[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Measuring and Comparing the Adoption of Software Process Practices in the Software Product Industry

  • Conference paper
Making Globally Distributed Software Development a Success Story (ICSP 2008)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 5007))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Compatibility of agile methods and CMMI have been of interest for the software engineering community, but empirical evidence beyond case studies is scarce, which be attributed to the lack of validated measurement scales for survey studies. In this study, we construct and validate a set of Rasch scales for measuring process maturity and use of agile methods. Using survey data from 86 small and medium-sized software product firms, we find that the use of agile methods and the maturity level of the firm are complementary in this sample. In addition to providing initial survey evidence of the compatibility of agile methods and process maturity, our study provides a set of validated scales that can be further refined and used in later survey studies.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boehm, B., Turner, R.: Using risk to balance agile and plan-driven methods. Computer 36, 57–66 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baker, S.W.: Formalizing agility: an agile organization’s journey toward CMMI accreditation. In: Agile Conference, Proceedings, pp. 185–192 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boehm, B., Turner, R.: Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional development organizations. IEEE Software 22, 30–39 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Salo, O., Abrahamsson, P.: Integrating agile software development and software process improvement: a longitudinal case study. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, pp. 187–196 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Merisalo-Rantanen, H., Tuunainen, T., Rossi, M.: Is extreme programming just old wine in new bottles: A comparison of two cases. J. Database Manage. 16, 41–61 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Paulk, M.C.: Extreme programming from a CMM perspective. IEEE Software 18, 19–26 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boehm, B.: Get ready for agile methods, with care. Computer 35, 64–69 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baskerville, R., Ramesh, B., Levine, L., Pries-Heje, I., Slaughter, S.: Is Internet-speed software development different? IEEE Software 20, 70 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Murru, O., Deias, R., Mugheddu, G.: Assessing XP at European Internet Company. IEEE Software 20, 37–43 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kitchenham, B.A., Pfleeger, S.L.: Principles of survey research: part 3: constructing a survey instrument. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 27, 20–24 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Zubrov, D., Hayes, W., Siegel, J., Goldenson, D.: Maturity Questionnaire. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  12. DeVellis, R.F.: Scale development theory and applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kitchenham, B.A., Pfleeger, S.L., Pickard, L.M., Jones, P.W., Hoaglin, D.C., El Emam, K., Rosenberg, J.: Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28, 721–734 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Turner, R., Jain, A.: Agile meets CMMI: Culture clash or common cause? In: Proc. EXtreme Programming and Agile Methods-XP/Agile Universe 2002, pp. 153–165 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sutherland, J., Jacobson, C.: Scrum and CMMI Level 5: A Magic Potion for Code Warriors! In: Agile 2007, Washington, DC, IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Anderson, D.J.: Stretching Agile to fit CMMI Level 3. In: Agile Development Conference (ADC 2005), pp. 193–201 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cohn, M., Ford, D.: Introducing an agile process to an organization. Computer 36, 74–78 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cockburn, A.: Selecting a project’s methodology. Software, IEEE 17, 64–71 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bowers, A.N., Sangwan, R.S., Neill, C.J.: Adoption of XP Practices in the Industry–A Survey. Software Process Improvement and Practice 12, 283–294 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jiang, J.J., Klein, G., Hwang, H.G., Huang, J., Hung, S.Y.: An exploration of the relationship between software development process maturity and project performance. Information & Management 41, 279–288 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Agrawal, M., Chari, K.: Software effort, quality, and cycle time: A study of CMM level 5 projects. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 33, 145–156 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Galin, D., Avrahami, M.: Are CMM program investments beneficial? Analyzing past studies. IEEE Software 23, 81–87 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harter, D.E., Krishnan, M.S., Slaughter, S.A.: Effects of process maturity on quality, cycle time, and effort in software product development. Management Science 46, 451–466 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Herbsleb, J., Zubrow, D., Goldenson, D., Hayes, W., Paulk, M.: Software quality and the Capability Maturity Model. Communications of the Acm 40, 30–40 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Miller, J.: Triangulation as a basis for knowledge discovery in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bond, T.G., Fox, C.M.: Applying the Rasch model fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rasch, G.: Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Danmarks Pædagogiske Institut, Copenhagen (1960)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dekleva, S., Drehmer, D.: Measuring software engineering evolution: A rasch calibration. Information Systems Research 8, 95–104 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Drehmer, D.E., Dekleva, S.M.: A note on the evolution of software engineering practices. Journal of Systems and Software 57, 1–7 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Andrich, D.: Rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 43, 561–573 (1978)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Lindell, M.K., Whitney, D.J.: Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 114–121 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Software Engineering Institute: CMMI® for Development, Version 1.2. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with Scrum. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rönkkö, M., Eloranta, E., Mustaniemi, H., Mutanen, O.-P., Kontio, J.: Finnish Software Product Business: Results of National Software Industry Survey 2007. Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Dillman, D.A.: Mail and internet surveys the tailored design method. Wiley, Hoboken (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H.: Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill Book, New York (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Strigel, W.: In software processes, organization size matters. IEEE Software 24, 55–57 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Technology, University of Turku, Joukahaisentie 3-5, 20014, Turun yliopisto, Finland

    Mikko Rönkkö

  2. Software Business Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, Otaniementie 17, 02015, TKK, Finland

    Mikko Rönkkö, Antero Järvi & Markus M. Mäkelä

Authors
  1. Mikko Rönkkö
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antero Järvi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus M. Mäkelä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Qing Wang Dietmar Pfahl David M. Raffo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rönkkö, M., Järvi, A., Mäkelä, M.M. (2008). Measuring and Comparing the Adoption of Software Process Practices in the Software Product Industry. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds) Making Globally Distributed Software Development a Success Story. ICSP 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5007. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79588-9_35

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79588-9_35

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-79587-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-79588-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation