Register your product to gain access to bonus material or receive a coupon.
Improving Software Organizations: From Principles to Practice
- By Lars Mathiassen, Jan Pries-Heje, Ojelanki Ngwenyama
- Published Sep 18, 2001 by Addison-Wesley Professional. Part of the Agile Software Development Series series.
Book
- This product currently is not for sale.
Description
- Copyright 2002
- Dimensions: 7-3/8x9-1/4
- Pages: 368
- Edition: 1st
- Book
- ISBN-10: 0-201-75820-2
- ISBN-13: 978-0-201-75820-7
Global competition, the time sensitivity of the new Internet economy, and increasing customer demand for better software quality are pushing companies to undertake software process improvement (SPI) initiatives. Numerous software organizations worldwide have implemented these initiatives with varying degrees of success. Many have adhered to standard SPI practice, only to experience less-than-satisfactory results when the execution proves more difficult than expected and enthusiasm and resources wane.
Improving Software Organizations offers a modern perspective on SPI. It outlines and discusses what it takes to move from SPI theory to successful SPI initiatives. Based on the results of the three-year National Danish SPI Initiative, this book draws on the experiences of four world-class companies—Danske Data, Brüel & Kjær, Ericsson Denmark, and Systematic Software Engineering. It presents a proven roadmap for successful SPI. It distills in-depth studies of these organizations—the strategies, approaches, and specific techniques that yielded tangible results. It presents a comprehensive framework for planning and executing successful SPI projects throughout the project lifecycle.
Improving Software Organizations presents the major lessons learned in the four companies. It provides an overview of the theories and models that formed the basis of the SPI initiatives. It also provides an in-depth examination of the four companies¿ development organizations, how each began the SPI initiative, what mistakes were made, and how they ultimately succeeded.
You will learn:
For each of the five SPI principles, the book offers examples from practice that demonstrate how successful organizations approached the issue. From these examples and the more detailed case studies, you will gain the understanding of how to design, implement, and execute an SPI initiative that is right for your organization.
0201758202B10162001
Sample Content
Downloadable Sample Chapter
Click below for Sample Chapter related to this title:
mathiassench01.pdf
Table of Contents
I. LEARNING TO IMPROVE.
1. Learning SPI in Practice.2. Mapping SPI Ideas and Practices.
II. LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE.
3. The Correct Effort.4. The Ambitious Effort.
5. The Grassroots Effort.
6. The Adolescent Effort.
III. INITIATING LEARNING.
7. Learning from Assessments.8. From Problem Reports to Better Products.
9. Problem Diagnosis in SPI.
10. Project Assessments.
11. A Framework for Selecting an Assessment Strategy.
IV. ORGANIZING FOR LEARNING.
12. Knowing and Implementing SPI.13. Improving Customer Relations.
14. Strategies for Organizational Learning in SPI.
V. TECHNIQUES FOR LEARNING TO IMPROVE.
15. Implementing SPI: An Organizational Approach.16. Risk Management in Process Action Teams.
17. Principles of Metrics Implementation.
18. Better Requirements.
Appendix A: Risk and Action Tables.
Research Team.
Index. 0201758202T10102001
Preface
Global competition and customer demands for better software quality are pushing companies to undertake software process improvement (SPI) initiatives. However, the scale and complexity of SPI organizational change can be daunting, and when it is not managed with great skill, the effort is likely to fail. Software development managers and engineers know too well the feelings of frustration associated with investing valuable resources and not achieving the desired SPI outcomes.
In this book, Improving Software Organizations, we discuss ways to understand and develop the core competencies required to succeed with SPI. Our approach is pragmatic and action-oriented. We examine SPI experiences from real-world situations and distill from them essential lessons for planning, implementing, and managing SPI initiatives to successful completion.
Our book is a result of a collaboration between four Danish companies—Danske Data, Brüel & Kjær, Ericsson Denmark, and Systematic Software Engineering—three universities—Aalborg University, Copenhagen Business School, and Technical University, Denmark—and an R&D organization, Delta. The project was part of the Danish National SPI Initiative and lasted from January 1997 to December 1999. It was funded in part by the government of Denmark through the Danish National Center for IT Research. During the three-year project, scientists and engineers from the companies and universities worked together on SPI projects within the companies. A primary objective of our collaboration was not only to successfully implement SPI in the companies but also to develop principles and strategies for effectively executing SPI initiatives. From the beginning, we set out to examine and develop solutions for difficult practical problems reported by other SPI experts. In these pages, we present our findings and reflections based on our experiences practicing SPI. We hope that you find our book informative and that the information in it supports your own efforts to solve the practical problems involved with planning and implementing your own SPI programs.
THE FOUR COMPANIES
Following is general information about each company. As you’ll see, the companies vary in size and in the products they make. They also have various objectives and approaches to SPI. Such variety offers us a unique opportunity to examine a broad range of SPI issues of interest to both software managers and engineers. You are thus likely to find many issues and problems presented in this book that are similar to those facing your own organization, as well as solutions that you can adapt and implement.Brüel & Kjær A/S
Brüel & Kjær is a leading manufacturer of high-precision measuring instruments. These technically advanced instruments are used in many industries—including automotive, telecommunications, electricity, and aerospace—as well as in environmental measuring and university and industrial research. Brüel & Kjær’s measuring instruments are based on both embedded real-time software and Windows NT applications. The Brüel & Kjær product line covers the entire range of measurement equipment, from simple transducers to highly advanced software for calculating and presenting measurement results.Brüel & Kjær’s main office is in Nærum (just north of Copenhagen), and the company operates more than 50 sales offices and agencies worldwide. In 1998, Brüel & Kjær was divided into two separate companies:
Sound and Vibration is the larger of the two companies, with 550 employees. Approximately 80 of these employees are development engineers, of whom 40 are software developers. Annually, 10 to 15 development projects are carried out, with 4 to 8 people in each project group. Condition Monitoring Systems has some 50 employees, of whom 10 are software developers. Over the past 10 to 15 years, Brüel & Kjær has been transformed from a company focused on hardware, mechanics, and electronics to a company focused on software. Today, two out of three engineers at Brüel & Kjær are software engineers. Most Brüel & Kjær employees have an engineering education; a few have backgrounds in business or computer science.
In the mid-1990s, Brüel & Kjær transformed itself from a departmental organization to a project-oriented organization. As part of this process, the entire middle management layer was replaced. Several other employees were trained in project management and given responsibility for managing development projects in the new organization. During the 1990s, Brüel & Kjær carried out several other organizational change initiatives. In 1994, the company successfully completed ISO 9000 certification.
When assessed in October 1996, Brüel & Kjær was measured at level 2.25 on the Bootstrap scale. It was the only one of the four collaborating companies that started the SPI project at maturity level 2. In the fall of 1999, Brüel & Kjær was again assessed using the Bootstrap model, and the result showed an increase of maturity to 2.5.
Danske Data A/S
Danske Data is a subsidiary of Danske Bank Group, a financial institution that provides all types of financial services (banking, mortgaging, insurance, and so on). The primary business function of Danske Data is the development of information technology (IT) systems for Danske Bank Group, including Danske Bank, the largest bank in Denmark. Danske Data was originally the IT department within the bank, but on July 1, 1996, it was spun off as an independent company.1 The company has approximately 900 employees located at four development centers and is one of Scandinavia’s largest IT companies.Software development projects at Danske Data vary widely in size; most are small and short-term, but there are also some major projects that have strategic implications for the entire corporation. Project teams of 3 to 5 people typically handle the smaller projects, which usually take 6 to 12 months. Large projects, such as the Year 2000 compliance project, typically involve as many as 150 people and last 6 months to 3 years. Danske Data has four development divisions, each headed by a senior vice president. Each individual division is led by a vice president and organized into departments, typically with 20 to 50 people divided among five or so projects. Project managers oversee regular projects, and the vice president manages high-profile projects. Software developers at Danske Data typically have a bachelor’s degree in either an IT-related field or banking.
Danske Data develops software mainly for mainframe computers but also develops some applications for client/server environments, such as Internet banking. Danske Data mainframe applications run 24 hours a day and process a daily average of nine million transactions from about 11,000 workstations. The company’s mainframe installation is the largest in Northern Europe and is divided between two operation centers. Systems developed for this platform are based on an advanced event-oriented database principle, something that increases data processing flexibility. Security and reliability are the two main system requirements because data are mirrored in real time between the two operation centers in Erhus and Copenhagen. Modern methods for modeling data, functions, and workflow are used along with the all-important business model—information framework—which is crucial to getting stakeholders from the user organization involved in the development process.
In May 1997, Danske Data conducted its first assessment of software process maturity. It used both the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and Bootstrap assessment approaches, which showed the company to be right between level 1 and 2 (1.5 using the Bootstrap scale). Danske Data was again assessed in October 1999 and was at that point at level 2.0.
Ericsson Denmark
The Ericsson Corporation is one of the world’s largest suppliers of telecom equipment. During the past 20 years, the company has gradually transitioned from hardware-only products to embedded software products and pure software products. Ericsson’s major product areas are fixed and wireless switching equipment, mobile phones, telecommunication management systems, PBX systems, transmission equipment, defense systems, and Internet solutions—all of which rely heavily on software. Ericsson Denmark has a mid-sized systems development division within the Ericsson Corporation and employs approximately 500 people working in five product groups.In early 1996, Ericsson Corporation changed its organizational structure from a line to a matrix organization. In the period following—from 1996 to 1998—Ericsson Denmark’s staff increased from 250 to 400, and each of its product groups reported to corresponding business units located in other countries. Both the Ericsson Corporation and Ericsson Denmark have a long history of improving software development. In 1992, the company took the first steps to set up a corporatewide SPI program, the Ericsson System Software Initiative (ESSI). From the beginning, ESSI was a strategic effort that ensured alignment, deployment, and follow-up on corporate SPI goals. ESSI’s first intervention was in Ericsson’s largest and most complex software development area, the telephone exchange software group. An aggressive goal was defined to reduce fault density in telephone exchange software products by 50% annually.
Another important ESSI initiative focused on CMM as a long-term strategy for improving software development performance. The initiative was supported by the creation of an international corps of trained CMM assessors tasked with determining the level of software process maturity throughout the company. At the end of 1996, the ESSI program had been operational worldwide for a couple of years, and most of the company’s international software development sites had shown good progress toward reaching the corporate fault density goals.
Ericsson Denmark was assessed at level 1 in 1995 and at level 2 in June 1998. In between the two assessments, the division underwent both Light Assessments and UltraLight Assessments.
Systematic Software Engineering
Systematic, founded in 1985, produces and integrates software for complex information and communications systems. Systematic’s international customers include military institutions and suppliers as well as data communication, transportation, and manufacturing companies and organizations in the finance and health care sectors. As a systems integrator, Systematic has established a core competency in the management and implementation of complex software projects that require high reliability and secure communications 24 hours a day. Systematic is recognized by its customers for the timely delivery of quality, cost-effective products.In 1996, Systematic employed 137 people. Of these employees, 105 were software engineers and 32 worked in finance, administration, internal IT, quality assurance, canteen, and cleaning. By 1999, the number of employees had grown to 155. At Systematic, all software development takes place in project teams, led by a project manager. Most managers started with the company as software engineers and were later trained internally for management responsibilities. In 1998-99, project teams ranged in size from 2 to 18 members and projects lasted from two months to three years. Typically, project members were not rotated out; they stayed with the project from the analysis phase through requirements specification, design, programming, test, documentation, installation, and user training. This practice reflects the company’s belief that such consistency ensures maximum commitment and development of staff competence.
