Abstract
Software development is an experimental discipline, i.e. somewhat unpredictable. This suggests that software processes improvement should be based on the continuous iteration of characterization, goal setting, selection of improved technology, monitoring and analysis of its effects. This paper describes experiences from the empirical studies in two large SPI programmes in Norway. Five main lessons were learned: 1) It is a challenge for the industrial partners to invest enough resources in SPI activities. 2) The research partners must learn to know the companies, and 3) they must work as a multi-competent and coherent unit towards them. 4) Any SPI initiative must show visible, short-term payoff. 5) Establishing a solid baseline from which to improve is unrealistic. Based on these lessons, a set of operational recommendations for other researchers in the area are proposed.
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
The President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee. Advisory Committee Interim Report to the President, p. 66 (August 1998), See http://www.itrd.gov/ac/interim/
European Commission, Information Society Technologies: A Thematic Priority for Research and Development. – 2003–2004 Work Programme, p. 90, See http://fp6.cordis.lu/fp6
Paulk, M.C., Weber, C.V., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B.: The Capability Maturity Model for Software: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. SEI Series in Software Engineering, p. 640. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)
Haase, V., Messnarz, R., Koch, G., Kugler, H.J., Decrinis, P.: BOOTSTRAP: Fine-Tuning Process Assessment. IEEE Software 11(4), 25–35 (1994)
SPICE, Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination (1998), See on-line version on http://www.sqi.gu.edu.au/spice/
Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G.: Improving Software Quality by Reusing Knowledge and Experience. Sloan Management Review 37(1), 55–64 (Fall 1995)
Edwards Deming, W.: Out of the crisis, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)
Curtis, B.: The Global Pursuit of Process Maturity. IEEE Software 17(4), 76–78 (2000) (introduction to special issue on SPI results)
Dybå, T.: Improvisation in Small Software Organizations: Implications for Software Process Improvement. IEEE Software 17(5), 82–87 (2000)
Ward, R.P., Fayad, M.E., Laitinen, M.: Thinking objectively: Software Improvement in the Small. Comm. of ACM 44(4), 105–107 (2001)
Rifkin, S.: Discipline of Market Leaders and Other Accelerators to Measurement. In: Proc. 24th Annual NASA-SEL Software Engineering Workshop (on CD-ROM), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA, December 1-2, p. 6 (1999)
Stålhane, T., Wedde, K.J.: SPI–Why isn.t it more used? In: Proc. EuroSPI 1999, Pori, Finland, October 26–27, p. 13 (1999)
Cattaneo, F., Fuggetta, A., Sciuto, D.: Pursuing Coherence in Software Process Assessment and Improvement. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 6(1), 3–22 (2001)
Arisholm, E., Anda, B., Jørgensen, M., Sjøberg, D.: Guidelines on Conducting Software Process Improvement Studies in Industry. In: Proc. 22nd IRIS Conference (Information Systems Research Seminar In Scandinavia), Keuruu, Finland, August 7-10, pp. 87–102 (1999)
Conradi, R., Fuggetta, A.: Improving Software Process Improvement. IEEE Software 19(4), 92–99 (2002)
Basili, V.R., McGarry, F.E., Pajerski, R., Zelkowitz, M.V.: Lessons Learned from 25 Years of Process Improvement: The Rise and Fall of the NASA Software Engineering Laboratory. In: Proc. 24th Int.l Conference on Software Engineering, Orlando, Florida, USA, May 19-25, pp. 69–79. ACM/IEEE-CS Press (2002)
Consolini, L., Fonade, G.: The European Systems and Software Initiative – ESSI: A review of Current Results. Final Version, The European Commission’s Directorate General III, Industry (1997), See http://www.cordis.lu/esprit/src/stessi.htm
Conradi, R.: SPIQ: A Revised Agenda for Software Process Support. In: Montangero, C. (ed.) EWSPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1149, pp. 36–41. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)
Dybå, T., et al.: SPIQ metodebok for prosessforbedring (V3, in Norwegian), UiO/SINTEF/NTNU, p. 250 (January 14, 2000), ISSN 0802-6394, See also http://www.geomatikk.no/spiq
Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.-D.: The Goal Question Metric Paradigm. In: [22], pp. 528–532 (1994)
Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.-D.: The Experience Factory. In: [22], pp. 469–476 (1994)
Marciniak, J.J. (ed.): Encyclopedia of Software Engineering – Set, vol. 2. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1994)
Greenwood, D.J., Levin, M.: Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. Thousand Oaks, California (1998)
Dybå, T., Dingsøyr, T., Moe, N.B.: Praktisk prosessforbedring. Fagbokforlaget, p. 116 (in Norwegian, the PROFIT method book) ISBN 82-7674-914-3, See also http://www.geomatikk.no/profit
Dybå, T.: An Instrument for Measuring the Key Factors of Success in Software Process Improvement. Journal of Empirical Software Engineering 5(4), 357–390 (2000)
Dybå, T.: Enabling Software Process Improvement: An Investigation of the Importance of Organizational Issues, PhD Thesis, NTNU 2001:101, p. 332 (November 5, 2001), ISBN 82-471-5371-8, See http://www.idi.ntnu.no/grupper/su/publ/pdf/dybaa-dring-thesis-2001.pdf
El-Emam, K., Goldenson, D., McCurley, J., Herbsleb, J.: Modelling the Likelihood of Software Process Improvement: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Empirical Software Engineering 6(3), 207–229 (2001)
Cusumano, M.A.: Japan’s Software Factories. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1991)
Brown, J.S., Duguid, P.: Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organization Science 2(1), 40–57 (1991)
Conradi, R., Lindvall, M., Seaman, C.: Success Factors for Software Experience Bases: What We Need to Learn from Other Disciplines. In: Singer, J., et al. (eds.) Proc. ICSE’2000 Workshop on Beg, Borrow or Steal: Using Multi-disciplinary Approaches in Empirical Software Engineering Research, Limerick, Ireland, June 5, pp. 113–119 (2000)
Conradi, R., Dybå, T.: An Empirical study on the utility of formal routines to transfer knowledge and experience. In: Gruhn, V. (ed.) Proc. European Software Engineering Conference 2001 (ESEC 2001), Vienna, September 10-14, pp. 268–276. ACM/IEEE CS Press (2001) ACM Order no. 594010, ISBN 1-58113-390-1
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Conradi, R., Dybå, T., Sjøberg, D.I.K., Ulsund, T. (2003). Lessons Learned and Recommendations from Two Large Norwegian SPI Programmes. In: Oquendo, F. (eds) Software Process Technology. EWSPT 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2786. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45189-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45189-1_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-40764-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45189-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive