Performance Excellence

Wagner, Karl Werner; Patzak, Gerold

doi:10.3139/9783446408890

Cited by 29 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Process roles taken under research are following the most common vocabulary as different literature sources like CMMI, ITIL or common standards are using different names for the same roles: the process manager of chief process owner (provides the process management system as controlling mechanism for the top management), process responsible (development, improvement and controlling of processes), process owner (operational responsibility for the execution of the process), process team member (support of process responsibles and continuous improvement), process coach (knowledge transfer from best practice approaches) (Wagner & Patzak, 2015).…”

Section: Roles Within Process Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Productivity & Innovation as a Support in Project Management: A Study Through Construction Industry in Brazil

Barbosa¹

2017

Project Management Development – Practice and Perspectives : 6th International Scientific Conference on Project Management in T

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Roles Within Process Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Productivity & Innovation as a Support in Project Management: A Study Through Construction Industry in Brazil

Barbosa¹

2017

Project Management Development – Practice and Perspectives : 6th International Scientific Conference on Project Management in T

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Agile maturity model: analysing agile maturity characteristics from the SPICE perspective

Schweigert¹,

Vohwinkel²,

Korsaa

et al. 2013

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper discusses structure, quality and content of the currently available agile maturity models. It presents two approaches on how to deal with such models. As a first step of the analysis, the paper contains a compilation of maturity level naming used by these agile maturity models because the variety of level naming is a sign of the variety of understanding and of definition of agile maturity.While many papers deal with agile from an inside perspective, this paper is written from the perspective of Software Process Improvement (SPI) and Capability Determination, the European Certification and Qualification Association PI Manager Certification Scheme and also the SPI Manifesto.The paper does not explicitly present its own agile maturity model. The analysis approaches presented in the paper show that the currently available agile maturity models are not fit for industrial use. The synthesis of an acceptable model seems to be feasible as the analysed models address typical organisational processes including life cycle management. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. For the first question, a survey was performed. Considering that agile maturity is of high interest, the results were published in 2012 [1].To answer the second and third questions, an internet search was undertaken, and its results were sampled including 40 sources dealing with agile maturity. As completeness criterion, somewhat as a

show abstract