Applying ISO 9001:2000, MPS.BR and CMMI to Achieve Software Process Maturity: BL Informatica's Pathway

Ferreira, Analia Irigoyen Ferreiro; Santos, Gleison; Cerqueira, Roberta; Montoni, Mariano; Barreto, Ahilton; Barreto, Andrea; Rocha, Ana Regina

doi:10.1109/icse.2007.15

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[18]- [20], [24]- [26], [67]- [69], [83], [96]- [100], [105], [109], [112], [114], [119], [122]- [124], [127], [129], [133], [136], [141], [142], [146], [147], [151], [154], [155], [158], [159], [161], [162], [165], [166], [168], [171], [174], [176]- [179], [182]- [185], [199], [203], [213], [214], [222] 57 Estimation Accuracy The deviation between the actual and planned values of other attributes measurements. Examples of attributes commonly estimated are schedule, effort, size and productivity.…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[8], [15], [16], [20], [23], [26], [52], [67], [69]- [71], [88], [92], [93], [98], [100], [101], [106], [112], [113], [115], [118], [123], [128], [131], [132], [136], [138], [139], [141], [144], [146], [147], [149], [151], [153], [162], [166]- [168], [170], [178], [180]- [182], [186], [188], [194], [195], [199], [201], [202], [209], [211],…”

Section: Analysis and Discussionunclassified

“…The categories of success indicators is shown in Section 4.3 (Table 8). The identified metrics were categorized as in the following example: (1) The metric "Number of defects found in peer reviews" is mapped to the "Process quality" category as it describes the effectiveness of the peer review process (e. g. [67]- [69]). ( 2) The metric "Number of defects identified after shipment / KLOC" (e. g. [67], [70], [71]) is mapped to the "Product quality" category as the object of study is the product itself and not the processes from which the product originates.…”

Section: Success Indicator and Metric (P4)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A potential reason for these inconsistencies can be the lack of a by researchers and practitioners acknowledged reference terminology for software measurement [80]. Imprecise terminology can lead to inadequate assessment, com- Schedule [8], [15], [16], [20], [23], [26], [52], [67], [88], [92], [93], [100], [112], [113], [115], [123], [128], [132], [138], [139], [144], [146], [149], [151], [162], [167], [168], [170], [171], [180]- [182], [194], [199], [201], [212], [215] 37/0.66 Cost [15], [16], [23], [26], [52], [69], [92], [93], [131], [147],…”

Section: Validity Of Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review

Unterkalmsteiner

Gorschek

Islam

et al. 2012

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

244

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND-Software Process Improvement (SPI) is a systematic approach to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of a software development organization and to enhance software products. OBJECTIVE-This paper aims to identify and characterize evaluation strategies and measurements used to assess the impact of different SPI initiatives. METHOD-The systematic literature review includes 148 papers published between 1991 and 2008. The selected papers were classified according to SPI initiative, applied evaluation strategies and measurement perspectives. Potential confounding factors interfering with the evaluation of the improvement effort were assessed. RESULTS-Seven distinct evaluation strategies were identified, whereas the most common one, "Pre-Post Comparison", was applied in 49% of the inspected papers. Quality was the most measured attribute (62%), followed by Cost (41%) and Schedule (18%). Looking at measurement perspectives, "Project" represents the majority with 66%. CONCLUSION-The evaluation validity of SPI initiatives is challenged by the scarce consideration of potential confounding factors, particularly given that "Pre-Post Comparison" was identified as the most common evaluation strategy, and the inaccurate descriptions of the evaluation context. Measurements to assess the short and mid-term impact of SPI initiatives prevail, whereas long-term measurements in terms of customer satisfaction and return on investment tend to be less used.

show abstract

Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis and Discussionunclassified

Section: Success Indicator and Metric (P4)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Validity Of Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review

Unterkalmsteiner

Gorschek

Islam

et al. 2012

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

244

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alguns autores trazem evidências objetivas que comprovam essa influência (ex. : Harter et al, 2000;Goldenson e Gibson, 2003;Ferreira et al, 2007;Travassos e Kalinowski, 2008). Em particular, o trabalho de Osterweil (1997) estabelece uma analogia entre software e processo de software, uma vez que ambos são executáveis, possuem um conjunto de requisitos, apresentam benefícios se modelados por uma variedade de técnicas e podem evoluir guiados por medições: "Software processes are software too".…”

Section: Lista De Tabelasunclassified

Uma contribuição para a melhoria colaborativa e distribuída de processos de software

Pinho¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software Process Improvement (SPI) has become an active research field, given the evidences that the quality of software processes can significantly influence the final product quality. Therefore, SPI models and guides have been disclosed. Still, there is a lack of studies establishing strategies on how to implement SPI models' best practices. Meanwhile, distributed software development (DSD) is becoming widespread, increasing the complexity and importance of software processes and demanding distributed SPI strategies. This study aims to investigate strategies and mechanisms to promote a distributed and collaborative SPI. ColabSPI, a collaborative and distributed approach to SPI is proposed to supporting process evolution, handling process improvement proposals, and promoting the developers' participation in SPI and communication. Accordingly, during the investigation possible influences to SPI programs were explored and the relationship between them has been mapped, both from the literature and from a field study. SPI was investigated in two contexts: (i) a large organization, counting on distributed development units; and (ii) the FLOSS development environment. Contributions to SPI in the FLOSS development environment took place in the international project Qualipso resulting on a ColabSPI customization to evolve the Qualipso Open Source Maturity Model (OMM) and in the co-authoring of the model. In industrial environment, experimental studies were conducted to validate ColabSPI, revealing that some of the software development practices, including DSD and FLOSS practices, can be successfully applied to SPI and yield a more efficient and effective improvement of the software development process. ColabSPI features are also being considered to the definition of a SPI environment to the Demoiselle process, an open process for software development.

show abstract

ROI of software process improvement at BL informática: SPIdex is really worth it

Ferreira

Santos

Cerqueira³

et al. 2008

Softw Process Imprv Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In today's global competitive environment, organizations are always trying to improve their practices aiming to achieve higher levels of productivity, quality and competitiveness. Software process improvement (SPIdex) is one of the most used approaches to achieve these goals. However, this kind of initiative is not easy, and usually great investments are necessary. Therefore, determining the return on these investments is very important to justify them and keep high‐level management and project teams motivated for continuous improvement. In this article, we present quantitative results of return on investment (ROI) at BL Informática, a Brazilian small‐sized organization which is improving its processes since 2003 and is experiencing great success. We present the benefits regarding schedule, costs, productivity, quality, customer satisfaction and also financial benefits. Results show that investments in SPIdex really can pay off, as happened at BL Informática. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Applying ISO 9001:2000, MPS.BR and CMMI to Achieve Software Process Maturity: BL Informatica's Pathway

Cited by 16 publications

References 2 publications

Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review

Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review

Uma contribuição para a melhoria colaborativa e distribuída de processos de software

ROI of software process improvement at BL informática: SPIdex is really worth it

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About