Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

Aggregating viewpoints for strategic software process improvement—a method and a case study

Aggregating viewpoints for strategic software process improvement—a method and a case study

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
£12.50
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Name:*
Email:*
Your details
Name:*
Email:*
Department:*
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
 
 
 
 
 
IEE Proceedings - Software — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

Decisions regarding strategic software process improvement (SPI) are generally based on the management's viewpoint of the situation, and in some cases also the viewpoints of some kind of an SPI group. This may result in strategies which are not accepted throughout the organisation, as the views of how the process is functioning are different throughout the company. A method for identifying the major factors affecting a process-improvement goal and how the perception of the importance of the factors varies throughout the organisation are described The method lets individuals from the whole development organisation rate the expected effect of these factors from their own viewpoint. In this way the strategic SPI decision can be taken using input from the entire organisation, and any discrepancies in the ratings can also give important SPI- decision information. The method is applied to a case study performed at Fuji Xerox, Tokyo. In the case study, significantly different profiles of the factor ratings came from management compared with those from the engineering staff. This result can be used to support the strategy decision as such, but also to anchor the decision in the organisation.

References

    1. 1)
      • R.K. Yin . (1994) Case study research design and methods.
    2. 2)
      • Herbsleb, J.D., Goldeson, D.R.: `A systematic survey of CMM experience and results', Presented at 18th International Conference on Software engineering, ICSE'96, 1996, IEEE Computer Society Press.
    3. 3)
      • J. Karlsson , K. Ryan . A cost-value approach for prioritising requirements. IEEE Softw. , 67 - 74
    4. 4)
      • F. Cattaneo , A. Fuggetta , D. Sciuto . Pursuing coherence in software process assessment and improvement. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. , 3 - 22
    5. 5)
      • C. Wohlin , P. Runeson , M. Höst , M. Ohlsson , B. Regnell , A. Wesslén . (2000) Introduction to experimentation in software engineering.
    6. 6)
      • Bratthall, L., Wohlin, C.: `Understanding some software quality aspects from architecture and design descriptions', Proceedings of the International Workshop on Program comprehension, 2000, p. 27–36.
    7. 7)
      • T.L. Satty . (1980) The analytic hierarchy process.
    8. 8)
      • R. Van Solingen , E. Berghout . (1999) The goal/question/metric method.
    9. 9)
      • http://www.focalpoint.se/index_eng.html, home page of Focal Point AB. Accessed 2nd March 2002.
    10. 10)
      • S. McConnell . (1998) Software project survival guide.
    11. 11)
      • S. Siegel , N.J. Castellan . (1998) Nonparametric statistics.
    12. 12)
      • Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V.: `Capability maturity model for software, version 1.1', CMU/SEI-93-TR-24, Feb. 1993.
    13. 13)
      • R.H. Thayer , R.H. Thayer . (2000) Software engineering project management, Software engineering project management.
    14. 14)
      • S. Bandinelli , A. Fuggetta , L. Lavazza , M. Loi , G.P. Picco . Modelling and improving an industrial software process. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. , 5 , 440 - 454
    15. 15)
      • E. Forman , K. Peniwati . Aggregating individual judgements and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. Euro. J. Oper. Res. , 165 - 169
    16. 16)
      • W.S. Humphrey . (1995) A discipline for software engineering.
    17. 17)
      • D.C. Montgomery . (2001) Design and analysis of experiments.
    18. 18)
      • I. Sommerville , P. Sawyer , S. Viller . Managing process inconsistencies using viewpoints. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. , 6 , 784 - 799
    19. 19)
      • W. Humphrey . (1989) Managing the software process.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/ip-sen_20020696
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/ip-sen_20020696
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address