Despite the small number of graduates in computer science and systems engineering in Denmark, two-thirds of Systematic’s employees hold master’s or doctoral degrees. To facilitate high flexibility and preparedness for change, the company recruits highly educated people with knowledge of state-of-the-art technologies. One of the main reasons Systematic undertook SPI was to help meet its goal of becoming an internationally recognized software supplier and systems integrator in communications and interoperability between defense units, and in electronic commerce and data interchange between enterprises. In 1992, Systematic’s quality assurance system was certified in accordance with ISO 9001 and the military standards AQAP 110 and 150. The ISO 9001 certified quality management system is the basis of numerous elements in Systematic’s quality assurance procedures.
In 1997, Systematic conducted its first software process maturity assessment using both the CMM and Bootstrap approaches and was rated to be just under Bootstrap 2. In 1998 and 1999, the company conducted additional Bootstrap assessments, and in 1999 the company was assessed to be at level 2.5 (using the Bootstrap maturity scale).
THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK
The book is divided into five parts. Part I consists of Chapters 1 and 2 and introduces the major learning points of our three-year collaborative project. In this first part, we present an overview—a map—of the theories and models that inspired us and formed the basis of our practice in the projects. Part II, Learning from Experience, is divided into four chapters. Each of these chapters characterizes the SPI experience of one of the four collaborating companies and is named accordingly. For example, Chapter 3, The Correct Effort, describes how Ericsson Denmark attempted first to follow standard advice, only to discover that adherence to general prescriptions did not bring the desired results. Thus, it had to deviate, ultimately producing a truly “correct” effort through innovation and adaptation to its particular circumstances.Part III, Initiating Learning, focuses on how to structure learning conditions and initiate learning in SPI initiatives. We discuss maturity level assessments as an important mechanism for learning. We have used a broad range of assessment methods. Some were inspired by formalized approaches, such as CMM or Bootstrap (discussed in Chapters 7 and 10), whereas others were invented in project groups (Chapters 8 and 9). Finally, Chapter 11 discusses how to select an appropriate assessment strategy. Part IV, Organizing for Learning, goes beyond assessments and takes a more reflective look at SPI: In Chapter 12, we reflect on knowledge transfer; in Chapter 13, we discuss customer maturity; and in Chapter 14 we focus on organizational learning in the SPI context.
Part V examines interesting details in different techniques for SPI. Chapter 15 presents a framework for implementing SPI programs, and the remaining chapters offer detailed discussions of how to carry out risk assessments (Chapter 16), how to implement a metrics program (Chapter 17), and how to improve requirements specification (Chapter 18).
This book is based on a truly collaborative effort. The team of engineers and scientists that have authored the chapters is listed at the very end of this book. Three of the authors—Lars Mathiassen, Jan Pries-Heje, and Ojelanki Ngwenyama—have edited this book assisted by Keri Schreiner who has interacted closely with the authors to help them write for practitioners. Finally, the staff at Addison-Wesley has provided valuable support in designing and producing the book.
0201758202P10102001
Index
Aaen, Ivan, 50
Aalborg University, xxi
Questionnaire Based
Assessment, 69, 70, 188–189, 192
Action prioritization
procedure, 284–285
Action research, 316
Adolescent effort.
See Brüel & Kjær A/S Ambitious effort. See Systematic
Software Engineering Analysis phase,
308–309
gathering information in,
308–309
identifying problem-solving
techniques in, 309
prioritizing techniques
in, 309
Assessments
assessor experiences
in, 128–131
assisted model-based,
187–188, 189–190
Bootstrap tool
in, xxiv, xxv, 18, 30, 99, 101, 110, 115–117, 130–131,
133, 150, 153, 160, 162–163, 175, 185, 240, 257, 260,
290
framework for selecting strategy,
185–198
considering combined
strategy, 194–195
designing,
195–196
intervention versus
day-to-day management, 187, 194
model-based
versus problem-based, 186
rigor versus
relevance, 186, 191–192
selecting
primary strategy,
191–194
independent, of individual
projects, 188
maturity,
154
organizational learning and,
122–128
problem diagnosis versus
model-based, 162–163,
192–194
questionnaire based, 69, 70,
188–189, 192
software process,
190
Assisted metrics programs, 188
Assisted model-based
assessment, 187–188, 189–190
Assisted problem
diagnosis, 190
Balanced Scorecard initiative,
63–64
Balkan syndrome, 16
Bang, Stig, 50
Beizer’s
bug taxonomy, 136
Benchmarking, 188
Best-practices models,
30–31
Bonuses, 31
Bootstrap assessment, xxiv, xxv, 18, 30,
115–117, 133, 153, 185, 290
algorithm
in, 116–117
at Brüel & Kjær
at, 99, 101, 110, 117, 118,150, 160,
162–163
at Danske Data, 117, 118,
175, 257, 260
relevance of,
117
at Systematic, 117, 118,
240
validity of, 130–131
Broad
dissemination phase, 313–316
Brüel & Kjær A/S, xxi,
xxii–xxiii, 99–112,
133
adolescent effort at, 41–42,
99–112
Bootstrap assessment at, 99,
101, 110, 117, 118, 150, 160,
162–163
configuration management
initiative at, 107–108
defect
analysis at, 133–151
development
model initiative at,
103–105
establishment of Center for
Software Process Improvement at, 241
focus
on project managers at, 101,
111
independent project-based metrics
program at, 189
methodology for Preventing
Requirements Issues from Becoming Defects (PRIDE) at, 134, 140, 143,
146, 147
organizational learning at,
123–124
participatory improvement at,
11, 12
Prevention of Errors through
Experience-Driven Test Efforts (PET) at, 134, 137, 142,
146–147
problem diagnosis at,
101–102, 108–109,153–154, 161–162,
190
problem reports at,
133–151
problem solving at,
5–6
product profile at,
100
project dependency at,
111
project tracking initiative at,
106–107
requirements specification
initiative at, 105–106
reuse
initiative at, 106
software development
process at, 135, 241–243, 247, 307, 308–309,
313–314
strengths and weaknesses of,
108–109
support teams at,
102–103, 108–109
technology
competence at, 111
Bug classification,
taxonomies for, 136
Bug distribution
analysis, 137–140
Bug distribution
over time, 141–142
Bureaucratic
arrangements, limiting, 13
Bureaucratization, 34
Business
Process Reegineering (BRI), 25, 30
Calculus-based trust, 222,
228
Capability Maturity Model (CMM), xxiv, xxv, 18, 30, 133, 153,
185, 290
at Ericsson Corporation, xxiv,
xxv, 18, 30, 50
accelerator assessment,
54–55, 58
UltraLight assessmentst,
55–56, 58–59, 169–173
CASE tools,
201
Circumspection, 223
Combination in knowledge creation,
10
Commission of the European Communities (CEC),
133
Commitment-based improvement, alternatives to,
32
Communication, in metrics implementation,
299–301
Compass development program for measuring
productivity and quality, 188
Competence,
34–35
Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE),
30
Configuration management
at
Brüel & Kjær A/S,
107–108
at Systematic Software
Engineering, 72
Contel, metrics implementation at, 287
Context
for software engineering activities, 35–36
Continuous
improvement, 17–19
factors that
undermine, 18
Copenhagen Business School, xxi
Core competence,
31
at Systematic Software Engineering,
67
Correct effort. See Ericsson Denmark Cost/benefit analysis, in
prioritizing techniques, 309
Cost/time aligment, 31–32
CSC
Denmark, use of assisted model-based assessment strategy by,
188
Curtis, Bill, 53, 54
Customer-focused maturity models,
224–227
Customer perception, 31
Customer relations,
217–233
care and engineering in,
223
collaboration and competition in,
220–221
early initiatives in,
231–232
maturity models in,
224–227
relationship dynamics in,
224
at Systematic Software Engineering,
217–233
trust and control in,
221–222
understanding,
217–220
workshop for improving,
227–230
Customer-supplier relationship,
218–219
bureaucracies in,
220–221
at the constituting level,
221
market relationships in,
220
teams in, 220
Danish National
Center for IT Research, xxi
Danish National SPI Initiative,
xxi
Danske Bank Group, xxiii
Danske Data A/S, xxi,
xxiii–xxiv, 83–98
Bootstrap
assessment at, 84, 92, 117, 118, 175, 189, 257,
260
change as cultural process at,
93–94
CMM at,
87
continuous improvement at,
17–18
creating synergy in,
96
development model at,
85
establishment of Project Management
Competence Center at, 8–9, 86–87, 89, 90–91, 173,
245
expecting and utilizing conflict,
97
fostering cross-organizational learning
at, 86
grassroots effort at, 40–41,
83–98
improvement initiatives at,
85–86
independent project-based
self-assessments at, 191
involvement of key
players, 96
knowledge creation at,
8–9
leadership integration at,
14
long-term thinking in,
97
metrics implementation at,
291–292, 294, 295, 296–297, 298, 299, 300, 301,
302
organizational implementation at,
85–86
organizational learning at,
125–126
participatory improvement at,
13
politics of change at,
94–95
problem solving at,
5
process measurement at,
85
project assessment at, 168,
173–177
project-management initiative
at, 86–90,91
providing education at,
89–90, 91
quality assurance at,
85
questionnaire-based assessment at,
188–189
rational view to change,
92–93
remembering customers,
97
risk management at, 273,
283
shared vision in,
96
software process improvement at,
208–212, 245–246, 247
Datacentralen. See CSC Denmark
Data usage in metric implementation, 301–302
Day-to-day
management, intervention versus, 187, 194
Debate, facilitation of,
in metrics implementation, 301
Defect analysis,
133–151
at Brüel & Kjær
A/S, 133–151
bug-distribution
analysis in, 137–140
bug distribution
over time, 141–142
identifying
prevention techniques in,
142–146
improvements obtained in,
146–148
management support for,
148–149
maturity impact in,
149–150
measurement limits in,
149
problem reports in, 133–134,
135
requirements-related analysis,
140–141
taxonomy limits in,
149
Delta, xxi, 150, 195
Denmark, software process improvement
in, xviii, xxi
Descriptive process model, 160
Development
model
at Brüel & Kjær A/S,
103–105
at Danske Data,
85
Diagnostic competence, building, 6
Diffusion, as
demand-driven, 202
Dynamic analysis, 143
Ericsson Denmark,
xxi, xxiv–xxv, 49–64
aftermath
at, 56–58
background,
50–51
CMM accelerator assessment at,
54–55, 58
CMM UltraLight Assessment
at, 55–56, 58–59,
169–173
correct effort at,
37–39
ensuring management attention
and feedback, 62
future for,
63–64
goals at, 49,
52
independent model-based self-assessments
at, 190–191
involvement of
practitioners, 61–62
keeping efforts
local, 62–63
lack of process
performance measures, 59
launch of Balanced
Scorecard by, 63–64
launch of
software process improvement at,
51–54
leadership integration at,
16
loss of momentum in software process
improvement effort, 59
need for focusing
and simplifying of software process improvement at,
61
organization and start-up at,
53–54
participatory improvement at,
11, 13
process action teams at, 243,
244
progress at,
58
project assessment at,
168–173
promoting individual
responsibility at, 62
reflections on
software process improvement process,
59–61
resource pool formation at,
51
software process engineering groups at,
244, 245
software process improvement at,
243–245, 247
structural complexity
and growth at Ericsson System Software Initiative (ESSI), xxiv,
37–39, 50, 52
European Systems and Software Initiative (ESSI)
program, 292–293, 307
Evolutionary process, software process
improvement as, 29–30
Experience-based requirements
engineering methodology
requirements
elicitation and validation,
145
verification of the requirements
specification, 145
Explicit knowledge, 237
Exploitation,
learning by, 250–251
Exploration, learning by,
249–250
Externalization in knowledge creation, 10
External
software stress test, 311
Facilitator in risk management, 278,
282, 283
Fayol, Henri, 92
Feedback
in
problem diagnosis method, 159
in software
process improvement
management,
28–29
Focused pilot phase, 310–313
Goal
determination, in metrics implementation, 298
Goal Question Metric
(GQM) method, 31, 188, 294, 298
Gold-plating, 250,
251
Grassroots effort. See Danske Data
Hewlett-Packard,
metrics implementation at, 287
Hit rate, 143, 144
Holistic view
of software engineering, 33–34
Hospitality, 223
Humphrey,
Watts, xvii
IDEAL (Initiate, Diagnose, Establish, Act, and
Learn) model, 7, 19
at Systematic Software
Engineering, 66
Identification-based trust, 222, 228
Improvement
actors, risk resolution actions
associated
with, 324
Improvement areas
risk items
associated with, 319
risk resolution
actions associated with, 320
Improvement diffusion, at Systematic
Software Engineering, 76–79
Improvement
ideas
risk items associated with,
320–321
risk resolution actions
associated with, 321
Improvement knowledge, in metrics
implementation, 294
Improvement
process
risk items associated with,
322
risk resolution actions associated
with, 322–323
Incentives, 31
in
metrics implementation, 296–297
Independent model-based
self-assessments, 190–191
Independent project-based metrics
program, 189
at Brüel & Kjær A/S,
189
Independent project-based self-assessments,
191
Individualist perspective, 202, 205, 209
Information,
gathering, in analysis phase, 308–309
Information technology
projects, factors in success of, 11
Initial value check,
311
Insider solutions at Systematic Software Engineering, 65, 66,
73–74, 75–76, 78–79, 81
Institutionalized
process, resistance to change, 33
Interactive-process perspective,
202–203, 206–207, 210–211
Internalization in
knowledge creation, 10
Intervention assessment versus day-to-day
management, 187, 194
Interviews in problem diagnosis method,
156–158
Kaizen strategy, 193
Kierkegaard, Soren,
115
Knowledge
diffusion of, about
techniques, 314
explicit,
237
in metrics implementation,
294–295
tacit, 237
Knowledge-based
trust, 222, 228
Knowledge
creation
combination in,
10
externalization in,
10
internalization in,
10
socialization in,
10
in software process improvement,
7–11
systematic assessments in, 9,
10
Knowledge transfer, implementation and, 212
LDRA Testbed
tool, 142
Leadership
integrating,
14–16
organizational,
16
Leadership principles, at Systematic Software Engineering,
68
Learning
by exploitation,
250–251
by exploration,
249–250
Management of software process improvement,
25–29
feedback in,
28–29
organization in,
25–27
planning in,
27–28
Mapping SPI ideas and practices, 23–43
Market
share, 31
Maturity assessments,
154
methods in,
168
role of, in improvement efforts,
167
Maturity models
as basis for project
assessments, 179
customer-focused,
224–227
Methodology for Preventing Requirements Issues from
Becoming Defects (PRIDE), at Brüel & Kjær A/S, 134, 140,
143, 146, 147
Metrics implementation,
287–304
advanced guidelines in,
290
communication in,
299–301
at Danske Data,
291–292, 294, 295, 296–297, 298, 299, 300, 301,
302
data collection in,
300
data usage in,
301–302
debate facilitation in,
301
establishing incentive structures in,
296–297
establishing project in,
296
goal determination in,
298
improvement knowledge in,
294
knowledge in,
294–295
organizational knowledge in,
295
program design in,
297–299
program organization in,
295–297
publication of objectives in,
300
starting simple in, 299
Metrics
program, independent project-based, 189
Mission, establishing
clear, for project assessment, 178
Model-based assessments
assisted, 187–188
versus
problem-based assessments, 186,
192–194
versus problem diagnosis,
162–163
Motorola’s Progress Assessment, 168
Myths in
undermining knowledge creation, 9–10
NASA, metrics
implementation at, 287
Network Products, SPI in,
204–208
Normative models, 42, 133,
153
in knowledge creation, 10
Norm-based
approach for software process improvement, 30–31
Norms, use
of accepted, as basis for project assessment, 179
Not-invented-here
syndrome, in undermining knowledge creation,
9–10
Objectives, publication of, in metrics
