The Tool Coverage of Software Process Improvement Frameworks for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises Filiz Çelik Yeşildoruk, Banu Bozlu, and Onur Demirörs Middle East Technical University, Informatics Institute, 06531 Ankara, Turkey
[email protected], {banu,demirors}@ii.metu.edu.tr
Abstract. Software Process Improvement (SPI) awareness is increasing among Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs). Conventional SPI frameworks are not appealing for SMEs since they are complex and costly. There are a number of frameworks, which address the problems of SMEs for SPI. This paper presents a comparative study of the most frequently referenced SPI frameworks established for SMEs from a SPI Tool coverage perspective. Keywords: software process improvement, small and medium sized enterprises.
1 Introduction Software industry has embraced the paradigm of achieving quality by improving processes starting from early 90s [1]. Since then, a number of tools for SPI have been evolved. Most of the current SPI studies focus on model-based improvement that aims to improve processes with respect to a reference model. To support the worldview, process improvement tools including process reference models, process assessment methodologies, process improvement methodologies and process modeling approaches are developed. The software industry includes a considerable number of small and medium size companies. In all European countries, over 97 percent of Computer and Related Services enterprises have less than 50 employees and they account for over fifty percent of employment in the private sector [2]. Small software companies usually provide customer specific solutions targeted for businesses or specialized parts of larger systems. It is critical for these companies to produce quality software since it will determine the quality of the business or the quality of the whole system. Although small companies are the majority and produce critical products, the software quality movement, in its early days, mainly targeted large organizations. Small enterprises were indifferent to the need in early days. However, pressures from acquirers, widening awareness on quality movement and the need to grow stimulated the need to establish quality infrastructures. During the last decade, specific needs of the SMEs derived the need for establishing frameworks targeted specifically at SMEs. Most of them can be considered as modified versions of process improvement frameworks such as CMMI [3] and ISO 15504 [4], each providing different tools and having different perspectives for process improvement requirements of SMEs. F. Bomarius et al. (Eds.): PROFES 2009, LNBIP 32, pp. 290–302, 2009. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
The Tool Coverage of Software Process Improvement Frameworks for SMEs
291
In this paper we present the results of a comparative study on SPI frameworks established for SMEs. We defined the framework as a unifying approach that covers at least three significant SPI Tools. In this paper, we use the term Tool - starting with the capital letter - to cover notations, approach, techniques, methodologies and CASE tools. We identified significant SPI Tools as those, which are frequently utilized in model-based SPI initiatives. These Tools include process reference models, modeling methodologies and notations, assessment methodologies, improvement methodologies and automation environments, which are frequently utilized in model-based SPI frameworks. In addition to the utilization of the Tools, we also identified how and to what extent the Tool is utilized by each framework. In other words, we evaluate SME specific SPI frameworks by considering the Tools they have utilized. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives brief information about the previous research studies on SPI implementations in small settings. Section 3 includes the results of the comparative study. Finally, conclusions of the comparison are presented together with the future work planned.
