Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Software SMEs’ unofficial readiness for CMMI®-based software process improvement

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The goal of software process improvement (SPI) is to improve software processes and produce high-quality software, but the results of SPI efforts in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that develop software have been unsatisfactory. The objective of this study is to support the prolific and successful CMMI-based implementation of SPI in SMEs by presenting the facts related to the unofficial adoption of CMMI level 2 process area-specific practices by software SMEs. Two questionnaire surveys were performed, and 42 questionnaires were selected for data analysis. The questionnaires were filled out by experts from 42 non-CMMI-certified software SMEs based in Malaysia and Pakistan. In the case of each process area of CMMI level 2, the respondents were asked to choose from three categories, namely ‘below 50 %,’ ‘50–75 %,’ and ‘above 75 %’. The percentages indicated the extent to which process area-specific practices are routinely followed in the respondents’ respective organizations. To deal with differing standards for defining SMEs, the notion of the common range standard has been introduced. The results of the study show that a large segment of software development SMEs informally follows the specific practices of CMMI level 2 process areas and thus has true potential for rapid and effective CMMI-based SPI. The results further indicate that, in the case of four process areas of CMMI level 2, there are statistically significant differences between the readiness of small and medium software enterprises to adopt the specific practices of those process areas, and between trends on their part to do so unofficially. The findings, manifesting various degrees of unofficial readiness for CMMI-based SPI among SMEs, can be used to define criteria for the selection of SMEs that would be included in SPI initiatives funded by relevant authorities. In the interests of developing fruitful CMMI-based SPI and to enhance the success rate of CMMI-based SPI initiatives, the study suggests that ‘ready’ or ‘potential’ SMEs should be given priority for SPI initiatives.

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
¥17,985 /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 includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexandre, S., Renault, A., & Habra, N. (2006). OWPL: A gradual approach for software process improvement in SMEs. In32nd EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (pp. 328-335). IEEE.

  • Allen, P., Ramachandran, M., & Abushama, H. (2003). PRISMS: An approach to software process improvement for small to medium enterprises. InThird International Conference on Quality Software (pp. 211–214). IEEE.

  • Al-Tarawneh, M. Y., Abdullah, M. S., & Ali, A. B. M. (2011). A proposed methodology for establishing Software Process Development Improvement for small software development firms.Procedia Computer Science,3, 893–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cepeda, S., Garcia, S., & Langhout, J. (2008). Is CMMI useful and usable in small settings? One example. DTIC document.

  • Chen, X., & Staples, M. (2007). Using practice outcome areas to understand perceived value of CMMI specific practices for SMEs.Software process improvement (pp. 59–70). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., Staples, M., & Bannerman, P. (2008). Analysis of dependencies between specific practices in CMMI maturity Level 2.Software process improvement (pp. 94–105). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, P., & O’Connor, R. V. (2012). The influence of SPI on business success in software SMEs: An empirical study.Journal of Systems and Software,85(10), 2356–2367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, K., Niazi, M., & Verner, J. (2009). Empirical study of Sommerville and Sawyer’s requirements engineering practices.IET Software,3(5), 339–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasanayaka, S. (2008). Smes in globalized world: A brief note on basic profiles of pakistan’s small and medium scale enterprises and possible research directions.Business Review,3(1), 69–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaz, J., Garbajosa, J., & Calvo-Manzano, J. A. (2009). Mapping CMMI Level 2 to Scrum practices: An experience report.Software process improvement (pp. 93–104). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dybå, T. (2003). Factors of software process improvement success in small and large organizations: An empirical study in the scandinavian context. InACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes (pp. 148–157). ACM.

  • Florac, W. A., & Carleton, A. D. (1999).Measuring the software process: Statistical process control for software process improvement. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, S. (2005).Thoughts on applying CMMI in small settings. Pittsburgh: Software Engineering Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, I., & Gonzalo, C. (2007). Determining practice achievement in project management using a two-phase questionnaire on small and medium enterprises. InProceedings of the European Systems and Software Process Improvement and Innovation Conference, EUROSPI 2007. LNCS 4764 (pp. 46–58). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

  • Garcia, I., & Pacheco, C. (2009). Toward automated support for software process improvement initiatives in small and medium size enterprises.Software engineering research, management and applications 2009 (pp. 51–58). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • García, I., Pacheco, C., Mendoza, E., Calvo-Manzano, J. A., Cuevas, G., et al. (2012). Managing the software process with a software process improvement tool in a small enterprise.Journal of Software: Evolution and Process,24(5), 481–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, I., Pacheco, C., & Sumano, P. (2008). Use of Questionnaire-based appraisal to improve the software acquisition process in small and medium enterprises.Software engineering research, management and applications (pp. 15–27). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen, D., Zviran, M., & Elman, N. (2006). What can be learned from CMMI failures?Communications of the Association for Information Systems,17(1), 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldenson, D., Jarzombek, J., & Rout, T. (2003). Measurement and analysis in capability maturity model integration models and software process improvement.CrossTalk, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering,6(7), 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habib, M., Ahmed, S., Rehmat, A., Khan, M. J., & Shamail, S. (2008). Blending six sigma and CMMI-an approach to accelerate process improvement in SMEs. InInternational Multitopic Conference (pp. 386–391). IEEE.

  • Huang, S.-J., & Han, W.-M. (2006). Selection priority of process areas based on CMMI continuous representation.Information & Management,43(3), 297–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, S.-J., & Han, W.-M. (2008). Exploring the relationship between software project duration and risk exposure: A cluster analysis.Information & Management,45(3), 175–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, D., & Zhang, W. (2010) CMMI in medium and small enterprises: Problems and solutions. In2nd IEEE International Conference on Information Management and Engineering (pp. 171–174). IEEE.

  • Hwang, S. M. (2009). Process quality levels of ISO/IEC 15504, CMMI and K-model.International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications,3(1), 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackelen, G. (2007). CMMI Level 2 within six months? No Way!CrossTalk, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering,20(2), 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khokhar, M. N., Zeshan, K., & Aamir, J. (2010). Literature review on the software process improvement factors in the small organizations. In4th International Conference on New Trends in Information Science and Service Science (NISS) (pp. 592–598). IEEE.

  • Khurshid, N., Bannerman, P. L., & Staples, M. (2009). Overcoming the first hurdle: Why organizations do not adopt CMMI.Trustworthy Software Development Processes (pp. 38–49). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, N., Wilkie, F. G., McFall, D., & Ware, M. (2010). Investigating the role of CMMI with expanding company size for small-to medium-sized enterprises.Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice,22, 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lethbridge, T. C., Sim, S. E., & Singer, J. (2005). Studying software engineers: Data collection techniques for software field studies.Empirical Software Engineering,10(3), 311–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lina, Z., & Dan, S. (2012). Research on combining scrum with CMMI in small and medium organizations. InInternational Conference on Computer Science and Electronics Engineering (pp. 554–557). IEEE.

  • Liou, J.-C. (2011). On improving CMMI in an immature world of software development.Journal of Information Science and Engineering,27(1), 213–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaysia SC. (2013).http://www.smecorp.gov.my/vn2/, Malaysia.

  • Mishra, D., & Mishra, A. (2008). Software process improvement methodologies for small and medium enterprises.Product-focused software process improvement (pp. 273–288). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro, P., Machado, R. J., & Kazman, R. (2009). Inception of software validation and verification practices within CMMI Level 2. InFourth International Conference on Software Engineering Advance (pp. 536–541). IEEE.

  • Monteiro, P., Machado, R. J., Kazman, R., & Henriques, C. (2010). Dependency analysis between CMMI process areas.Product-focused software process improvement (pp. 263–275). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nasir, M. H. N. M., Ahmad, R., & Hassan, N. H. (2008). An empirical study of barriers in the implementation of software process improvement project in Malaysia.Journal of Applied Sciences,8(23), 4362–4368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newspaper. (2013). Boosting growth of small firms.NEW STRAITS TIMES, 12 July (p 2). Malaysia.

  • Niazi, M., Ali Babar, M., & Katugampola, N. M. (2008a). Demotivators of software process improvement: An empirical investigation.Software Process: Improvement and Practice,13(3), 249–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niazi, M., & Babar, M. A. (2009). Identifying high perceived value practices of CMMI level 2: An empirical study.Information and Software Technology,51(8), 1231–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niazi, M., Babar, M. A., & Verner, J. M. (2010). Software process improvement barriers: A cross-cultural comparison.Information and Software Technology,52(11), 1204–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niazi, M., Hickman, C., Ahmad, R., & Babar, M. A. (2008b). A model for requirements change management: Implementation of CMMI Level 2 specific practice.Product-focused software process improvement (pp. 143–157). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Noor, T., Ahmad, J., & Zafar, I. (2007). Information technology (IT) industry trends and adaptation of capability maturity model integration (CMMI) practices in Pakistan. InIEEE International Conference on Information and Emerging Technologies (pp. 1–5).

