An organizational maturity model of software product line engineering

• Ahmed, F., Capretz, L. F., & Sheikh, S. A. (2007). Institutionalization of software product line: An empirical investigation of organizational factors. The Journal of Systems and Software, 80(6), 836–849.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Argyris, C. (1977). Double-loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55, 115–125.

  Google Scholar 

• Bayer, J., Flege, O., Knauber, P., Laqua, R., Muthig, D., & Schmid, K., et al. (1999). PuLSE: A methodology to develop software product lines. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Reusability, (pp. 122–131).

• Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

  Google Scholar 

• Birk, G. H., John, I., Schmid, K., von der Massen, T., & Muller, K. (2003). Product line engineering, the state of the practice. IEEE Software, 20(6), 52–60.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bosch, J. (2000). Design and use of software architectures: Adopting and evolving a product-line approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

  Google Scholar 

• Bosch, J. (2001). Software product lines: Organizational alternatives. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, (pp. 91–100).

• Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cao, G., Clarke, S., & Lehaney, B. (2000). A systematic view of organizational change and TQM. The TQM Magazine, 12(3), 186–193.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Clements, P. C. (2001). On the importance of product line scope. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Software Product Family Engineering, (pp. 69–77).

• Clements, P. C., Jones, L. G., Northrop, L. M., & McGregor, J. D. (2005). Project management in a software product line organization. IEEE Software, 22(5), 54–62.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Clements, P. C., & Northrop, L. M. (2002). Software product lines practices and patterns. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

  Google Scholar 

• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course on factor analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  Google Scholar 

• Crewson, P. (1997). Public service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 499–518.

  Google Scholar 

• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal consistency of tests. Psychometrica, 16, 297–334.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Dikel, D., Kane, D., Ornburn, S., Loftus, W., & Wilson, J. (1997). Applying software product-line architecture. IEEE Computer, 30(8), 49–55.

  Google Scholar 

• El Emam, K. (1999). Benchmarking kappa: Inter-rater agreement in software process assessments. Empirical Software Engineering, 4(2), 113–133.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Gordon, J. R. (2002). Organizational behavior: A diagnostic approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

  Google Scholar 

• Hames, R. D. (1994). The management myth. Sydney: Business and Professional Publishing.

  Google Scholar 

• Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J. W., Jr., Woodman, R. W., & Bruning, N. S. (1998). Organizational behavior. Canada: ITP Nelson.

  Google Scholar 

• Jacobsen, I., Griss, M., & Jonsson, P. (1997). Software reuse—architecture process and organization for business success. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

  Google Scholar 

• Jazayeri, M., Ran, A., & van der Linden, F. (2000). Software architecture for product families: Principles and practice. Reading. MA: Addison Wesley.

  Google Scholar 

• Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intra-group conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–417.

  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Kilmann, R. H., Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (1985). Gaining control of the corporate culture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  Google Scholar 

• Koh, E., & Kim, S. (2004). Issues on adopting software product line. In Proceedings of the 11th Asia–Pacific Conference on Software Engineering, (pp. 589).

• Kottler, J. (1994). Beyond blame: A new way of resolving conflicts in relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  Google Scholar 

• Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York, NY: The Free Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Kuvaja, P. J., Simila, J., Krzanik, L., Bicego, A., Saukkonen, S., & Koch, G. (1994). Software process assessment and improvement—the bootstrap approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

  Google Scholar 

• Landis, J., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

  Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

• Lee, H. Y., Jung, H. W., Chung, C. S., Lee, J. M., Lee K. W., & Jeong, H. J. (2001). Analysis of inter-rater agreement in ISO/IEC 15504-based software process assessment. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asia–Pacific Conference on Quality Software, (pp. 341–348).

• Lyles, M. A. (1994). An analysis of discrimination skills as a process of organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 1(1), 23–32.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Macala, R. R., Stuckey, L. D., Jr., & Gross, D. C. (1996). Managing domain-specific, product-line development. IEEE Software, 13(3), 57–67.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mannion, M. (2002). Organizing for software product line engineering. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice, (pp. 55–61).

• Marquardt, M., & Reynolds, A. (1994). The global learning organization. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

  Google Scholar 

• Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Dorado, M. A., & Martínez, I. (2005). Types of intra-group conflict and affective reactions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), 219–230.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernste, I. A. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

  Google Scholar 

• O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporation, cults, and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 157–200.

  Google Scholar 

• Osterhof, A. (2001). Classroom applications of educational measurement. NJ: Prentice Hall.

  Google Scholar 

• Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., & Weber, C. V. (1993). Capability maturity model version 1.1. IEEE Software, 10(4), 18–27.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rosen, R. (1995). Strategic management: An introduction. London, UK: Pitman.

  Google Scholar 

• Schein, E. H. (1988). Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  Google Scholar 

• Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  MATH  Google Scholar 

• Todd, A. (1999). Managing radical change. Long Range Planning, 32(2), 237–244.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Toft, P., Coleman, D., & Ohta, J. (2000). A cooperative model for cross-divisional product development for a software product line. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Software Product Lines, (pp. 111–132).

• van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. New York: Wiley.

  Google Scholar 

• van der Linden, F. (2002). Software product families in Europe: The Esaps & Café projects. IEEE Software, 19(4), 41–49.

  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

• van der Linden, F., Bosch, J., Kamsties, E., Känsälä, K., & Obbink, H. (2004). Software product family evaluation. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Product Lines, (pp. 110–129).

• Verlage, M., & Kiesgen, T. (2005). Five years of product line engineering in a small company. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, (pp. 534–543).

• von Eye, A., & Mun, E. Y. (2005). Analyzing rater agreement manifest variable methods. London: LEA Publishers.

  Google Scholar 

• Walls, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21(3), 515–558.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wang, Y., & King, G. (2000). Software engineering processes: Principles and application. New York: CRC Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Weiss, D. M., & Lai, C. T. R. (1999). Software product line engineering: A family based software development process. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

  Google Scholar 

• White, D. H. (1982). Contemporary perspectives in organizational behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

  Google Scholar 

• Wilson, A. M. (2001). Understanding organizational culture and the implication for corporate marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 353–367.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wilson, D. C., & Rosenfeld, R. H. (1990). Managing organizations. London: McGraw-Hill.

  Google Scholar 

• Witherspoon, P. D. (1997). Communicating leadership—an organizational perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

  Google Scholar 

Download references