2 Difficulties of SPI Implementation in Small Settings Restrictions in applying conventional quality management tools in software domain, such as the lack of significant statistical data and improvement guidelines, have led practitioners to focus on development of model based improvement approaches. In model-based improvement approaches, organizations’ processes are compared with the process attributes defined in a reference model. Based on the identified gaps between existing processes and the reference process attributes, improvement plans are established and executed [5]. As Sheard discusses, new standards or approaches for this purpose evolve regularly [6], yet most of these models are based on CMM or ISO 15504. However, there are a number of research studies which demonstrates that SMEs have difficulties in applying conventional model-based improvement frameworks [7][8][9]. In order to find solutions to overcome these difficulties, several researchers have focused on potential challenges facing small companies in process improvement activities [9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. The problems frequently occur due to the mismatch between utilized process improvement Tools and the organizational structure of SMEs. Current generic SPI Tools do not address structural characteristics of SMEs. Commonly used practices such as top down improvement approaches, lack of integrated frameworks and lack of detailed process libraries result in prolonged improvement cycles and complicate making timely process changes in response to the changes in the environment. Other significant problems that prevent SMEs from implementing SPI include high costs of improvement activities, and limited number of qualified personnel, which is one of the reasons why SMEs do not have expertise to choose and implement the improvement model [16]. Studies concentrating on specific requirements of SMEs resulted in development of a number of process improvement frameworks focusing on different aspects and aiming different goals. TOPS (Toward Organised Processes in SMEs) in Italy [17], SATASPIN (Software Process Improvement Network in the Satakunta region) [18] in Finland, INSPIRE in Estonia [19], SPIRE (Software Process Improvement in Regions
292
F.Ç. Yeşildoruk, B. Bozlu, and O. Demirörs
of Europe) [20] in Europe, MoProSoft in Mexico [21], MPS in Brazil [22], PRISMS [23] in UK, MESOPYME [24] in Spain, TAPISTRY [16] in Europe, MARES [25] in Brazil, RAPID [26] are examples of SPI approaches specific to SMEs. There are several studies in which SPI frameworks for SMEs are compared considering their specific properties in order to identify strengths and weaknesses of these frameworks. Such studies both help to reveal improvement opportunities for existing frameworks and assist SMEs to select relevant framework for themselves. Laporte's study introduces various centers and initiatives focusing on small enterprises in which the tools to be compared were selected based on a survey. Common requirements of SMEs are concluded as low cost solutions, staged approach and standardization of vocabulary [27]. Pino et al has conducted an extensive review on SPI efforts in SMEs by systematically reviewing published case studies on the topic. The focus is on usage of CMM, CMMI and ISO 15504, as they are found to be the mostly utilized approaches in published case studies [28]. Despite this situation, it is also concluded that these approaches are not suitable for SMEs since they have restrictive formal procedures for SMEs to follow. Mishra et al have compared a self-diagnosis methodology based on CMM, Software Process Matrix, ASPE-MSC, PRISMS and MESOPYME in their study [29]. Mishra underlines the fact that each SPI tool has its own benefits and limitations, which gives SMEs the burden of adapting and tailoring SPI tools according to their organizational needs. Several other comparative studies also emphasize that conventional standards are not appropriate and difficult to apply for SMEs [8][27][28][30]. In this study, we have chosen six SPI frameworks for comparison. These frameworks have different characteristics and offer guidance for SMEs in different SPI perspectives. SPIRE is one of the earliest projects to increase the awareness of best SPI practices and benefits among the top management, share experience with others and help SMEs maintain their improvement plans. It has been used widely with numerous documented case studies and it is important in the sense that it forms a basis for other improvement tools for SMEs. Although many countries or regions have software and systems process improvement networks1, most of them are used to share ideas and experiences. SATASPIN, which involves SMEs working totally customer oriented, is a good example for the networked SPI efforts in the sense to demonstrate how these ideas were organized into a structured methodology for a group of SPI implementors. MoProSoft has been accepted as a national standard in Mexico, and also as an international standard by ISO/IEC JTC1/ SC7/WG24 for very small enterprises [31]. MPS offers a process centered software engineering environment to aid the SPI methodology it recommends. PRISMS and MESOPYME are included in the study as most frequently referenced CMM based SPI frameworks. PRISMS adapts CMM according to its business goals defined by top managers and MESOPYME focuses on reducing time and effort using action packages concept. It is observed that SME SPI frameworks are predominantly based on ISO 15504 rather than CMM. Main reason for this is that, ISO/IEC 15504 provides much flexibility than CMM because several processes can be managed at different capability levels [32]. Von Wangenheim underlines the fact that tailoring cost of CMM is more than the SMEs can bear [9]. Pino also states that usage
1
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/collaborating/spins/spins.intl.active.html
The Tool Coverage of Software Process Improvement Frameworks for SMEs
293
of ISO/IEC 15504 is widening in SMEs due to the fact that it is a model which is easy to understand, flexible and fits the needs of SMEs [28].
3 Discussion of SME-Specific SPI Frameworks The explained SME-specific SPI frameworks have different focuses and are divergent in characteristics. In model-based process improvement, reference models, process modeling notations and methodologies, assessment methodologies and automation of processes by means of CASE tools and workflow management systems are commonly used Tools. •
• •
•
•
Most organizations use reference models as a source of best practices, as well as a means for improving education and communication. Furthermore, Holschke et al demonstrates that the use of reference models provide a systematic approach to planning, implementing and evaluating business process transformations [33]. Assessment is a generic step in process improvement, it not only provides a baseline for organization’s current status but also helps to check improvement progress as an audit tool [34][35]. Software process improvement is a complicated activity which requires theory and models, skilled technical and managerial professionals [35]. The improvement methodologies enables organization’s to plan SPI activities in alignment with strategic goals and customer expectations. Process modeling methodologies are useful in defining and studying existing processes for a better understanding and analysis to discover current problems as well as depicting the to be processes of the organizations. However, the dynamics between process modeling and improvement has not been examined in the literature thoroughly. The idea of combining process improvement with process automation is promoted, however, in its current state, many process improvement models are designed to be executed by humans, new approaches which would enable them to be interpreted by machines would be developed.
SMEs which operate on limited resources will preferably need SPI frameworks which would cover al these aspects as an integrated whole. However, current frameworks have structures, which concentrate on specific aspects rather than integrating different views. Rational [36] for example is a very effective modeling tool, however it does not offer a solution for process improvement. Similarly, Personal Software Process [37] or Team Software Process [38] concentrates on process improvement but they do not provide methodologies guiding organizations on implementation issues. Workflow management systems may be used to automate the processes, however continuity is not maintained (organizations do it once and leave as is since it is costly to keep the models and the reality in sync), therefore improvement is not supported. In this study, we have investigated the current SPI frameworks in terms of the extent of support for these different aspects. The frameworks are compared in a tabular view in Table 1, to highlight the improvement opportunities and significant similarities and differences among them. The comparison is done in six major categories with different characteristics to be investigated, which will be explained in this section.
294
F.Ç. Yeşildoruk, B. Bozlu, and O. Demirörs
3.1 General Properties The characteristics in this category are generic to all frameworks. It includes historical information about the frameworks as most of them are based on best practices of previous SPI approaches and complement them with new properties to compensate the SME related challenges of the base approach. This category also gives information about the geographic scope of the methodology and for how long it has been in use. The integrated Tools of the framework for process improvement are named in this category. Process improvement may be performed utilizing different Tools; some of which may be specifically intended for process improvement whereas others are utilized as supplementary aids. Complementary Tools such as process modeling and process automation may increase the efficiency of process improvement, especially when organizations have to react very quickly. Process modeling tools enable creating formal models by using visual representations, which can both be used in assessment and automation of processes. The generic properties reveal that none of the frameworks focus on modeling and automation tools, while they all have reference models, assessment and improvement tools. 3.2 Reference Model Reference models include descriptions of process attributes so that each organization may use these descriptions to compare their processes with. Process attributes can be described at different abstraction levels. Some of the models include detailed descriptions such as best practices and implementation guidelines. Tailoring guidelines may be used by organizations to adapt the reference model to specific organizational needs and situations. Glazer et.al. report that one of the reasons of failure in model-based improvement is the misuse of the model; most of the time models are applied rather than being implemented [39]. Applying a model imposes certain activities; however implementing a model utilizes models as learning and communication tools as well as media for organizing thoughts [39]. Implementation guidelines are also important for SMEs, as reference models are generic by definition; and SMEs can have difficulties in implementing those abstract definitions. The process coverage is another issue that may differ among the reference models. As more processes are covered by the model, its application in different organizations is easier. Almost all of the existing models cover only the software life-cycle processes. SMEs on the other hand execute other processes such as service-desks and finances. Models with wider coverage will be beneficial for SMEs as the need to learn and execute multiple process models will decrease. The dimension of a reference model describes the underlying structure and the relationships among process areas and with capability levels. A staged architecture includes process areas, which are associated with different organizational capability levels. A continuous architecture defines capability levels for process areas. Addressing strategic competencies in the market and focusing improvement actions in strategic process areas is especially important for SMEs; in which case a model with a continuous dimension structure can be applied by SMEs more efficiently. On account of this, all frameworks utilize a continuous architecture in which the selected processes that should be improved can be identified considering organizational goals and context.
