Programas de Melhoria de Processos de Software: Reflexões sob a Ótica de uma Teoria de Intervenção
Resumo
Programas de Melhoria de Processos de Software (MPS) podem ser vistos como uma intervenção na organização. Pesquisas mostram que vários dos fatores críticos de sucesso em MPS são questões humanas, sociais e organizacionais. Uma Teoria de Intervenção em organizações pode contribuir significativamente ao entendimento e tratamento destas questões em programas de MPS. Este trabalho apresenta princípios de uma Teoria de Intervenção relacionando-os a fatores críticos de sucesso em MPS apontados em diversas pesquisas. Sobre isto, busca realizar algumas reflexões e indicar prescrições úteis na condução destes programas.
Palavras-chave:
Melhoria, Software, Intervenção
Referências
Abrahamsson, P. Commitment Development in Software Process Improvement: Critical Misconceptions. IEEE Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, 2000.
Abrahamsson, P. e Iivari, N. – Commitment in Software Process Improvement – In Search of the Process – IEEE - Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2002.
Arent, J. e Iversen, H. Project Assessments: Supporting Commitment, Participation, and Learning in Software Process Improvement. IEEE Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2000.
Argyris, C. e Donald, S. Theory in Practice – Increasing Professional Efectiveness. Addison–Wesley, 1974.
Argyris, C. Intervention Theory and Method: A Behavioral Science View. Addison–Wesley, 1970.
Button, G. e Sharrock, W. Occasioned practices in the work of software engineers. Em Jirotka, M. e Goguen, J. Requirements Engineering – Social and Technical Issues. Academic Press, 1994.
CMU/SEI. Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMI),Version 1.1 CMU/SEI–, 2001
El Emam, K. Goldenson, D. McCurley e J. Herbsleb, J. Success or Failure? Modeling the Likelihood of Software Process Improvement. International Software Engineering Research Network, 1998.
Fuggetta, A. Software Process: A Roadmap. The Future of Software Engineering, 2000.
Goldenson, D. e Herbsleb, J. After the Appraisal: A Systematic Survey of Process Improvement, its Benefits, and Factors that Influence Success. Technical Report CMU/SEI-95-TR-009, 1995.
Olson, T. Neal, R. Over, J. A Software Process Framework for the SEI Capability Maturity Models. CMU/SEI-94-HB-01, 1994.
Paulk, M. Curtis, B. Chrissis, M. Weber, C. Capability Maturity ModelSM for Software, Version 1.1 Technical Report - CMU/SEI-93-TR-024 ESC-TR-93-177 - February 1993.
Rainer, A. e Hall, T. Key success factors for implementing software process improvement: a maturity-based analysis. Journal of Systems and Software, 2002.
SPICE. Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination. Software Quality Institute. http://www.sqi.gu.edu.au/spice/ (último acesso em 17/03/2005).
Stelzer, D. Mellis, W. Success Factors of Organizational Change in Software Process Improvement -Software Process-Improvement and Practice, 1998 - doi.wiley.com.
The Standish Group International, Inc. Extreme Chaos. The Standish Group International, Inc. 2001.
Woolgar, S. Rethinking requirement analysis: Some implications of recent research into producer-consumer relationships in IT development. Em Jirotka, M. e Goguen, J. Requirements Engineering – Social and Technical Issues. Academic Press, 1994.
Abrahamsson, P. e Iivari, N. – Commitment in Software Process Improvement – In Search of the Process – IEEE - Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2002.
Arent, J. e Iversen, H. Project Assessments: Supporting Commitment, Participation, and Learning in Software Process Improvement. IEEE Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2000.
Argyris, C. e Donald, S. Theory in Practice – Increasing Professional Efectiveness. Addison–Wesley, 1974.
Argyris, C. Intervention Theory and Method: A Behavioral Science View. Addison–Wesley, 1970.
Button, G. e Sharrock, W. Occasioned practices in the work of software engineers. Em Jirotka, M. e Goguen, J. Requirements Engineering – Social and Technical Issues. Academic Press, 1994.
CMU/SEI. Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMI),Version 1.1 CMU/SEI–, 2001
El Emam, K. Goldenson, D. McCurley e J. Herbsleb, J. Success or Failure? Modeling the Likelihood of Software Process Improvement. International Software Engineering Research Network, 1998.
Fuggetta, A. Software Process: A Roadmap. The Future of Software Engineering, 2000.
Goldenson, D. e Herbsleb, J. After the Appraisal: A Systematic Survey of Process Improvement, its Benefits, and Factors that Influence Success. Technical Report CMU/SEI-95-TR-009, 1995.
Olson, T. Neal, R. Over, J. A Software Process Framework for the SEI Capability Maturity Models. CMU/SEI-94-HB-01, 1994.
Paulk, M. Curtis, B. Chrissis, M. Weber, C. Capability Maturity ModelSM for Software, Version 1.1 Technical Report - CMU/SEI-93-TR-024 ESC-TR-93-177 - February 1993.
Rainer, A. e Hall, T. Key success factors for implementing software process improvement: a maturity-based analysis. Journal of Systems and Software, 2002.
SPICE. Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination. Software Quality Institute. http://www.sqi.gu.edu.au/spice/ (último acesso em 17/03/2005).
Stelzer, D. Mellis, W. Success Factors of Organizational Change in Software Process Improvement -Software Process-Improvement and Practice, 1998 - doi.wiley.com.
The Standish Group International, Inc. Extreme Chaos. The Standish Group International, Inc. 2001.
Woolgar, S. Rethinking requirement analysis: Some implications of recent research into producer-consumer relationships in IT development. Em Jirotka, M. e Goguen, J. Requirements Engineering – Social and Technical Issues. Academic Press, 1994.
Publicado
06/06/2005
Como Citar
SANTANA, André Felipe Lemos; MOURA, Hermano Perrelli de.
Programas de Melhoria de Processos de Software: Reflexões sob a Ótica de uma Teoria de Intervenção. In: SIMPÓSIO BRASILEIRO DE QUALIDADE DE SOFTWARE (SBQS), 4. , 2005, Porto Alegre-RS.
Anais [...].
Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação,
2005
.
p. 117-131.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/sbqs.2005.16158.