  • O’Connor, R. V., & Coleman, G. (2009). “Ignoring Best Practice”: Why Irish software SMEs are rejecting CMMI and ISO 9000.Australasian Journal of Information Systems,16(1), 7–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, J., Cerpa, N., Verner, J., Rivas, M., & Procaccino, J. D. (2008). What do software practitioners really think about project success: A cross-cultural comparison.Journal of Systems and Software,81(6), 897–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfleeger, S. L., & Kitchenham, B. A. (2001). Principles of survey research: Part 1: Turning lemons into lemonade.ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes,26(6), 16–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pino, F. J., García, F., & Piattini, M. (2008). Software process improvement in small and medium software enterprises: A systematic review.Software Quality Journal,16(2), 237–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pino, F. J., Pardo, C., García, F., & Piattini, M. (2010). Assessment methodology for software process improvement in small organizations.Information and Software Technology,52(10), 1044–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Procaccino, J. D., & Verner, J. M. (2006). Software project managers and project success: An exploratory study.Journal of Systems and Software,79(11), 1541–1551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Procaccino, J. D., Verner, J. M., Shelfer, K. M., & Gefen, D. (2005). What do software practitioners really think about project success: An exploratory study.Journal of Systems and Software,78(2), 194–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reel, J. S. (1999). Critical success factors in software projects.IEEE Software,16(3), 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SEI. (2006).Process maturity profile. USA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staples, M., & Niazi, M. (2010). Two case studies on small enterprise motivation and readiness for CMMI. InProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Product Focused Software (pp. 63–66). ACM.

  • Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P., et al. (2007). An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI.Journal of Systems and Software,80(6), 883–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sulayman, M., & Mendes, E. (2009). A systematic literature review of software process improvement in small and medium web companies.Advances in software engineering (pp. 1–8). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sulayman, M., Urquhart, C., Mendes, E., & Seidel, S. (2012). Software process improvement success factors for small and medium Web companies: A qualitative study.Information and Software Technology,54(5), 479–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Team CP. (2010).CMMI®for development, version 1.3, improving processes for developing better products and services, No CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033. Boston: Software Engineering Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vivatanavorasin, C., Prompoon, N., & Surarerks, A. (2006). A process model design and tool development for supplier agreement management of CMMI: Capability Level 2. In13th Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference (pp. 385–392). IEEE.

  • Vivatanavorasin, C., Prompoon, N., & Surarerks, A. (2006). A process model design and tool development for supplier agreement management of CMMI: Capability Level 2. InSoftware Engineering Conference, 2006 APSEC 2006 13th Asia Pacific (pp. 385–392). IEEE.

  • Wallace, L., Keil, M., & Rai, A. (2004). Understanding software project risk: A cluster analysis.Information & Management,42(1), 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, F. G., McFall, D., & McCaffery, F. (2005). An evaluation of CMMI process areas for small-to medium-sized Software Development Organisations.Software Process: Improvement and Practice,10(2), 189–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yucalar, F., & Erdogan, S. Z. (2009). A questionnaire based method for CMMI Level-2 maturity assessment.Journal of aeronautics and space technologies,4(2), 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., & Shao, D. (2011). Software process improvement for small and medium organizations based on CMMI. In2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Management Science and Electronic Commerce (pp. 2402–2405). IEEE.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Bright Sparks Unit, University of Malaya, Malaysia and also University of Malaya Research Grant (No. RG316-14AFR) for providing financial support to complete this study. Thanks are due to reviewers and associate editor for their comments which improved this manuscript. We are also grateful to the management of all the participating SMEs for facilitating the smooth conduction of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Software Engineering Department, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Javed Iqbal, Rodina Binti Ahmad & Mohd Hairul Nizam Md Nasir

  2. Information and Computer Science Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, 31261, Saudi Arabia

    Mahmood Niazi

  3. Computer System and Technology Department, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Shahaboddin Shamshirband

  4. Computer Science Department, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Muhammad Asim Noor

Authors
  1. Javed Iqbal

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rodina Binti Ahmad

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohd Hairul Nizam Md Nasir

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mahmood Niazi

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shahaboddin Shamshirband

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Muhammad Asim Noor

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toJaved Iqbal.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /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 includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Advertisement

[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp