Knowledge Management System Model in Enhancing Knowledge ...

Knowledge Management System Model in Enhancing Knowledge Facilitation of Software Process Improvement for Software House Organization Rusli Abdullah

Amir Mohamed Talib

Faculty of Computer Science & IT Information System Department, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia [email protected]

Faculty of Computer Science & IT Information System Department, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia [email protected] This research was carried out using a survey focusing on factors that facilitate implementation of KMS in an SHO environment. The survey also addresses various goals that the SPI set for them when implementing a KMS.

Abstract— Software Process Improvement (SPI) is necessity to any Software House Organization (SHO). Process improvement requires embedding the knowledge into SHO’s practice and structure especially in promoting and facilitating knowledge of best practice in SPI for the benefits of members of community of practice (CoP). Hence, in this paper, knowledge management (KM) and knowledge facilitation are investigated in order to find practical means to reach process improvement regarding with software development environment. In particular this study, it is also concerned with the process of Knowledge Management System (KMS) in supporting the knowledge facilitation of SPI for SHO. In order to understand the support process, we have studied how KM processes are practiced within SHO which includes communication, learning, sharing and documentation process. The findings explain on how the KMS has been practiced and influence the SPI in SHO. This result indicates that KM processes in SHO are being undertaken in a very informal manner, which has caused SHO to be more informal in their KM processes specifically and SPI generally.

1.1 Knowledge Management System (KMS) Before pursue into KMS perspective, there is a need to understand the distinction between data, information and knowledge in the context of this study. It has been pointed out by other researchers that data, information and knowledge are not the same and is defined differently. Data is referring to raw numbers and facts, information is processed data and knowledge is „information made actionable‟. While, KM is viewed as a process of turning data into information and forming information into knowledge that can lead to decision making. In which this process is subdivided into creating internal knowledge, acquiring external knowledge, storing knowledge as well as updating the knowledge and sharing knowledge internally and externally [1]. Knowledge is power. Some people consider knowledge as a process on how to do things in a good manner with less effort and produce more output. In the context of information system, knowledge is an origin by information, which comes from the data processed. Knowledge is information that is contextual, relevant, and actionable [2]. Knowledge Management System (KMS) is broadly defined as the task of developing and maintaining organizational processes or practices to create, acquire, capture, share and use knowledge wherever it resides to enhance learning and performance in organizations including the creation of environments in which learning and knowledge exchange can take place [3]. Organizations, software house and others, looking for an effective knowledge management strategy, are, however, often caught between two competing approaches: using (and developing) the employees‟ personal networks for knowledge creation, facilitation and sharing, and storing codified knowledge in databases or other repositories [4] [5].

Keywords- Knowledge Management, Knowledge Management System, Knowledge Facilitation, Software Process Improvement, Software House Organization.

I.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years the literature concerning the knowledge facilitation issue has largely been anchored in SPI for SHO discipline and within this field the mainstream of contributions is to be found around approaches derived from the KMS. In SHO, the managers (including the management in the SPI-team) are trying to facilitate a high degree of knowledge facilitating amongst the development projects, since a higher degree of knowledge facilitating is expected to improve the effectiveness of the SHO‟s abilities to conduct software facilitation. The general belief is that by facilitating a high degree of knowledge sharing about the employee‟s best practices and lessons learned it is possible to pick up ideas or processes that are beneficial, and at the same time avoid repeating mistakes. Thus by copying good solutions between projects, the SHO minimizes search and developing costs, and at the same time avoids spending time and effort on repeating processes that have proved not to work.

978-1-4673-1090-1/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE

60

1.2 Software Process Improvement The software process improvement (SPI) is consists of all the stages and activities that are followed by organization to develop a software product [6]. The software process has four distinct roles; (i) to present a guidance as the guideline of the activities to be undertaken; (ii) to specify the artefact that should be developed and when; (iii) to direct the task of the development team; and iv) to offer ways of monitoring and measuring a project progress and output [7]. Moreover based on the first role, [8] has claimed that development process must be update, improve and maintain in order to meet current business and customer requirement. In addition, the issues SPI has gained increasing importance in software engineering area. The main aims of SPI are to understand the software process used in the organization and to guide the implementation of changes of that process in order to achieve specific goals such as to improve software development time, on budget and with the desired functionality. According to several authors, SPI has a close link between the quality of the development process and the quality of the product developed using the process [7]. In regards to small companies, improving software process is like improving a business process and both are related [9]. In addition four categories; economic, people, organization and implementation; are believed as SPI influencing factors in an organization [10].

II.

LITERATURE REVIEW

An attempt at establishing an overview of the SPI field is described in [20]. Aaen et al. [20] describes a survey of the state-of-the-art knowledge on SPI, and position SPI in the landscape of strategies aimed at maturing software organizations. They identify three fundamental concerns in SPI, the principles used to manage the intervention, the Approach taken to guide the intervention, and the perspectives used to focus the intervention on the target. Concerning the management of the intervention they identify three key factors: the organization, how it is planned, and the feedback on the effort. Within the approach, key factors are: the evolution of the intervention, the norms followed, and the commitment of employees. Conradi et al, [21] posits that software process improvement efforts are characterized by two dichotomies: discipline vs. creative work and procurer risk vs. user satisfaction. They define discipline as the introduction and adherence to more structured work processes, and creativity as emphasizing that software development relies on a collaborative design process known as participatory development. They also state that “software work, like other design work, is not like mechanized or disciplined manufacture. It has a strong creative component involving human and social interaction that cannot be totally preplanned in a standardized and detailed process model”. Another overview of research in the field of SPI is given by Hansen et al. [4], they reviewed 322 contributions to the SPI literature in order to establish an overview of research in the field and categorized them according to a simple framework. Whether the papers were prescriptive (suggesting solutions without validation), descriptive (describing an implementation of a method or technology in practice), or reflective (reflecting findings from practice with academic theory). Coming from the field of management consulting, Christensen [22], performed a literature review focusing on special journal issues on KM from 1995-2003. He performed a content analysis of 50 identified papers focusing on KM context, KM outcomes, empirical setting and the key drivers for KM. The finding was that KM writings seem to focus on how to create knowledge and to a lesser degree, how to transfer knowledge. Another view on KM is coming from the field of information systems that is given by Alavi and Leidner, [23]. One of the major challenges in KM according to them is to facilitate the flow of knowledge between individuals so that the maximum amount of transfer occurs. They also conclude that no single or optimal solution to organizational KM can be developed. Instead a variety of approaches and systems needs to be employed to deal with the diversity of knowledge types.

1.3 KMS and SPI Software process is not standardized in all software projects [11]. Software process must be updated and improved frequently in order to cope with any environment changes. Such environment required KM in supporting software process definition and activities [12]. Other authors [13] explained that SPI could strengthen KM abilities for software development organization. In term of small organization, [14] [15], argues that KM is core to a SPI model and that the relationship between SPI and organizational learning are very strong. They points out that people in an organization will create, acquire and share knowledge continuously in order to improve software development practices. Moreover, in nowadays business environment where software development project becoming more complex, the greater reliance upon the knowledge processes to resolves problems are really important [16] [17]. In other work, [18] stated in their review that proper in managing of organizational knowledge that is important in SPI efforts as well as it is a major factor for success. Also [19] in their survey on practical usage of KM to support innovation in a software organization claims that KMS and SPI are very close related. They added that KM is used to update practices within software organization generally and SPI specifically. According to Komie et al. [12] software organization needs to improve their practices in order to cope with market changes. These situations have lead to considerable interest in how organization can effectively respond to changing environment or agile environment [20] [12]. Therefore KM is seen as critical to SPI process.

III.

METHODOLOGY

For this study, we are currently performing an initial study to propose the model of KMS in enhancing the knowledge facilitation of SPI for SHO environment. We conduct a literature reviews (LR) that collect and understand

61

the existing knowledge or information about the title to research. We have followed the focus individual interviews for the data collection session in this study. The data collection processes are done almost simultaneously. The individual interview approach was used in this study in order to discuss topics in depth, to get respondents‟ candid discussion on the topic and to be able to get the depth of information of the study situation for the research context. A semi-structured interview includes the open-ended and specific question. It been designed to gather the information foreseen. The individual group interview approached was used in this study in order to get a detail explanation and viewed from the development team which involved directly with the development process. Moreover, the existence of team interactions in this activity could help to release inhibitions amongst the team members. Furthermore, this method could activate forgotten details of experiences and also could generate more data through wide range of responses. The individual group participants for this activity were the development team from the same software house company as the individual interviews participants. 20 development people have been involved in this activity which has conducted in their respective companies‟. In analyzing all data we have followed the qualitative contents analysis method [24]. IV.

Figure 1: KMS Capabilities of its Environment

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

The KMS model of SPI in SHO environment has been gone though the steps that has been specified in the introduction as well as in the methodology sections. Based on this, there is a significant result shown that the SHO and its KMS model should accommodated the following features or components, in order to become relevant to serve the SPI in SHO environment.

Figure 2: The Importance of Knowledge Type in a KMS of SHO Environment

4.2 Knowledge Structure of SPI Based on the knowledge structure of SPI in terms of importance for reliability and availability, respondents are agreed that the average of knowledge structure of SPI in managing the knowledge as shown in Fig 3, the respondents has agreed that reliability – 100%, and availability – 80%. This is shown that reliability is more concern for knowledge facilitation of SPI in SHO environment.

4.1 KMS Capabilities of its Environment KMS capabilities of its environment that can be implemented based on the following aspects such as conceptual modeling, KMS functionality and its architecture, KMS operational having the similarity agreement. Figure 1 show the level of agreement on particular knowledge of SHO community about the knowledge that needs to be included in the KMS for future purposes. While, Figure 2 show the level of importance of Knowledge Type that the explicit knowledge is more concern than tacit knowledge a KMS of SHO environment.

Figure 3: The Agreement of Importance for Knowledge Structure

62

V.

[8]

CONCLUSION

As a conclusion, the paper has shown that the KMS model is very important features for SPI to enhance the knowledge facilitation in SHO environment. In this context, the KMS model can be implemented by using two components which are involved KMS functionality and its related infrastructure through network computer capabilities weather in a form directly or remotely interconnection. The finding shown that, in order to ensure that KMS in SHO can be done smoothly; the administration and agreement level should be considered the most related issues like performance, reliability, availability, scalability and security in good manners. For future work, it is good to be considered on how KMS can be accessed and used by any services provided by the cloud by using any devices especially through mobile computing since this project is only considered the accessing KMS is used the common devices only.

[9]

[10]

[11] [12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

[16]

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable remarks and comments.

[17]

REFERENCES [1]

[2]

[3] [4]

[5]

[6] [7]

[18]

N.M. Noor, R. Abdullah, and M.H. Selamat, “Integrated KMS@ EWS of Conceptual Implementation Model for Clinical Dengue Fever Environment,” 2011. R. Abdullah, A. Jaafar, H. Ibrahim, M. Selamat, S. Napis, and R. Atan, “Knowledge Management System Architecture in Aagricultural Industries Environment,” IEEE, 2008, pp. 1-9. P. Quintas, P. Lefrere, and G. Jones, “Knowledge Management: A Strategic Agenda,” Long range planning, 1997, pp. 385-391. B. Hansen, J. Rose, and G. Tjørnehøi, “Prescription, Description, Reflection: the Shape of the Software Process Improvement Field,” International Journal of Information Management, 2004, pp. 457-472. J. Swan, S. Newell, H. Scarbrough, and D. Hislop, “Knowledge Management and Innovation: Networks and Networking,” Journal of Knowledge management, 1999, pp. 262-275. S. Zahran, Software Process Improvement: Practical Guidelines for Business Success, Addison-Wesley, 1998. P. Kruchten, The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, AddisonWesley Professional, 2004.

[19]

[20]

[21] [22] [23]

[24]

63

I. Sommerville, and L. Prechelt, “Verification and Validation,” Software Engineering (7th edition), Harlow, Essex: Pearson Addison Wesley, 2004. M. Sanders, “The SPIRE Handbook: Better, Faster, Cheaper Software Development in Small Organisations,” The SPIRE Project Team: ESSI Project, 1998. T. Hall, A. Rainer, and N. Baddoo, “Implementing Software Process Improvement: An Empirical Study,” Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 2002, pp. 3-15. L.M.S. Borges, and R.A. Falbo, “Managing Software Process Knowledge,”, 2002, pp. 227-232. S. Komi-Sirvio, A. Mantyniemi, and V. Seppanen, “Toward A Practical Solution for Capturing Knowledge for Software Projects,” IEEE Software, 2002, pp. 60-62. B.H. Hansen, and K. Kautz, “Knowledge Mapping: A Technique for Identifying Knowledge Flows in Software Organisations,” Software Process Improvement, 2004, pp. 126-137. B. Meehan, and I. Richardson, “Identification of Software Process Knowledge Management,” Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 2002, pp. 47-55. P. Kettunen, “Managing Embedded Software Project Team Knowledge,” Proceedings-Software, 2003, pp. 359-366. A. Aurum, M. Handzic, C. Wohlin, and R. Jeffery, Managing Software Eengineering Knowledge, Springer, 2003. F.O. Bjornson, and T. Dingsoyr, “A study of A Mentoring Program for Knowledge Transfer in A Small Software Consultancy Company,” Product Focused Software Process Improvement, 2005, pp. 245-256. F.O. Bjornson, and T. Dingsoyr, “Knowledge Management in Software Engineering: A Systematic Review of Studied Concepts, Findings and Research Methods Used,” Information and Software Technology, 2008, pp. 1055-1068. L. Mathiassen, and P. Pourkomeylian, “Managing Knowledge in A Software Organization,” Journal of Knowledge management, 2003, pp. 63-80. I. Aaen, A. Borjesson, and L. Mathiassen, “SPI Agility: How to Navigate Improvement Projects,” Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 2007, pp. 267-281. H. Conradi, and A. Fuggetta, “Improving Software Process Improvement,” Software, IEEE, 2002, pp. 92-99. P.H. Christensen, “The Wonderful World Of Knowledge Management,” Challenges and Issues in Knowledge Management, 2005, pp. 337. M. Alavi, and D.E. Leidner, “Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues,” MIS Quarterly, 2001, pp. 107-136. S. Elo, and H. Kyngas, “The Qualitative Content Analysis Process,” Journal of advanced Nursing, 2008, pp. 107-115.