Abstract
In response to the increasingly challenging task of developing software, many companies turn to Software Process Improvement (SPI). One of many factors that SPI depends on is user (staff) involvement, which is complicated by the fact that process users may differ in viewpoints and priorities. In this paper, we present a case study in which we performed a pre-SPI examination of process users’ viewpoints and priorities with respect to their roles. The study was conducted by the means of a questionnaire sent out to the process users. The analysis reveals differences among roles regarding priorities, in particular for product managers and designers, but not regarding viewpoints. This indicates that further research should investigate in which situations roles are likely to differ and in which they are likely to be similar. Moreover, since we initially expected both viewpoints and priorities to differ, it indicates that it is important to cover these aspects in SPI, and not only rely on expectations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aaen, I.: Software Process Improvement: Blueprints versus Recipes. IEEE Software 20, 86–92 (2003)
Baddoo, N., Hall, T.: De-motivators for software process improvement: an analysis of practitioners’ views. Journal of Systems and Software 66, 23–33 (2003)
Basili, V., Green, S.: Software Process Evolution at the SEL. IEEE Software 11, 58–66 (1994)
Berander, P., Wohlin, C.: Differences in Views between Development Roles in Software Process Improvement – A Quantitative Comparison. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2004), Edinburgh, Scotland, pp. 57–66 (2004)
Clements, P., Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Garlan, D., Ivers, J., Little, R., Nord, R., Stafford, J.: Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)
Conradi, R., Dybå, T.: An Empirical Study on the Utility of Formal Routines to Transfer Knowledge and Experience. ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE, 268–276 (2001)
Duda, R.O., Hart, P.E.: Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1973)
Fowler, M.: Who Needs an Architect? IEEE Software 20, 11–13 (2003)
Garson, G. D.: PA 765 Statnotes: An Online Textbook. North Carolina State University, http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm (last checked March 3, 2005)
Hall, T., Wilson, D.: Views of software quality: a field report. IEE Proceedings on Software Engineering 144, 111–118 (1997)
Hofmeister, C., Nord, R., Soni, D.: Applied Software Architecture. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)
Humphrey, W.: Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1989)
Jönsson, P., Wohlin, C.: An Evaluation of k-Nearest Neighbour Imputation Using Likert Data. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS 2004), Chicago IL USA, pp. 108–118 (2004)
Karlström, D., Runeson, P., Wohlin, C.: Aggregating Viewpoints for Strategic Software Process Improvement – a Method and a Case Study. IEE Proceedings on Software Engineering 149, 143–152 (2002)
Klappholz, D., Bernstein, L., Port, D.: Assessing Attitude Towards, Knowledge of, and Ability to Apply, Software Development Process. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET 2003), Madrid, Spain, pp. 268–278 (2003)
Lehmann, D.R., Winer, R.S.: Product Management, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2002)
McFeeley, B.: IDEALSM: A User’s Guide for Software Process Improvement. Handbook CMU/SEI-96-HB-001. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (1996)
Nicholas, J.M.: Project Management for Business and Technology: Principles and Practise, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2001)
Pfleeger, S.L.: Software Engineering: Theory and Practise, Intl. edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)
PROFES User Manual – Final Version (1999), http://www.vtt.fi/ele/profes/PUMv10.pdf (last checked March 3, 2005)
Rainer, A., Hall, T.: Key Success Factors for Implementing Software Process Improvement: a Maturity-Based Analysis. Journal of Systems and Software 62, 71–84 (2002)
Robson, C.: Real World Research, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, Malden (2002)
Siegel, S., Castellan Jr., N.J.: Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, Intl. edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1988)
Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 6th edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)
Svahnberg, M.: A Study on Agreement Between Participants in an Architecture Assessment. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE 2003), Rome, Italy, pp. 61–71 (2003)
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)
Zahran, S.: Software Process Improvement: Practical Guidelines for Business Success. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Jönsson, P., Wohlin, C. (2005). Understanding the Importance of Roles in Architecture-Related Process Improvement – A Case Study. In: Bomarius, F., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds) Product Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3547. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11497455_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11497455_28
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-26200-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31640-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)