Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3666015.3666022acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Breaking old Habits: On Success Factors in Software Process Improvement

Published: 04 September 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Over the years, a substantial body of knowledge of software process improvement (SPI) was accumulated that, among other things, includes numerous success factors that companies should consider when conducting improvement activities. The number of success factors is large and quite often, multiple success factors with similar names and descriptions are available to address a specific phenomenon. This raises the question whether all the success factors are unique and, if not, which ones are actually the same. In this paper, we aim to structure the body of knowledge on success factors in SPI. We conducted a systematic literature review on 103 publications that mention 1.320 success factors. A multi-staged manual and AI-supported analysis reduced the number of success factors to 124, which we categorize into 42 general success factor classes. For 20 of these general success factor classes, we observed a stable number of publications over a period of almost 30 years that, however, show only few success factors constantly studied and re-discovered. A high number of synonyms shows that this area of SPI needs consolidation for which we lay the foundation by providing a big picture and identifying the most relevant success factors as a starting point.

References

[1]
Thamer Al-Rousan and Bassam Al-Shargabi. 2017. A new maturity model for the implementation of software process improvement in web-based projects. Journal of Digital Information Management 15, 2 (2017), 66–75.
[2]
Mohammad Shameem Arif Ali Khan and Shahid Hussain. 2019. Fuzzy AHP based Prioritization and Taxonomy of Software Process Improvement Success Factors in Global Software Development. Applied Soft Computing 83 (2019).
[3]
Shuib Basri, Malek Ahmad Almomani, Abdullahi Abubakar Imam, Murugan Thangiah, Abdul Rehman Gilal, and Abdullateef Oluwagbemiga Balogun. 2019. The Organisational Factors of Software Process Improvement in Small Software Industry: Comparative Study. Emerging Trends in Intelligent Computing and Informatics. IRICT 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 1073 (2019), 1132–1143.
[4]
Manjot Singh Bhatia and Saurabh Kumar. 2020. Critical success factors of industry 4.0 in automotive manufacturing industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 69, 5 (2020), 2439–2453.
[5]
B. Boehm. 2005. The Future of Software Processes. In Unifying the Software Process Spectrum(Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. LNCS 3840), Mingshu Li, Barry Boehm, and Leon J. Osterweil (Eds.). Springer. International Software Process Workshop, SPW 2005, Beijing, China, May 25-27.
[6]
Mitali Chugh and Nitin. 2018. Critical Success Factors and Critical Barriers for Application of Information Technology to Knowledge Management/Experience Management for Software Process Improvement – Findings from Literary Studies. In Smart and Innovative Trends in Next Generation Computing Technologies. Springer Singapore, Singapore", 310–322.
[7]
Fernando Escobar, Washington HC Almeida, and João Varajão. 2023. Digital transformation success in the public sector: A systematic literature review of cases, processes, and success factors. Information Polity 28, 1 (2023), 61–81.
[8]
Allan Gillies. 1997. Software Quality, second ed.International Thomson Computer Press.
[9]
Watts Humphrey. 1995. A Discipline for Software Engineering. Addison Wesley.
[10]
Watts S. Humphrey. 1989. Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley.
[11]
ISO-9126. 1991. Information Technology - Software Product Evaluation - Quality Characteristics and Guidelines for their Use. International Standard.
[12]
Jan Wiedemann Jacobsen, Marco Kuhrmann, Jürgen Münch, Philipp Diebold, and Michael Felderer. 2016. On the Role of Software Quality Management in Software Process Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10027. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 327–343.
[13]
Chung-Yang Chen Jung-Chieh Lee, Yih-Chearng Shiue. 2016. Examining the impacts of organizational culture and top management support of knowledge sharing on the success of software process improvement. Computers in Human Behavior 54, 6 (2016), 462–474.
[14]
Jürgen Münch, Ove Armbrust, Martin Kowalczyk, and Martin Sotó. 2012. Software Process Definition and Management. Springer.
[15]
Arif Ali Khan and Jacky Keung. 2016. Systematic review of success factors and barriers for software process improvement in global software development. IET Software 10, 5 (2016), 125–135.
[16]
Arif Ali Khan, Jacky Keung, Shahid Hussain, Mahmood Niazi, and Suzanne Kieffer. 2018. Systematic literature study for dimensional classification of success factors affecting process improvement in global software development: client–vendor perspective. IET Software 12, 4 (2018), 333–344.
[17]
Arif Ali Khan, Jacky Keung, Mahmood Niazi, and Shahid Hussain. 2017. Towards a Hypothetical Framework of Humans Related Success Factors for Process Improvement in Global Software Development: Systematic Review. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing (Marrakech, Morocco) (SAC ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, 180–186.
[18]
Barbara Kitchenham. 2004. Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Technical Report TR/SE-0401. Keele University.
[19]
Jil Klünder, Regina Hebig, Paolo Tell, Marco Kuhrmann, Joyce Nakatumba-Nabende, Rogardt Heldal, Stephan Krusche, Masud Fazal-Baqaie, Michael Felderer, Marcela Fabiana Genero Bocco, Steffen Küpper, Sherlock A. Licorish, Gustavo López, Fergal McCaffery, Özden Özcan Top, Christian R. Prause, Rafael Prikladnicki, Eray Tüzün, Dietmar Pfahl, Kurt Schneider, and Stephen G. MacDonell. 2019. Catching up with Method and Process Practice: An Industry-Informed Baseline for Researchers. In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering(ICSE-SEIP).
[20]
Marco Kuhrmann, Philipp Diebold, and Jürgen Münch. 2016. Software process improvement: a systematic mapping study on the state of the art. PeerJ Computer Science 2, 1 (2016), 1–38.
[21]
Marco Kuhrmann, Philipp Diebold, Jürgen Münch, and Paolo Tell. 2016. How does Software Process Improvement address Global Software Engineering?. In International Conference on Global Software Engineering (in Press)(ICGSE). IEEE.
[22]
Marco Kuhrmann, Daniel Méndez Fernández, and Maya Daneva. 2017. On the pragmatic design of literature studies in software engineering: an experience-based guideline. Empir. Softw. Eng. 22, 6 (2017), 2852–2891.
[23]
Marco Kuhrmann, Claudia Konopka, Peter Nellemann, Philipp Diebold, and Jürgen Münch. 2015. Software Process Improvement: Where is the Evidence? In Proceedings of the International Conference of Software and System Process. ACM, 54–63.
[24]
Marco Kuhrmann and Jürgen Münch. 2019. SPI is Dead, isn’t it? Clear the Stage for Continuous Learning!. In 2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software and System Processes(ICSSP). ACM, 9–13.
[25]
Abdul Rehman Gilal Malek Ahmad Almomani, Shuib Basri. 2018. Empirical study of software process improvement in Malaysian small and medium enterprises: The human aspects. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 30, 10 (2018).
[26]
Rory V. O‘Connor Mary Sanchez-Gordon, Antonio de Amescua and Xabier Larrucea. 2017. A standard-based framework to integrate software work in small settings. Computer Standards and Interfaces 54, 3 (2017), 162–175.
[27]
Leon J. Osterweil. 1987. Software Processes are Software too. In 9th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE Computer Society Press, 2–13.
[28]
Kai Petersen, Robert Feldt, Shahid Mujtaba, and Michael Mattson. 2008. Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In International Conference on Evaluation & Assessment in Software Engineering. ACM, 68–77.
[29]
Andreia Malucelli Regina Albquuerque and Sheila Reinehr. 2018. Software Process Improvement Programs: What happens after official appraisal?. In The 30th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. 560–609.
[30]
Muhammad Noman Riaz. 2017. Factors affecting the transition time between capability maturity model integration (CMMI) levels in software industry of Pakistan: An empirical study. In 2017 International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies (ICICT). 90–96.
[31]
Mary Shaw. 2003. Writing Good Software Engineering Research Papers: Minitutorial. In International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, 726–736.
[32]
Darja Smite, Nils Brede Moe, Jarle Hildrum, Javier Gonzalez-Huerta, and Daniel Méndez. 2023. Work-from-home is here to stay: Call for flexibility in post-pandemic work policies. J. Syst. Softw. 195 (2023), 111552.
[33]
Paolo Tell, Jil Klünder, Steffen Küpper, David Raffo, Stephen G. MacDonell, Jürgen Münch, Dietmar Pfahl, Oliver Linssen, and Marco Kuhrmann. 2021. Towards the statistical construction of hybrid development methods. J. Softw. Evol. Process. 33, 1 (2021).
[34]
Roel Wieringa, Neil Maiden, Nancy Mead, and Colette Rolland. 2005. Requirements Engineering Paper Classification and Evaluation Criteria: A Proposal and a Discussion. Requirements Engineering 11, 1 (Dec. 2005), 102–107.
[35]
Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C. Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer.
[36]
Ehsan Zabardast, Javier Gonzalez-Huerta, Tony Gorschek, Darja Smite, Emil Alégroth, and Fabian Fagerholm. 2023. A taxonomy of assets for the development of software-intensive products and services. J. Syst. Softw. 202 (2023), 111701.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
ICSSP '24: Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Software and Systems Processes
September 2024
106 pages
ISBN:9798400709913
DOI:10.1145/3666015
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 the author(s) 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: 04 September 2024

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Critical success factors
  2. SPI
  3. Software process
  4. Software process improvement
  5. Systematic literature study

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

  • German Aerospace Center

Conference

ICSSP '24

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 11
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)11
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11
Reflects downloads up to 22 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media