared the original and corrected data. This resulted in significant differences for measures such as yield and the cost-performance ratio, confirming our hypothesis. Our results raise questions about the accuracy of manually collected and analyzed PSP data, indicate that integrated tool support may be required for high quality PSP data analysis, and suggest that external measures should be used when attempting to evaluate the impact of the PSP upon programmer behavior and product quality.

Problem statement: Modern system development emphasize on the use of standard and procedures to ensure the system develop meets user needs and of high quality. Standards such as Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), Software Process Improvement and Capability determination (SPICE) and ISO/IEC 90003:2004 are introduced. Personal Software Process (PSP) focusing on improving the individual engineer tasks in software development activities and can be extended to Team development (TSP) of large-scale software systems. Approach: To ensure the quality of system, defect must be managed or organized properly. Knowledge Management (KM) provides a solution to manage and promoting shared defect-information as knowledge. Agents technology offer a way to deal with complex systems that have multiple and distinct components and are often used as a metaphor for autonomous, intelligent entities. Results: Agent technology is also used to enhance a Knowledge Management System (KMS) based on software agent application strategies to increase the performance of knowledge sharing and its utilization. Conclusion: This study presents an agent-based application strategy in a KMS that manages defect-information as knowledge and shares it amongst software engineers who are majoring involved in PSP and TSP system development environment.

Mobile healthcare systems are currently considered as key research areas in the domain of software engineering. The adoption of modern technologies, for mobile healthcare systems, is a quick option for industry professionals. Software architecture is a key feature that contributes towards a software product, solution, or services. Software architecture helps in better communication, documentation of design decisions, risks identification, basis for reusability, scalability, scheduling, and reduced maintenance cost and lastly it helps to avoid software failures. Hence, in order to solve the abovementioned issues in mobile healthcare, the software architecture is integrated with personal software process. Personal software process has been applied successfully but it is unable to address the issues related to architectural design and evaluation capabilities. Hence, a new technique architecture augmented personal process is presented in order to enhance the quality of the mobile healthcare systems through the use of architectural design with integration of personal software process. The proposed process was validated by case studies. It was found that the proposed process helped in reducing the overall costs and effort. Moreover, an improved architectural design helped in development of high quality mobile healthcare system.

The personal software process (PSP) has been developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) to address the improvement needs of individual software engineers. It should also be of help to small projects and modest-sized software organizations. In a one-semester graduate-level course, engineers are introduced to measurement, planning, and quality control methods. A defined sequence of programming exercises are used to illustrate these methods and the exercise data are used to provide the students with feedback on their performance. The PSP course has been taught at five universities at both the graduate and senior undergraduate level. Various PSP introduction methods have also been tried at four industrial organizations, but the course format has also been found most effective. Results to date indicate that PSP training motivates engineers to use disciplined methods and it helps them to achieve significant quality and productivity improvements. While PSP principles have been demonstrated with software engineering students, their effectiveness has not yet been measured in industrial practice. This paper describes the PSP process, the strategic approach and experience to date.

The personal software process (PSP) has been developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) to address the need for process improvement in small organizations and projects. Its principal focus is to help individual software engineers and small software teams to improve their performance. The PSP provides engineers with a defined sequence of improvement actions and explicit feedback on their performance at each step. This helps them to improve the quality of their work and to understand the effectiveness of the methods they use. A PSP course has been developed to show students how to define, measure, analyze, and improve their personal software development practices. This graduate or senior level undergraduate course is currently being taught at six universities. The PSP is also being tested at four industrial software organizations. Early results indicate that the method effectively motivates engineers to use a disciplined personal process and to strive for personal process improvement.

Software process management of top companies in Taiwan: A comparative study

The Software Engineering Institute's Softwares Process Maturity Model was developed to provide a basis for assessing an organization's ability to perform software engineering activities. It also provides a guide for improving an organization's software engineering capability. The maturity model was designed on the basis of concepts associated with developing new, large, complex systems. This has led to difficulties in applying the model to organizations involved entirely in software maintenance. The author addresses the tailoring issues encountered in applying the software maturity model to a large maintenance organization at Paramax Space Systems Operation. It is concluded that the issues that arise when the Capability Maturity Model is applied to a software sustaining engineering organization are significant but do not prohibit the use of the model as a guide for software process improvement. Issues mainly arise with the treatment requirements and differences in project management needs. The primary tailoring issues are ones of wording as opposed to applicability to maintenance activities. >

In November 1998, the CSC SEAS Center became the sixth organization in the world ever to have attained the rating of Capability Maturity Model (CMM) CMM Level 5.This achievement was the culmination of an aggressive process improvement initiative which began in mid-1994. The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) CMM(Reference 1) is a worldwide recognized benchmark for software organizations, used to assess the maturity and quality of an organization's software process. The SEAS Center has twice reaffirmed its high maturity performance by independent assessments. Since the start of the focused improvement program in 1994, detailed records of cost, impacts, activities and overall approach have been captured, tracked, and analyzed so that other CSC programs could capitalize on the SEAS efforts and experiences. This paper is a direct result of the collection and analysis of that process experience data.After a brief overview of the SEAS organization and its aggressive process improvement approach, this paper describes the coordination of improvement initiatives, the role of goals and industry benchmarks, the organizational strategy, and the use of key documents in measuring improvements. Additional discussion covers the investment and benefits of an improvement program. Finally, based on the SEAS experience, the paper presents seven key recommendations for any organization planning to initiate a process improvement program.

Any software engineer with a working experience greater than a few months knows about the problems that projects face to reach the planned goals, on-time and on-budget, and that when they are not cancelled. When thinking about software process improvement, several methodologies can be found on the literature. In this paper, we will talk about how to employ these tools in a specific case, a R&D centre where already exist a quality culture and some tools to reach it. Despite this, their software projects suffer from the same general illness of over-budgeting and delaying. The method we propose is based in the Personal Software Process (PSP), that differentiates itself from other process improvement systems -more focused on the company's general structure and organizational issues-in that it deals with the personal and individual work of the developer. Based on previous experiences on the use of PSP and taking into account the particular characteristics of the workplace we are studying, some tools are proposed and described along with a process for their introduction.

The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) was developed by the Software Engineering Insitute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University to provide a methodology for assessing an organization's capability in software engineering. The paper presents an attempt to generalize the CMM from software engineering to systems engineering. Starting from an overview and comparison of systems and software engineering disciplines, a brief summary of the original CMM is provided. The authors analyze if and how its criteria and key areas are transferrable to systems engineering. Allowing for the differences between the systems and software engineering processes, they propose the modifications necessary to adapt and generalize the SEI methodology accordingly. As a result the outline of a Systems Engineering Maturity Model is presented.