General Properties
Reference Model
Modeli ng
ISO/IEC 15504 TR
ISO/IEC 15504
Popularity
Based on
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Available
Generic Generic
√ X √ √ X
ISO/IEC 15504 ISO/IEC 12207
In Brazil
SME
Software
2003
MPS Brazil Brazil
Available
Detailed Detailed
√ X √ √ X
ISO/IEC 12207 ISO/IEC 15504 ISO 9000:2000 CMMI
SME Chosen by ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7/WG24
Software
2002
MoProSoft Mexico Mexico
None
Based on CMM
√ X √ √ X
CMM
Spain
SME
Software
1997
MESOPYME Spain Spain
None
ISO/IEC 15504 TR
√ X √ √ X
CMM
In UK
SME
Software
2000
PRISMS UK
Available
None
Generic Generic
√ X √ √ X
In Finland
Throughout Europe
Intended Organization
√ X √ √ X
SME
SME
Designed especially for
Tools Utilized Reference Model Modeling Assessment Improvement Automation Level of abstraction Detail of descriptions Extend of coverage Availability of tailoring guidelines Availability of implementation guidelines Dimension Why to model Prescriptive Descriptive Notation How to model
1998 Software
1998
Software
Initiated in
SATASPIN Finland Finland
SPIRE Europe Europe
Geographic Origin Mostly used in
Table 1. Comparison of SPI Frameworks
The Tool Coverage of Software Process Improvement Frameworks for SMEs 295
Assessment Methodology
Improvement Methodology
Automation Support
Notation Functional Behavioral Structural Tool support for Process Definition Process Execution Process Follow-up
PCE Existence
N/A
N/A
Top-down
Top-down
None
Application Paradigm
None
None
Incremental
Tailored FISMA
High
Assessment cost Tool support for self assessment Tool support for data collection
Waterfall-like
High
High
Assessment effort
Improvement Life-cycle
High
Professionals
Assessment team
external
ISO/IEC 15504-2 Internal and professionals
SPICE
Low
N/A
Top-down
Waterfall-like
None
N/A
Top-down
Incremental
None
High Low Web-based tool recently developed
High
Domain experts
Project Researchers
N/A
Top-down
Agile
None
Low
Low
EvalProSoft
N/A
Top-down
Incremental
None
None
ISO/IEC 15504-2
Process Capability Level Process Capability Level Process Capability Level
CMM assessment CMM based questionnaire
Process Capability Level Process Capability Level Process Capability Level
Appraisal method
Measure
Tool Support
Table 1. (Continued)
296 F.Ç. Yeşildoruk, B. Bozlu, and O. Demirörs
The Tool Coverage of Software Process Improvement Frameworks for SMEs
297
3.3 Modeling Approach Process modeling is one of the most significant means for transferring process experience into process knowledge. It is also a requirement of reference models at certain stages. It is frequently assumed that organizations may use any modeling approach. However, using ‘any’ does not guarantee improvement and modeling approaches to be in line with related tools. Why modeling is needed is important since different approaches focus on different goals. Descriptive modeling approaches are used for understanding the current processes. Prescriptive models on the other hand are generally used as guidelines or frameworks to organize and structure the desired process [40]. SMEs can benefit from descriptive modeling by transforming processes into tangible forms, which facilitate the understanding of current situations and provide a concrete view to identify improvement opportunities. SMEs can utilize prescriptive modeling by guiding and forcing the desired processes. Tool support for modeling simplifies maintenance of the process descriptions, enables automated analysis of the processes and decreases ambiguity [41]. Modeling methodologies improve learning curve, increase reliability of the models and shorten the required effort [41][42]. Lack of guidelines for modeling activities result in ad hoc approaches, and most of the time a natural language based description of the process is formed. The resultant process descriptions are error prone and difficult for numerical analyses. Tools support is crucial for SMEs not only for reducing effort but also for reducing errors. How to model processes is an important issue in the sense that it affects all the way down the improvement implementation. Process modeling as part of a process improvement initiative is usually performed in a top-down fashion, that is, the overall processes are identified primarily and then a process improvement team captures the processes one by one by interviewing stakeholders of each process and then detailing those processes by resolving inconsistencies. This approach requires a complete understanding of the context and therefore can create the problems that process modeling takes months and the contributions of actual performers remains minimal. The bottom-up process modeling requires a deep knowledge and understanding of detailed functions to combine into a single process. Modeling can also be performed using a combination of these two approaches in which each process owner in an organization models her activities and these partial models form the organization’s process-base, which can be used to depict the process knowledge from different perspectives [43]. This style of process modeling may be of great value for SMEs since it does not require the effort of external modelers trying to understand the current processes, or trying to catch-up with the latest version of the processes. Usage of notation in process modeling is important to integrate separately modeled processes easily and unambiguously. The notation is also important if models would be used as input for process execution tools. None of the frameworks we have investigated integrates a modeling approach and its related Tools. Nevertheless, we have included the discussion to guide future studies on this specific Tool.
298
F.Ç. Yeşildoruk, B. Bozlu, and O. Demirörs
3.4 Assessment Methodology In model-based improvement approaches, assessments are performed to identify the gap between the as-is processes of the organization and the attributes of the processes of the reference model and then improvement actions are planned to diminish the gap. The results of the assessment, measurement attribute, are defined in terms of process capability or organizational capability. As mentioned, SMEs tend to focus on strategic processes rather than the overall structure of the organization, therefore the focus is on process capability in SMEs rather than organizational capability. On account of this, for all the listed frameworks, the measure for process capability is capability level and in ordinal scale. Appraisal is the systematic analysis conducted using a documented appraisal method and a reference model as a base. Appraisal method is closely related with the reference model and different appraisal methods are utilized by the frameworks. Assessment team is an important factor affecting the cost of the assessment. Although assessment team may include external professionals, internal participants, domain experts or researchers, generally external professionals conduct assessment, hence the cost is high. Moreover, some methods require the involvement of external professionals as well as trained participants in the assessed organization, which increases duration since not only the assessment team but also the participants within the organization spend time and effort. In SMEs, it is important for a successful SPI implementation to include the software development team members to reflect on the organizational concerns as well as establishing individual commitment to processes. Tool support for collecting data to be used in the assessment, as well as tool support for the assessment itself are helpful both to decrease costs and increase reliability of the assessment reports. 3.5 Improvement Methodology The improvement methodology includes task definitions with sequence of tasks to be performed to plan and implement improvement activities in SMEs. The improvement methodologies in these model-based frameworks usually include similar activities, but the life cycles differ from one another. Improvement activities may be organized in waterfall-like, in incremental or agile styles. Traditional improvement methods use a waterfall-like approach, which carries all the disadvantages of the waterfall life cycle, most significant being the difficulty of managing change and establishing delayed outcomes. Contemporary SME specific SPI frameworks mostly prefer to use lightweight tools, which are iterative and incremental, since these approaches step forward as better responses to uncertainty and change, and enable short improvement cycles. The application paradigm refers to the initiation and implementation patterns of SPI activities, which guides the organizations. Currently, top-down paradigm dominates the SPI activities in which the context is firstly examined to be able to detail into deeper levels later. The bottom-up paradigm requires a grass roots approach to SPI to initiatives. Distributed approach is also mentioned in which SPI implementations are supported by the top-management but initiated in all levels at the same time by process owners throughout the organization.
