article

Identifying high perceived value practices of CMMI level 2: An empirical study

Authors:

Muhammad Ali BabarAuthors Info & Claims

Information and Software Technology, Volume 51, Issue 8

Pages 1231 - 1243

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.03.001

Published: 01 August 2009 Publication History

Abstract

Objective: In this paper, we present findings from an empirical study that was aimed at identifying the relative ''perceived value'' of CMMI level 2 specific practices based on the perceptions and experiences of practitioners of small and medium size companies. The objective of this study is to identify the extent to which a particular CMMI practice is used in order to develop a finer-grained framework, which encompasses the notion of perceived value within specific practices. Method: We used face-to-face questionnaire based survey sessions as the main approach to collecting data from 46 software development practitioners from Malaysia and Vietnam. We asked practitioners to choose and rank CMMI level 2 practices against the five types of assessments (high, medium, low, zero or do not know). From this, we have proposed the notion of 'perceived value' associated with each practice. Results: We have identified three 'requirements management' practices as having a 'high perceived value'. The results also reveal the similarities and differences in the perceptions of Malaysian and Vietnamese practitioners with regard to the relative values of different practices of CMMI level 2 process areas. Conclusions: Small and medium size companies should not be seen as being ''at fault'' for not adopting CMMI - instead the Software Process Improvement (SPI) implementation approaches and its transition mechanisms should be improved. We argue that research into ''tailoring'' existing process capability maturity models may address some of the issues of small and medium size companies.

References

[1]

M. Ali-Babar, L. Bass, I. Gorton, Factors influencing industrial practices of software architecture evaluation: an empirical investigation, in: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Quality of Software Architectures (QoSA), 2007.

[2]

Ashrafi, N., The impact of software process improvement on quality: in theory and practice. Information & Management. v40 i7. 677-690.

[3]

Baddoo, N. and Hall, T., De-Motivators of software process improvement: an analysis of practitioner's views. Journal of Systems and Software. v66 i1. 23-33.

[4]

Barry, E.J., Mukhopadhyay, T. and Slaughter, S.A., Software project duration and effort: an empirical study. Information Technology and Management. v3 i1-2. 113-136.

[5]

Batista, J. and Dias, D.F., Software process improvement in a very small team: a case with CMM. Software Process - Improvement and Practice. i5. 243-250.

[6]

Beecham, S., Hall, T. and Rainer, A., Software process problems in twelve software companies: an empirical analysis. Empirical Software Engineering. v8. 7-42.

[7]

Biffl, S., Aurum, A., Boehm, B., Erdogmus, H. and Grunbacher, P., Value-Based Software Engineering. 2005. Springer.

[8]

Brodman, J.G. and Johnson, D.L., What small businesses and small organizations say about the CMMI. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), IEEE Computer Society.

[9]

G. Caprihan, Managing software performance in the globally distributed software development paradigm, in: International Conference on Global Software Engineering, 2006, pp. 83-91.

Digital Library

[10]

CCTA, Managing Successful Projects with Prince 2. 2001. Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency.

[11]

Chrissis, M., Konrad, M. and Shrum, S., CMMI Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. 2003. Addison Wesley.

[12]

Conradi, R. and Fuggetta, A., Improving software process improvement. IEEE Software. iJuly/August. 92-99.

[13]

H. Coolican, Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1999.

[14]

DeBillis, M. and Haapala, C., User-centric software engineering. IEEE Expert. v10 i1. 34-41.

[15]

K. El Emam, H.N. Madhavji, A field study of requirements engineering practices in information systems development, in: Second International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, 1995, pp. 68-80.

[16]

Florence, A., Lessons learned in attempting to achieve software CMM level 4. CrossTalk. iAugust. 29-30.

[17]

D. Goldenson, J. Jarzombek, T. Rout, Measurement and analysis in capability maturity model integration models and software process improvement. CrossTalk, July 2003.

