Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An organizational maturity model of software product line engineering

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Software product line engineering is an inter-disciplinary concept. It spans the dimensions of business, architecture, process, and the organization. Some of the potential benefits of this approach include cost reduction, improvements in product quality and a decrease in product development time. The increasing popularity of software product line engineering in the software industry necessitates a process maturity evaluation methodology. Accordingly, this paper presents an organizational maturity model of software product line engineering for evaluating the maturity of organizational dimension. The model assumes that organizational theories, behavior, and management play a critical role in the institutionalization of software product line engineering within an organization. Assessment questionnaires and a rating methodology comprise the framework of this model. The objective and design of the questionnaires are to collect information about the software product line engineering process from the dual perspectives of organizational behavior and management. Furthermore, we conducted two case studies and reported the assessment results using the organizational maturity model presented in this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed, F., Capretz, L. F., & Sheikh, S. A. (2007). Institutionalization of software product line: An empirical investigation of organizational factors. The Journal of Systems and Software, 80(6), 836–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1977). Double-loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55, 115–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, J., Flege, O., Knauber, P., Laqua, R., Muthig, D., & Schmid, K., et al. (1999). PuLSE: A methodology to develop software product lines. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Reusability, (pp. 122–131).

  • Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birk, G. H., John, I., Schmid, K., von der Massen, T., & Muller, K. (2003). Product line engineering, the state of the practice. IEEE Software, 20(6), 52–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch, J. (2000). Design and use of software architectures: Adopting and evolving a product-line approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch, J. (2001). Software product lines: Organizational alternatives. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, (pp. 91–100).

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, G., Clarke, S., & Lehaney, B. (2000). A systematic view of organizational change and TQM. The TQM Magazine, 12(3), 186–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, P. C. (2001). On the importance of product line scope. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Software Product Family Engineering, (pp. 69–77).

  • Clements, P. C., Jones, L. G., Northrop, L. M., & McGregor, J. D. (2005). Project management in a software product line organization. IEEE Software, 22(5), 54–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, P. C., & Northrop, L. M. (2002). Software product lines practices and patterns. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course on factor analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crewson, P. (1997). Public service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 499–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal consistency of tests. Psychometrica, 16, 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dikel, D., Kane, D., Ornburn, S., Loftus, W., & Wilson, J. (1997). Applying software product-line architecture. IEEE Computer, 30(8), 49–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Emam, K. (1999). Benchmarking kappa: Inter-rater agreement in software process assessments. Empirical Software Engineering, 4(2), 113–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, J. R. (2002). Organizational behavior: A diagnostic approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hames, R. D. (1994). The management myth. Sydney: Business and Professional Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J. W., Jr., Woodman, R. W., & Bruning, N. S. (1998). Organizational behavior. Canada: ITP Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, I., Griss, M., & Jonsson, P. (1997). Software reuse—architecture process and organization for business success. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jazayeri, M., Ran, A., & van der Linden, F. (2000). Software architecture for product families: Principles and practice. Reading. MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intra-group conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–417.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kilmann, R. H., Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (1985). Gaining control of the corporate culture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, E., & Kim, S. (2004). Issues on adopting software product line. In Proceedings of the 11th Asia–Pacific Conference on Software Engineering, (pp. 589).

  • Kottler, J. (1994). Beyond blame: A new way of resolving conflicts in relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuvaja, P. J., Simila, J., Krzanik, L., Bicego, A., Saukkonen, S., & Koch, G. (1994). Software process assessment and improvement—the bootstrap approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. Y., Jung, H. W., Chung, C. S., Lee, J. M., Lee K. W., & Jeong, H. J. (2001). Analysis of inter-rater agreement in ISO/IEC 15504-based software process assessment. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asia–Pacific Conference on Quality Software, (pp. 341–348).

  • Lyles, M. A. (1994). An analysis of discrimination skills as a process of organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 1(1), 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macala, R. R., Stuckey, L. D., Jr., & Gross, D. C. (1996). Managing domain-specific, product-line development. IEEE Software, 13(3), 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannion, M. (2002). Organizing for software product line engineering. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice, (pp. 55–61).

  • Marquardt, M., & Reynolds, A. (1994). The global learning organization. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Dorado, M. A., & Martínez, I. (2005). Types of intra-group conflict and affective reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), 219–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernste, I. A. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporation, cults, and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 157–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterhof, A. (2001). Classroom applications of educational measurement. NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., & Weber, C. V. (1993). Capability maturity model version 1.1. IEEE Software, 10(4), 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, R. (1995). Strategic management: An introduction. London, UK: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1988). Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, A. (1999). Managing radical change. Long Range Planning, 32(2), 237–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toft, P., Coleman, D., & Ohta, J. (2000). A cooperative model for cross-divisional product development for a software product line. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Software Product Lines, (pp. 111–132).

  • van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Linden, F. (2002). Software product families in Europe: The Esaps & Café projects. IEEE Software, 19(4), 41–49.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • van der Linden, F., Bosch, J., Kamsties, E., Känsälä, K., & Obbink, H. (2004). Software product family evaluation. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Product Lines, (pp. 110–129).

  • Verlage, M., & Kiesgen, T. (2005). Five years of product line engineering in a small company. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, (pp. 534–543).

  • von Eye, A., & Mun, E. Y. (2005). Analyzing rater agreement manifest variable methods. London: LEA Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walls, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21(3), 515–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., & King, G. (2000). Software engineering processes: Principles and application. New York: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, D. M., & Lai, C. T. R. (1999). Software product line engineering: A family based software development process. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, D. H. (1982). Contemporary perspectives in organizational behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. M. (2001). Understanding organizational culture and the implication for corporate marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 353–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. C., & Rosenfeld, R. H. (1990). Managing organizations. London: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witherspoon, P. D. (1997). Communicating leadership—an organizational perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information Technology, United Arab Emirates University, P. O. Box 17551, Al Ain, UAE

    Faheem Ahmed

  2. Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 5B9, Canada

    Luiz Fernando Capretz

Authors
  1. Faheem Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luiz Fernando Capretz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Faheem Ahmed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ahmed, F., Capretz, L.F. An organizational maturity model of software product line engineering. Software Qual J 18, 195–225 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-009-9088-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-009-9088-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation