article

An organizational maturity model of software product line engineering

Authors:

Faheem Ahmed,

Luiz Fernando CapretzAuthors Info & Claims

Software Quality Journal, Volume 18, Issue 2

Pages 195 - 225

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-009-9088-5

Published: 01 June 2010 Publication History

Abstract

Software product line engineering is an inter-disciplinary concept. It spans the dimensions of business, architecture, process, and the organization. Some of the potential benefits of this approach include cost reduction, improvements in product quality and a decrease in product development time. The increasing popularity of software product line engineering in the software industry necessitates a process maturity evaluation methodology. Accordingly, this paper presents an organizational maturity model of software product line engineering for evaluating the maturity of organizational dimension. The model assumes that organizational theories, behavior, and management play a critical role in the institutionalization of software product line engineering within an organization. Assessment questionnaires and a rating methodology comprise the framework of this model. The objective and design of the questionnaires are to collect information about the software product line engineering process from the dual perspectives of organizational behavior and management. Furthermore, we conducted two case studies and reported the assessment results using the organizational maturity model presented in this paper.

References

[1]

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.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[2]

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

Google Scholar

[3]

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).

Crossref

Google Scholar

[4]

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

Google Scholar

[5]

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.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[6]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[7]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[8]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[9]

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

Google Scholar

[10]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[11]

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).

Crossref

Google Scholar

[12]

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.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[13]

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

Google Scholar

[14]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[15]

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

Google Scholar

[16]

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

[17]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[18]

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

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[19]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[20]

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

Google Scholar

[21]

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

Google Scholar

[22]

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

Google Scholar

[23]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[24]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[25]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[26]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[27]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[28]

Kilmann, R. H., Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (1985). <

Google Scholar

[29]

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

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[30]

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

Google Scholar

[31]

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

Google Scholar

[32]

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

[33]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[34]

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).

Crossref

Google Scholar

[35]

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

Google Scholar

[36]

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

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[37]

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).

Crossref

Google Scholar

[38]

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

Google Scholar

[39]

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.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[40]

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.

Google Scholar

[41]

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

Google Scholar

[42]

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

Google Scholar

[43]

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

Google Scholar

[44]

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

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[45]

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

Google Scholar

[46]

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

Google Scholar

[47]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[48]

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

Google Scholar

[49]

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).

Crossref

Google Scholar

[50]

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

Google Scholar

[51]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[52]

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).

Google Scholar

[53]

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).

Crossref

Google Scholar

[54]

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

Google Scholar

[55]

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

Google Scholar

[56]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[57]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[58]

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

Google Scholar

[59]

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

Crossref

Google Scholar

[60]

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

Google Scholar

[61]

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

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Ojeda MRodriguez FCollazos C(2019)Identifying Collaborative Aspects During Software Product Lines ScopingProceedings of the 23rd International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume B10.1145/3307630.3342420(98-105)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3307630.3342420
Ojeda MAlegría JRodriguez FSharp Hde Souza CGraziotin DLevy MSocha D(2018)An exploratory study for scoping software product lines in a collaborative wayProceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering10.1145/3195836.3195852(17-20)Online publication date: 27-May-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3195836.3195852
Bastos Jda Mota Silveira Neto POLeary Pde Almeida Ede Lemos Meira S(2017)Software product lines adoption in small organizationsJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.052131:C(112-128)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.052
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

An organizational maturity model of software product line engineering
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Management of computing and information systems
      1. Project and people management
      2. Software management
2. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Software development process management

Recommendations

A business maturity model of software product line engineering

In the recent past, software product line engineering has become one of the most promising practices in software industry with the potential to substantially increase the software development productivity. Software product line engineering approach ...
Integrating Software Product Line Engineering and Agile Development

Software product line engineering (SPLE) delivers significant economic benefits through planned reuse of the product platform and the effective management of variations across products. However, dynamic market conditions demand the use of software ...
Process maturity model for software product line

Reviews

Reviewer: Sergio Soares

The number of associated research topics reflects the increasing popularity of software product line engineering in both research and industry. Researchers propose software product line engineering methods, models, tools, and processes for the whole spectrum of software development disciplines and activities. This paper proposes an "organizational maturity model of software product line engineering for evaluating the maturity of the organizational dimension." According to the authors, some key organizational factors-"organizational structure, roles and responsibility, organizational learning, change management, conflict management, organizational culture, organizational communication, [and] organizational commitment"-affect software product line engineering performance. These factors constitute the base of the maturity model proposed. The paper cites a previous proposal of a software product line engineering maturity model that does not give much detail about each dimension (business, architecture, process, and organization). The aim of this paper is to deeply detail the organizational dimension. In spite of being detailed, the proposed maturity levels and the statements that configure each level suggest an ad hoc definition, since there is no concrete support for such decisions. On the other hand, the authors make some effort to evaluate the proposed model. The assessment includes case studies of two real-world companies. This assessment is, in fact, quite subjective: it does not measure whether the model is adequate or not, but only if it is applicable. There is also an interesting preliminary study on improving the activities the companies performed after the maturity assessment. In general, the paper's presentation is quite straightforward. It presents several important theories about maturity assessment. Online Computing Reviews Service

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

Software Quality Journal Volume 18, Issue 2

June 2010

143 pages

ISSN:0963-9314

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Kluwer Academic Publishers

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 June 2010

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

5
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 23 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Ojeda MRodriguez FCollazos C(2019)Identifying Collaborative Aspects During Software Product Lines ScopingProceedings of the 23rd International Systems and Software Product Line Conference - Volume B10.1145/3307630.3342420(98-105)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3307630.3342420
Ojeda MAlegría JRodriguez FSharp Hde Souza CGraziotin DLevy MSocha D(2018)An exploratory study for scoping software product lines in a collaborative wayProceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering10.1145/3195836.3195852(17-20)Online publication date: 27-May-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3195836.3195852
Bastos Jda Mota Silveira Neto POLeary Pde Almeida Ede Lemos Meira S(2017)Software product lines adoption in small organizationsJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.052131:C(112-128)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.052
Bastos Jda Mota Silveira Neto Pde Almeida Ede Lemos Meira SFranch XMadhavji NCabral Duarte C(2015)Software product lines adoptionProceedings of the Third International Workshop on Conducting Empirical Studies in Industry10.5555/2819303.2819317(35-42)Online publication date: 16-May-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2819303.2819317
Wu YPeng XZhao W(2011)Architecture evolution in software product lineProceedings of the 12th international conference on Top productivity through software reuse10.5555/2022115.2022131(135-150)Online publication date: 13-Jun-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2022115.2022131

Abstract

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

A business maturity model of software product line engineering

Integrating Software Product Line Engineering and Agile Development

Process maturity model for software product line

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Comments

Information

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View options

Figures

Other

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations