Abstract
There is a need for small indigenous software companies to improve their software process. Consequently, much has been written highlighting the deficiencies in the more popular Software Process Improvement (SPI) models where the small company is concerned. However, there has been little discussion about the characteristics that should be included in SPI models to make them useful for the small company. In this paper, the author proposes an SPI model for use in small software development companies. The eight characteristics that were required to exist in the model are examined and reasons for their successful inclusion presented.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akao, Y. 1990. QFD, Integrating Customer Requirements into Product Design, U.S.A., Productivity Press.
Buchman, C.D. and Bramble, L.K. 1995. Three-tiered software process assessment hierarchy, Software Process—Improvement and Practice. 1(2): 99–106.
Cohen, L. 1995. Quality Function Deployment, How to Make QFD Work for You, U.S.A., Addison-Wesley.
Combelles, A. and DeMarco, T. 1998. Viewpoint, Software in Focus, ESSI News Project Team, Issue 1, March.
El Eman, K., Lionel, B., and Smith, R. 1996. Assessor Agreement in Rating SPICE Processes, Software Process Improvement and Practice. 2(4): 291–306.
Fortuna, R.M. 1988. Beyond quality: Taking SPC upstream, Quality Progress, June, pp.23–28.
Geyres, S., Bazzana, G., and Deler, G. 1997. Exchanging SPI experience across SMEs by internet conferencing. Proc. SPI '97, Barcelona, Spain.
Hauser, J.R.and Clausing, D. 1988. The house of quality, Harvard Business Rev., May–June, pp. 63–73.
Horvat, R.V., Rozman, I., and Gyorkos, J. 2000. Managing the complexity of SPI in small companies, Software Process—Improvement and Practice, 5(1):45–54.
Kilpi, T. 1997. Product management challenge to software change process: Preliminary results from three SMEs experiment, Software Process—Improvement and Practice. 3(3): 165–175.
Kuvaja, P., Jouni S., Krzanik, K., Bicego, A., Koch, G., and Saukkonen, S. 1994. Software Processes Assessment and Improvement: The BOOTSTRAP Approach, U.K., Blackwell Publishers.
Mazur, G. 1994. QFD for Small Business—A shortcut through the 'Maze of Matrices', Trans.from the Sixth Symp. on Quality Function Deployment, Novi, Michigan, pp. 375–386.
McIver Consulting. 1998. Manpower, Education and Training Study of the Irish Software Sector. Report submitted to the Software Training Advisory Committee and FAS, Dublin, Ireland.
National Competitiveness Council. 1999. Annual Competitiveness Report, Dublin, Ireland.
National Software Directorate. 1998. Irish Software Industry Survey Results, Dublin, Ireland.
Richardson, I., Ryan, K., and Murphy, E. 2002. Development of a generic quality function deployment matrix, Quality Management J. 9(2): 25–43.
Stevenson, H.H. 1989. Defining corporate strengths and weaknesses, D. Asch and C. Bowman (Eds.), Readings in Strategic Management, London, Macmillan in association with the Open University, pp. 162–176.
Zahran, S. 1998. Software Process Improvement, Practical Guidelines for Business Success, U.K., Addison-Wesley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Richardson, I. SPI Models: What Characteristics are Required for Small Software Development Companies?. Software Quality Journal 10, 101–114 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020519822806
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020519822806