The Tool Coverage of Software Process Improvement Frameworks for SMEs
299
3.6 Automation Support Automation helps to manage process complexity levels, improve quality by reducing errors and reduce time by delegating tasks [44]. Workflow management systems, business process management systems and CASE tools can be used for these purposes. Most of the time, process improvement frameworks suggest activities to explicitly define the processes, but do not offer how to do it. Process centered environments (PCE) provide solutions integrating the processes with the people, using the supporting technology, with specific focus on how work flows through the organization [45][46]. PCE can be supported by CASE tools in different levels of the automation such as defining, executing and controlling the processes. These environments require notations for functional, behavioral and structural views for defining the process in terms of executable languages. As is the case for the modeling approach, none of the frameworks we have investigated integrates automation support approach and its related Tools. Nevertheless, we have included the discussion to guide future studies on this specific Tool.
4 Conclusion In this paper, we performed a situational analysis based on existing studies. We have studied a selected set of SME-specific SPI frameworks and compared them to determine their coverage of software process improvement Tools. We have observed that in its current state, SPI frameworks for SMEs have accomplishments as well as some improvement opportunities. All frameworks have well defined reference models, assessment and improvement methodologies. MoProSoft framework is distinct in this sense that it benefits from a wide class of process models and complements these models to be in line with SME needs. It is also noteworthy that the reference model in this framework includes detailed guidelines to facilitate process improvement in SMEs. Almost all frameworks utilize a continuous approach which enables SMEs to focus on process areas they want to improve. MoProSoft is supported by EvalProSoft assessment methodology which is especially designed for assessment in small and medium enterprises however other frameworks utilize generic assessment tools. Except MoProSoft and MPS, frameworks require high effort and cost mostly because the required external know-how and experience. SATASPIN and PRISMS have considered the benefit of tool support for self-assessment and included supplementary tools in their framework. It is notable that general trend in process improvement methodology is using incremental – rather than waterfall-like- approaches which is more suitable for SMEs. MoProSoft uses an agile SPI methodology which is formed after inspection of a wide variety of improvement methodologies. In agile methodologies, management may have the fear of loose of control [39], therefore to increase the management support in improvement activities, blending approaches may enhance the improvement by reassuring both the management and the employees that their concerns will be taken into consideration. The major improvement opportunity is observed as integration of complementary Tools for process modeling and process automation to the frameworks. A framework
300
F.Ç. Yeşildoruk, B. Bozlu, and O. Demirörs
utilizing all these Tools can act as an integrated solution, which would guide SMEs to address and tackle their problems and solve them in a faster and more cost effective way. Process models are assumed as the most significant means for transferring process knowledge into process improvement. Therefore integrating process modeling with process improvement activities can enhance the efficiency of SPI initiatives. Tool support is essential for modeling processes separately, and then integrating them identifying and resolving conflictions. Process automation is also not considered as an aspect in improvement frameworks. Especially for SMEs, which require minimum effort and expect maximum benefit, process automation support might help organizations to increase return on investment and ease process prescription. Process automation has a large potential of benefiting from process modeling. The quick change in processes makes it nearly impossible to execute the processes with modeling-only tools. However, modeling tools and notations which take subsequent steps of process models in improvement activities into consideration and interface with process execution systems; may enhance the maintenance of continuity in improvement activities. A restriction in this study was the difficulty of finding the most recent versions of the documentation related to the frameworks, such as the reference models. This could imply that these frameworks are not necessarily maintained to reflect the recent developments in the field. It also means that we were not able to evaluate what advancements the models offer for different SPI Tools. In addition, there are not many documented case studies reporting the results of these SPI efforts except the SPIRE framework. Further work is required to implement these models and perform surveys on companies who implemented these models.
References 1. Paulk, M.C., Weber, C.V., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B.: The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines For Improving The Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995) 2. OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook (2005) 3. SEI. CMMI for Systems Engineering, Software Engineering, Integrated Product and Process Development, and Supplier Sourcing (CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD/SS, V1.1) Staged Representation. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-012 ESC-TR-2002-012, Software Engineering Institute (2002) 4. ISO, Software Process Assessment - Part 2: A reference model for processes and process capability. Technical Report ISO/IEC 15504 TR2:1998, International Organization for Standardization (1998) 5. Thomas, M., McGarry, F.: Top-down vs. bottom-up process improvement. IEEE Software 11(4), 12–13 (1994) 6. Sheard, S.A.: Evolution of the frameworks quagmire. Software Productivity Consortium, Herndon, VA. Computer 34(7) (2001) 7. El Emam, K.: An Overview of Process Improvement in Small Settings. In: Web Engineering, pp. 261–275 (2006) 8. Miluk, G.: Results of a Field Study of CMMI for Small Settings Using Rapid Applied Ethnography. In: Proceedings of the First International Research Workshop for Process Improvement in Small Settings (2005) 9. von Wangenheim, C.G., Anacleto, A., Salviano, C.F.: Helping Small Companies Assess Software Processes. IEEE Software 23(1), 91–98 (2006)
The Tool Coverage of Software Process Improvement Frameworks for SMEs
301
10. Alexandre, S., Renault, A., Habra, N.: OWPL: A Gradual Approach for Software Process Improvement In SMEs. In: Proceedings of the 32nd EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (2006) 11. Demirors, O., Demirors, E.: Software Process Improvement in a Small Organization. In: Gruhn, V. (ed.) EWSPT 1998. LNCS, vol. 1487, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (1998) 12. Dyba, T.: Factors of Software Process Improvement Success in Small and Large Organizations: An Empirical Study in the Scandinavian Context. In: Proceedings of the 9th European Software Engineering Conference, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 148–157 (2003) 13. Garcia, S.: Thoughts on Applying CMMI in Small Settings. Carnegie Mellon University (2005), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/adoption/pdf/garcia-thoughts.pdf 14. Garcia, S., Graettinger, C., Carmody, C., Penn, M.L.: Prototype for a Field Guide for Improving Processes in Small Settings. SEI (2008), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/iprc/ipss-field-guide.pdf 15. Paulk, M.C.: Using the Software CMM in small Organizations. In: Paulk, M.C. (ed.) Joint 1998 Proc. Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conf. and the Eighth Int’l Conf. On Software Quality, pp. 350–361 (1998) 16. Kuvaja, P., Palo, J., Bicego, A.: TAPISTRY- A Software Process Improvement Tailored for Small Enterprises. Software Quality Journal 8, 149–156 (1999) 17. Bucci, G., Campanai, M., Cignoni, G.A.: Rapid Assessment to Solicit Process Improvement in SMEs. In: Proc. 7th European Software Process Improvement Conf. (2000) 18. Mäkinen, T., Varkoi, T., Lepasaar, M.: A Detailed Process Assessment Method for Software SMEs. In: Proc. 7th European Software Process Improvement Conf. (2000) 19. Kalja, A., Oruaas, J.: An overview of SPI activities in Estonia. In: Proceedings of the EuroSPI 1999 conference: European Software Process Improvement (1999) 20. Sanders, M. (ed.): The SPIRE Handbook—Better, Faster, Cheaper: Software Development in Small Organisations, Dublin City. Univ. Center for Software Eng. (1998) 21. Oktaba, H.: MoProSoft: A Software Process Model for small enterprises. In: Proceedings of 1st International Research Workshop for Process Improvement in Small Settings (2005) 22. Weber, K.C., Araujo, E.R., Rocha, A.R., Machado, C., Scalet, D., Salviano, C.: Brazilian Software Process Reference Model and Assessment Method. In: Yolum, p., Güngör, T., Gürgen, F., Özturan, C. (eds.) ISCIS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3733, pp. 402–411. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) ISBN 3-540-29414-7 23. Allen, P., Ramachandran, M., Abushama, H.: PRISMS: an Approach to Software Process Improvement for Small to Medium Enterprises. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Quality Software, Dallas (2003) 24. Calvo-Manzano, J.A., Agustin, G.C., Gilabert, T.S.F., Seco, A.D.A., Sanchez, L.Z., Cota, M.P.: Experiences in the Application of Software Process Improvement in SMES. Software Quality Journal 10, 261–273 (2002) 25. Anacleto, A., von Wangenheim, C.G., Salviano, C.F., Savi, R.: A Method for Process Assessment in Small Software Companies. In: Proc. 4th Int’l Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination Conf., pp. 69–76 (2004) 26. Rout, T.P., Tuffley, A., Cahill, B., Hodgen, B.: The Rapid Assessment of Software Process Capability in Software Process Improvement. In: Proc. of 1st Int’l SPICE Conf., Dublin City Univ. Center for Software Eng., pp. 47–56 (2000) 27. Laporte, C.Y., Renault, A., Alexandre, S.: The Application of International Software Engineering Standards in Very Small Enterprises. In: Oktaba, H., Piattini, M. (eds.) Software Process Improvement for Small and Medium Enterprises: Techniques and Case Studies, pp. 42–70 (2008)
302
F.Ç. Yeşildoruk, B. Bozlu, and O. Demirörs
28. Pino, F.J., Garcia, F., Piattini, M.: Software process improvement in small and medium software enterprises: a systematic review. Software Quality Control 16(2), 237–261 (2008) 29. Mishra, D., Mishra, A.: Software Process Improvement Methodologies for Small and Medium Enterprises. In: Jedlitschka, A., Salo, O. (eds.) PROFES 2008. LNCS, vol. 5089, pp. 273–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) 30. Habra, N., Alexandre, S., Desharnais, J.M., Laporte, C.Y., Renault, A.: Initiating software process improvement in very small enterprises: Experience with a light assessment tool. In: Information and Software Technology (2007) 31. ISO. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7[1] Working Group 24, Life Cycle Processes for Very Small Enterprises, http://profs.logti.etsmtl.ca/claporte/English/VSE/index.html 32. Martins, P.V., da Silva, A.R.: A comparative study of SPI approaches with ProPAM. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (2007) 33. Holschke, O., Gelpke, P., Offermann, P., Schröpfer, C.: Business Process Improvement by Applying Reference Process Models in SOA - a Scenario-based Analysis. Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (2008) 34. Marciniak, J.J., Sadauskas, T.: Use of Questionnaire-Based Appraisals in Process Improvement Programs. In: Acquisition of Software-Intensive Systems Conference, Arlington, Virginia (2003) 35. Wang, Y., King, G.: Philosophies and Approaches to Software Process Improvement. In: Proceedings EUROSPI 1999 (1999) 36. IBM Rational Software, http://www-01.ibm.com/software/rational/ 37. Humphrey, W.S.: PSP: A Self-Improvement Process for Software Engineers. AddisonWesley Professional, Reading (2005) 38. Humphrey, W.S.: TSP: Leading a Development Team. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2005) 39. Glazer, H., Dalton, J., Anderson, D., Konrad, M., Shrum, S.: CMMI or Agile: Why not embrace both! Technical Note. CMU/SEI-2008-TN-003 (2008) 40. Scacchi, W.: Process Models in Software Engineering. In: Marciniak, J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester (2002) 41. Curtis, B., Kellner, M.I., Over, J.: Process Modeling. Communications of the ACM 35(9), 75–90 (1992) 42. Thörn, C., Gustafsson, T.: Uptake of Modeling Practices in SMEs. In: International Conference on Software Engineering. Proceedings of the 2008 international workshop on models in software engineering, pp. 21–26 (2008) 43. Turetken, O., Demirors, O.: Process Modeling By Process Owners: A Decentralized Approach. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 13(1), 75–87 (2008) 44. SEI. Software Process Automation: Experiences from the Trenches. Technical Report CMU/SEI-96-TR-013 (1996) 45. Christie, A.M.: Software Process Automation: A technology Whose Time Has Come? The Journal of Defense Software Engineering (1994), http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/frames.asp?uri=1994/ 07/ xt94d07e.asp 46. SEI. Software Process Automation: Interviews, Survey, and Workshop Results. Technical Report CMU/SEI-97-TR-008 ESC-TR-97-008 Software Engineering Institute (1998)