[18]

Hall, T., Beecham, S. and Rainer, A., Requirements problems in twelve software companies: an empirical analysis. IEE Proceedings - Software. iAugust. 153-160.

[19]

Hughes, B., Practical Software Measurement. 2000. McGraw-Hill.

[20]

A. Jarvis, V. Crandall, INROADS to Software Quality, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1997. ISBN: 0132384035.

[21]

Jiang, J., Klein, G., Hwang, H.-G., Huang, J. and Hung, S.-Y., An exploration of the relationship between software development process maturity and project performance. Information & Management. i41. 279-288.

[22]

John, S.R., Critical success factors in software projects. IEEE Software. iMay/June. 18-23.

[23]

June, V., Karl, C., Steven, B. and Narciso, C., Requirements engineering and software project success: an industrial survey in Australia and the US. AJIS. v13 i1. 225-238.

[24]

K. Kautz, P.A. Nielsen, Implementing software process improvement: two cases of technology transfer, in: Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii Conference on System Sciences, vol. 7, Maui, USA, 2000, pp. 1-10.

[25]

B. Kitchenham, S.L. Pfleeger, Principles of Survey Research, Parts 1 to 6, Software Engineering Notes, 2001-2002.

[26]

Lethbridge, T.C., Studying software engineers: data collection techniques for software field studies. Empirical Software Engineering. v10. 311-341.

[27]

Linda, W., Mark, K. and Arun, R., Understanding software project risk: a cluster analysis. Information & Management. v42 i1. 115-125.

[28]

Louis, R. and François, B., Project management information systems: an empirical study of their impact on project managers and project success. International Journal of Project Management. v26 i2. 213-220.

[29]

Martin, B., An Introduction to Medical Statistics. 2000. third ed. Oxford Medical Publications.

[30]

F. McCaffery, G. Coleman, Analysing the cost of lightweight SPI assessments, in: Proceedings of the European Software Process Improvement (EuroSPI), Dublin, Ireland, 2008.

[31]

Ngwenyama, O. and Nielsen, P.A., Competing values in software process improvement: an assumption analysis of CMM from an organizational culture perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. v50 i1. 100-112.

[32]

M. Niazi, An empirical study for the improvement of requirements engineering process, in: The 17th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, July 14-16, 2005, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China, 2005, pp. 396-399.

[33]

Niazi, M. and Ali-baber, M., De-motivators for software process improvement: an empirical investigation. Software Process Improvement and Practice Journal (Perspectives on Global Software Development: Special Issue on PROFES 2007). v13 i3. 249-264.

[34]

M. Niazi, M. Ali-baber, S. Ibrahim, An empirical study identifying high perceived value practices of CMMI level 2, in: International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement PROFES 2008, Italy, LNCS, vol. 5089, 2008, pp. 427-441.

[35]

M. Niazi, M. Ali Babar, De-motivators for software process improvement: an analysis of Vietnamese practitioners' views, in: International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement PROFES 2007, LNCS, vol. 4589, 2007, pp. 118-131.

[36]

Niazi, M., Cox, K. and Verner, J., An empirical study identifying high perceived value requirements engineering practices. In: Fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems Development (ISD'2005), Karlstad University, Sweden. pp. 15-17.

[37]

M. Niazi, S. Shastry, Role of requirements engineering in software development process: an empirical study, in: IEEE International Multi-Topic Conference (INMIC03), 2003, pp. 402-407.

[38]

Niazi, M., Wilson, D. and Zowghi, D., A framework for assisting the design of effective software process improvement implementation strategies. Journal of Systems and Software. v78 i2. 204-222.

[39]

Niazi, M., Wilson, D. and Zowghi, D., A maturity model for the implementation of software process improvement: an empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software. v74 i2. 155-172.

[40]

Niazi, M., Wilson, D. and Zowghi, D., Critical success factors for software process improvement: an empirical study. Software Process Improvement and Practice Journal. v11 i2. 193-211.

[41]

Pereira, J., Verner, J.M., Cerba, N., Rivas, M. and Procaccino, J.D., What do software practitioners really think about project success: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Systems and Software. v81 i6. 897-907.

[42]

Pino, F.J., Garcia, F. and Piattini, M., Software process improvement in small and medium software enterprises: a systematic review. Software Quality Journal. v16 i2. 237-261.

[43]

Pitterman, B., Telcordia Technologies: the journey to high maturity. IEEE Software. v17 i4. 89-96.

[44]

Procaccino, J.D. and Verner, J.M., Software project managers and project success: an exploratory study. The Journal of Systems and Software. v79 i2. 1541-1551.

[45]

Procaccino, J.D., Verner, J.M., Shelfer, K.M. and Gefen, D., What do software practitioners really think about project success: an exploratory study. The Journal of Systems and Software. v78 i2. 194-203.

[46]

Rainer, A. and Hall, T., Key success factors for implementing software process improvement: a maturity-based analysis. Journal of Systems & Software. v62 i2. 71-84.

[47]

SEI, Process Maturity Profile of the Software Community. 2002. Software Engineering Institute.

[48]

Sommerville, I., Software Engineering. 1996. fifth ed. Addison-Wesley.

[49]

Sommerville, I. and Ransom, J., An empirical study of industrial requirements engineering process assessment and improvement. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology. v14 i1. 85-117.

[50]

Standish-Group, Chaos - The State of the Software Industry, Standish Group International Technical Report, 1995, pp. 1-11.

[51]

Standish-Group, Chaos: A Recipe for Success, Standish Group International, 1999.

[52]

Standish-Group, Chaos Report, 2006.

[53]

Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P. and Murphy, R., An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI. Journal of Systems and Software. v80 i6. 883-895.

[54]

Stark, G., Skillicorn, A. and Ameele, R., An examination of the effects of requirements changes on software maintenance releases. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice. v11. 293-309.

[55]

Sun-Jen, H. and Wen-Ming, H., Exploring the relationship between software project duration and risk exposure: a cluster analysis. Information & Management. v45 i3. 175-182.

[56]

Sweeney, A. and Bustard, D.W., Software process improvement: making it happen in practice. Software Quality Journal. v6 i4. 265-273.

[57]

A. Taylor, IT projects: sink or swim, Computer Bulletin (January), 2000.

[58]

The-Royal-Academy-of-Engineering, The Challenges of Complex IT Projects, The Report of a Working Group from The Royal Academy of Engineering and The British Computer Society, UK, 2004. ISBN 1-903496-15-2.

[59]

D. Trewin, Small Business in Australia: 2001, Australian Bureau of Statistics Report 1321.0, 2002.

[60]

Verner, J. and Evanco, W.M., In-house software development: what software project management practices lead to success?. IEEE Software. v22 i1. 86-93.

[61]

Wilkie, F.G., McFall, D. and McCaffery, F., An evaluation of CMMI process areas for small to medium-sized software development organisations. Software Process Improvement and Practice. v10. 189-201.

[62]

D. Zowghi, N. Nurmuliani, A study of the impact of requirements volatility on software project performance, in: Ninth Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, 2002, pp. 3-11.

[63]

D. Zowghi, N. Nurmuliani, S. Powell, The impact of requirements volatility on software development lifecycle, in: Software Engineering Conference, Proceedings 2004, Australian, 2004, pp. 28-37.

[64]

Zwikael, O. and Sadeh, A., Planning effort as an effective risk management tool. Journal of Operations Management. v25 i4. 755-767.

Cited By

dos Santos Júnior PPerini Barcellos MBorges Ruy F(2021)Tell me: Am I going to Heaven? A Diagnosis Instrument of Continuous Software Engineering Practices AdoptionProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering10.1145/3463274.3463324(30-39)Online publication date: 21-Jun-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3463274.3463324
Butt AAsif MAhmad SImdad U(2018)An Empirical Study for Adopting Social Computing in Global Software DevelopmentProceedings of the 2018 7th International Conference on Software and Computer Applications10.1145/3185089.3185105(31-35)Online publication date: 8-Feb-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3185089.3185105
Almomani MBasri SGilal A(2018)Empirical study of software process improvement in Malaysian small and medium enterprisesJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.195330:10Online publication date: 17-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1002/smr.1953
Show More Cited By

Identifying high perceived value practices of CMMI level 2: An empirical study
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management

Recommendations

Applying agile and lean practices in a software development project into a CMMI organization
PROFES'11: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Product-focused software process improvement

This paper presents an approach based on a practical experience in applying agile and lean practices in a software development process performed into an organization evaluated CMMI level 5. As a result of a theoretical review on agile and lean practices,...
A Novel model to adapt CMMI Level 2 by Assessing the Local SMEs of Bangladesh
Abstract
While software process improvement (SPI) aims at optimizing software processes to produce high-quality software, SPI efforts in software development are still inert in practice, especially in developing countries. In this work, we make an ...
CMMI guided process improvement for DevOps projects: an exploratory case study
ICSSP '16: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and Systems Process

Very recently, an increasing number of software companies adopted DevOps to adapt themselves to the ever-changing business environment. While it is important to mature adoption of the DevOps for these companies, no dedicated maturity models for DevOps ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Information and Software Technology

Information and Software Technology Volume 51, Issue 8

August, 2009

104 pages

ISSN:0950-5849

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Elsevier B.V. © 2009.

Publisher

Butterworth-Heinemann

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 August 2009

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

14
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

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

Reflects downloads up to 08 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

dos Santos Júnior PPerini Barcellos MBorges Ruy F(2021)Tell me: Am I going to Heaven? A Diagnosis Instrument of Continuous Software Engineering Practices AdoptionProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering10.1145/3463274.3463324(30-39)Online publication date: 21-Jun-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3463274.3463324
Butt AAsif MAhmad SImdad U(2018)An Empirical Study for Adopting Social Computing in Global Software DevelopmentProceedings of the 2018 7th International Conference on Software and Computer Applications10.1145/3185089.3185105(31-35)Online publication date: 8-Feb-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3185089.3185105
Almomani MBasri SGilal A(2018)Empirical study of software process improvement in Malaysian small and medium enterprisesJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.195330:10Online publication date: 17-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1002/smr.1953
Chevers DGrant G(2017)Information Systems Quality and Success in Canadian Software Development FirmsInformation Resources Management Journal10.4018/IRMJ.201707010130:3(1-25)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4018/IRMJ.2017070101
Khan AKeung JNiazi MHussain SAhmad A(2017)Systematic literature review and empirical investigation of barriers to process improvement in global software developmentInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2017.03.00687:C(180-205)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.03.006
Chevers DDuggan EMoore S(2017)The Contribution of Process, People and Perception to Information Systems Quality and SuccessThe Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries10.1002/j.1681-4835.2012.tb00392.x55:1(1-22)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2012.tb00392.x
Duggan EChevers DMills AMoore S(2016)An Evaluation of Software Development Practices among Small Firms in Developing CountriesJournal of Global Information Management10.4018/JGIM.201607010324:3(45-70)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4018/JGIM.2016070103
(2016)Challenges of project management in global software developmentInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2016.08.00280:C(1-19)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.infsof.2016.08.002
Iqbal JAhmad RNasir MNiazi MShamshirband SNoor M(2016)Software SMEs' unofficial readiness for CMMI®-based software process improvementSoftware Quality Journal10.1007/s11219-015-9277-324:4(997-1023)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11219-015-9277-3
Clarke POConnor RLeavy BYilmaz M(2015)Exploring the Relationship between Software Process Adaptive Capability and Organisational PerformanceIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2015.246738841:12(1169-1183)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TSE.2015.2467388
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents