skip to main content
10.1145/3229345.3229397acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbsiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

SCBAM-B: A C2M Based Assessment Method for Identifying the Maturity of Communication in Distributed Software Development

Published:04 June 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Context: One of the leading challenges in Distributed Software Development (DSD) is to communicate correctly and promptly, as factors such as physical distance and lack of face-to-face contact can hinder this process. In this context, the Communication Maturity Model (C2M) was proposed as an option to support the improvement of communication in DSD. But this maturity model could not be effectively used in organizations, due to the absence a specific C2M based assessment method. Objective: This work aims to present the Standard C2M Based Assessment Method (SCBAM) in its basic dimension, the Basic Standard C2M Based Assessment Method (SCBAM-B). An assessment method to determine the maturity level of communication in DSD organizations, based on the C2M model. Method: The SCBAM-B was designed according to a methodology that included a review of the DSD literature, maturity and capacity models, evaluation methods, the development of a software tool, and evaluation with experts. Results: The SCBAM-B was perceived by experts as a relevant approach for assessing the communication level in organizations and propose a path for improvements. Conclusions: For being lightweight and capable of automation, the SCBAM-B has the potential to help the communication improvement in DSD organizations, in the light of the C2M model.

References

  1. J Alonso and I Martínez De Soria. 2010. Enterprise Collaboration Maturity Model (ECMM): Preliminary Definition and Future Challenges. In Enterprise Interoperability IV: Making the Internet of the Future for the Future of Enterprise (1 ed.). Springer London, London, UK, 429--438.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Alessandra Anacleto. 2004. Método e Modelo de Avaliação para Melhoria de Processos de Software em Micro e Pequenas Empresas. Ph.D. Dissertation. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciência da Computação) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Y. Baruch and B. C. Holtom. 2008. Survey Response Rate Levels and Trends in Organizational Research. Human Relations 61, 8 (2008), 1139--1160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Erran Carmel. 1999. Global Software Teams: Colloborating Across Borders and Time Zones. Prentice Hall. 269 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. CMMI. 2010. CMMI for Development, Version 1.3. (2010), 482 pages. http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset{_}files/TechnicalReport/2010{_}005{_}001{_}15287.pdfhttp://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetID=8091Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. G. Cuevas, A. Serrano, and A. Serrano. 2004. Assessment of The Requirements Management Process Using a Two-Stage Questionnaire. In International Conference on Quality Software - QSIC. IEEE, Braunschweig, 110--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D.E. Damian and D. Zowghi. 2002. The Impact of Stakeholders' Geographical Distribution on Managing Requirements in a Multi-Site Organization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Requirements Engineering. IEEE, Essen, Germany, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 3 (1989), 319--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ivaldir H. de Farias Junior, Luan Duarte, Joao Paulo N. De Oliveira, Ari'dnes R.N. Dantas, Jefferson F. Barbosa, and Hermano P. De Moura. 2012. Motivational Factors for Distributed Software Development Teams. In International Conference on Global Software Engineering Workshops. IEEE, Porto Alegre, 49--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ivaldir H De Farias Junior. 2014. C2M - A Communication Maturity Model for Distributed Software Development. Doctoral dissertation. Informatics Center (CIn), UFPE University. http://www.repositorio.ufpe.br/handle/123456789/12140Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Rafael Audy Glanzner. 2012. 2DAM-WAVE - Um Método de Avaliação Parao Modelo de Capacidade WAVE. Ph.D. Dissertation. Dissertação (Mestrado em engenharia de software) - Faculdade de Informática - Pontifícia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul. http://repositorio.pucrs.br/dspace/handle/10923/7032Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. J Herbsleb, J D Herbsleb, D Moitra, and D Moitra. 2001. Global Software Development. IEEE software 18, 4 (2001), 16--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Haiyan Huang and Eileen M Trauth. 2007. Cultural Influences and Globally Distributed Information Systems Development: Experiences from Chinese IT Professionals. CACM (2007), 36--45. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1235000.1235008 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Elaine B Hyder, Keith M Heston, Bill Hefley, and Mark C Paulk. 2006. eSourcing Capability Model for Service Providers (eSCM-SP) (1 ed.). Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel, Pittsburgh, United States. 337 pages. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en{&}lr={&}id=K8mk9KJ3v7cC{&}pgis=1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO/IEC. 1998. ISO/iEC TR 15504-1. Technical Report. 22 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Nelson Leitão Júnior, Ivaldir Farias Junior, Sabrina Marczak, Rodrigo Santos, and Felipe Furtado. 2015. Identifying the Maturity of Communication Processes in Distributed Software Development: A Preliminary Study of Four Software Organizations. In Workshop Anual do MPS (WAMPS). SOFTEX, Curitiba, Brazil, 49--60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Nelson G. de Sá Leitão Júnior. 2016. SCBAM - Um método de avaliação para o modelo de maturidade C2M. Master's Dissertation. CESAR School, Recife, Brazil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Saul McLeoud. 2008. Likert Scale. (2008). http://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Duncan D. Nulty. 2008. The Adequacy of Response Rates to Online and Paper Surveys: What Can be Done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33, 3 (2008), 301--314.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Dewayne E. Perry, Nancy a. Staudenmeyer, and Lawrence G. Votta. 1994. People, organizations, and process improvement. IEEE Software 11, 4 (1994), 36--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Alain Pinsonneault and Kenneth L. Kraemer. 1993. Survey Research Mthodology in Management Information Systems: An Assessment. eScholarship 1, 1 (1993), 43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Darci Prado. 2002. MMGP: Um Modelo Brasileiro de Maturidade em Gerenciamento de Projetos. (2002), 5 pages. http://www.maturityresearch.com/novosite/2005/downloads/Modelo{_}PradoMMGP{_}V3{_}TextoDescritivo.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Rafael Prikladnicki. 2009. Padrões de Evolução na Prática de Desenvolvimento Distribuído de Software em Ambientes de Internal Offshoring: Um Modelo de Capacidade. Ph.D. Dissertation. Tese (Doutorado em Ciência da Computação) - Faculdade de Informática - Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. SCAMPI. 2011. Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) Version 1.3a: Method Definition Document for SCAMPI A, B, and C. (2011), 250 pages. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/11hb001.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Suprika Vasudeva Shrivastava and Urvashi Rathod. 2014. Risks in Distributed Agile Development: A Review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 133 (2014), 417--424.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. SOFTEX. 2012. MPS.BR - Melhoria de Processo do Software Brasileiro - Guia Geral MPS de Software. (2012). http://www.softex.br/mpsbr/{_}guias/guias/MPS.BR{_}Guia{_}Geral{_}Software{_}2012.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. SOFTEX. 2013. MPS.BR - Melhoria de Processo do Software Brasileiro, Guia de Avaliação. (2013). http://www.softex.br/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/MPS.BR{_}Guia{_}de-Avaliacao{_}2013.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. CMMI Product Team. 2006. CMMI for Development, version 1.2. (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Antônio Rafael da Rosa Techio. 2014. Sistematização das Evidências Empíricas em Desenvolvimento Distribuído de Software. Ph.D. Dissertation. Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Stuart Watt, Claire Simpson, Chris McKillop, and Viv Nunn. 2002. Electronic Course Surveys: Does Automating Feedback and Reporting Give Better Results? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 27, 4 (aug 2002), 325--337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Roberto Zanoni and Jorge Luis Nicolas Audy. 2003. Project Management Model for a Physically Distributed Software Development Environment. In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, Big Island. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. SCBAM-B: A C2M Based Assessment Method for Identifying the Maturity of Communication in Distributed Software Development

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          SBSI '18: Proceedings of the XIV Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems
          June 2018
          578 pages
          ISBN:9781450365598
          DOI:10.1145/3229345

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 4 June 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate181of557submissions,32%
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader