Software process improvement programs

What are the pitfalls that lead to abandonment?

Authors

  • Regina Albuquerque Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR)
  • Gleison Santos Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO)
  • Andreia Malucelli
  • Sheila Reinehr Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5753/jserd.2021.1944

Keywords:

Software and its engineering, Software Quality, Software Process Improvement, Abandonment of Software Process Improvement

Abstract

Software Process Improvement (SPI) based on maturity models is a well-researched theme regarding aspects such as adoption benefits, process definition, and automated support environments. However, few studies address the reasons that can lead an organization to abandon SPI. It is vital for organizations that seek to improve their processes to know what can negatively influence SPI and, thus, take actions to mitigate the risk of SPI failure, avoiding the loss of effort in the implementation stage. We present the study's results to understand how abandonment occurs in SPI programs after successful assessments based on maturity models. The research method selected was the case study due to the problem and context characteristics. Eight Brazilian software companies took part in the research. The results show that SPI initiatives failed because of internal factors (people, SPI project management, organizational aspects, and processes) and external factors to the organizational context (country economic crisis, outsourcing, governmental political influence, and external pressure from the client).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

A. Strauss; J. Corbin (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research, 2ª ed.: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, London New Delhi, 1998, 312p.

A. Uskarci; O.Demirörs (2017). Do staged maturity models result in organization-wide continuous process improvement? Insight from employees. In Computer Standards & Interfaces, v.52 p.25–40.

Anastassiu, M.; Santos, G. (2020). Resistance to Change in Software Process Improvement - An Investigation of Causes, Effects and Conducts. SBQS 2020, December, Maranhão, Brazil.

C. D. A, Almeida; A.B. Albuquerque; T. C. Macedo (2011). Analysis of the continuity of software processes execution in software organizations assessed in MPS.BR using Grounded Theor. In Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Miami, Florida, USA.

C.C. Shin; S.J. Huang (2010). Exploring the relationship between organizational culture and software process improvement deployment, In Information & Management, v.47, p.271–281.

CMMI INSTITUTE (2018). CMMI for Development v2.0. Available at: https://cmmiinstitute.com/products/cmmi/cmmi-v2-products.

D.C.C. Peixoto; V. A. Batista; R.F. Resende; C. Isaías (2010). How to Welcome Software Process Improvement and Avoid Resistance to Change, In International Conference on Software Process (ICSP), Alemanha, p.138-149.

E. D. Canedo; G. A. Santos (2019). Factors Affecting Software Development Productivity: An empirical study. SBES 2019: Proceedings of the XXXIII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, September in Brazil. p.3017-316.

F. Guerrero; Y. Eletrovic (2004). Adopting the SW-CMM in a small IT organization, In IEEE Software, v.21, n.4, July-Aug. 2004, p.29-35.

G. Coleman.; R. O'Connor (2008). Investigating software process in practice: A grounded theory perspective. Journal of Systems and Software, v.81, n5, p.772-784.

G. Nalepa, G; R.M. Fontana.; S. Reinehr.; A. Malucelli, (2019). Using Agile Approaches to Drive Software Process Improvement Initiatives. EuroSPI 2019: Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement in Edinburgh, Scotland, pp 495-506.

H. Narciso; I. Allison. I (2014). Overcoming structural resistance in SPI with Change Management. International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, p.8-17.

ISO/IEC (2015). ISO/IEC 33020:2015: Information Technology - Process Assessment – Process measurement framework for assessment of process capability, Geneve: ISO. https://www.en-standard.eu/search/?q=33020.

ISO/IEC (2017). ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2017 Systems and software engineering. Software life cycle processes.. https://www.en-standard.eu/search/?q=12207.

K. Eisenhardt (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 14. No. 4. pp. 532-550.

M. A. Montoni and A. R. C. Da Rocha. (2011). Using grounded theory to acquire knowledge about critical success factors for conducting software process improvement implementation initiatives. International Journal of Knowledge Management 7, 3 (jul 2011), 43–60. https: //doi.org/10.4018/jkm.2011070104.

M. Kalinowski.; K. Weber; N. Franco; D. Zanetti; G, Santos (2014). Results of 10 Years of Software Process Improvement in Brazil Based on the MPS-SW Model. In Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC) in Portugal, p. 28-37.

M. Sulayman; C. Urquhart; E. Mendes; S. Seidel (2012). Software process improvement success factors for small and medium Web companies: A qualitative study, In Information and Software Technology v.54, p.479–500, 2012.

P. Runeson; M. Host; A. Rainer; B. Regnell (2012) . Case Study Research in Software Engineering: Guidelines and Examples.. March 2012 256 pages.

R. Albuquerque; A. Malucelli; S. Reinehr (2018). Software Process Improvement Programs: What happens after official appraisal.: International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering in San Francisco, USA.

R. Albuquerque; R. Fontana; A. Malucelli; S. Reinehr (2019). Agile Methods and Maturity Models Assessments: What's Next? EuroSPI: Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement in Edinburgh, Scotland, pp 619-630.

R.K.Yin (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods), 4th edn. Sage Publications.

R.M. Fontana; Jr. V. Meyer; S. Reinehr; A. Malucelli (2015). Progressive outcomes: A framework for maturing in agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software. Vol. 102. pp. 88-108.

S. Reinehr; M S. P. Pessôa; R. C. B (2008). Software product lines in the financial sector in brazil. XXVIII National Congress on Production Engineering. RJ, Brazil.

Society for the Promotion of Brazilian Software Excellence – SOFTEX (2020). MPS General Guide to Software. http://www.softex.br/mpsbr.

Y. Alqadri; E. K. Budiardjo; A. Ferdinansyah; M. F. Rokhman (2020) The CMMI-Dev Implementation Factors for Software Quality Improvement: A Case of XYZ Corporation. Conference: 2nd Asia Pacific Information Technology Conference. Papes.34-40.

Downloads

Published

2021-12-13

How to Cite

Albuquerque, R., Santos, G., Malucelli, A., & Reinehr, S. (2021). Software process improvement programs: What are the pitfalls that lead to abandonment?. Journal of Software Engineering Research and Development, 9(1), 15:1 – 15:16. https://doi.org/10.5753/jserd.2021.1944

Issue

Section

Research Article