implementation, 300
Organizational approach to implementing
software process improvement,
257–269
diffusion in,
258–259
implementation workshop in,
261–267
lessons learned in,
267–269
project context in,
260
Organizational implementation at Danske Data,
85–86
Organizational inertia, 31
Organizational knowledge
in metrics implementation, 295
Organizational leadership,
16
Organizational learning,
122–128
at Brüel & Kjær
A/S, 123–124
at Danske Data,
125–126
strategies for,
235–252
at Systematic Software
Engineering, 124–125
theory of,
237–239
Organizational maturity, 31
Organization in
software process improvement management, 25–27
Orthogonality
check, 311
Participant commitment, 31–32
Participatory
improvement, in software process improvement, 11–14
PATs. See
Process action teams (PATs)
Peer-based structure at Systematic
Software Engineering, 67–68
People Capability Maturity Model,
30–31
Perception, 223
Performance-based trust, 222,
228
Performance specifications, 311
Planning in software process
improvement management, 27–28
Prevention of Errors through
Experience-Driven Test Efforts (PET), at Brüel & Kjær A/S,
134, 137, 142, 146–147
Prioritizing techniques in analysis
phase, 309
Problem-based assessment versus model-based assessment,
186, 192–194
Problem
diagnosis
analyzing immediate results in,
158
assisted,
190
at Brüel & Kjær A/S,
101–102, 108–109, 153–154, 161–162,
190
comparison to model-based assessments,
162–163
conducting interviews in,
158
defining scope,
155–156
offering feedback and
obtaining validation in, 159
oranizational
resources needed for, 164
organizing
interviews in, 157–158
personnel for
performing, 163–164
preparing for
interviews in, 156–157
prioritizing
findings in, 164
synthesizing problems in,
159, 160
timing in performing,
163
using, 160–161
Problem reports
in product improvement, 133–151. See also Defect
analysis
Problems, synthesizing, in problem diagnosis method, 159,
160
Problem solving
at Brüel & Kjær A/S,
5–6
identifying techniques, in
analysis phase, 309
interaction mode in,
19
interventionist mode in,
19
in SPI, 4–7
Process action
teams (PATs)
at Ericsson Denmark, 243,
244
risk management in,
273–285
at Systematic Software
Engineering, 74, 75, 239, 240
Process assessments, 31
Process
improvement activities, 31
Process improvement infrastructure,
31
Process measurement at Danske Data, 85
Product cycle time,
31
Product development, using problem reports in,
133–151
Product expert consultation, 311
Productivity,
Compass development program for measuring, 188
Product profile at
Brüel & Kjær A/S, 100
Profitability, 31
Program design
in metrics implementation, 297–299
Program organization in
metrics implementation, 295–297
Project, establishment of, in
metrics implementation, 296
Project assessments,
167–184
at Danske Data, 168,
173–177
ensuring support in,
179
at Ericsson Denmark,
168–173
establishing clear vision or
mission for, 178
establishing separate
process for, 178–179
implementing, in
projects’ daily work, 179
improving
approach in, 179
opportunities in,
180–182
risks in, 181,
183
supporting dedicated project-specific
improvements, 180–181
supporting
organizational improvements,
181–183
supporting software process
improvement with, 177–183
use of
accepted norm, standard, or maturity model as basis for,
179
Project conclusion, 160
Project Diagnosis Workshops at
Systematic Software Engineering, 231
Project Establishment
Workshops at Systematic Software Engineering, 231
Project
evaluation workshop, 231–232
Project
management
at Danske Data,
86–90
at Systematic Software
Engineering, 72
Project managers, focus on, at Brüel &
Kjær A/ S, 101
Project teams at Systematic Software
Engineering, 67–68
Project tracking and control,
160
at Brüel & Kjær A/S,
106–107
Prototypes
experimenting
with, 160
usability test of functional,
311
Quality, Compass development program for measuring,
188
Quality assurance
at Danske Data,
85
at Systematic Software Engineering,
68–70
Quality management system, at Systematic Software
Engineering, 9
Questionnaire based assessment, 69–70,
188–189, 192
Relevance-based assessment versus
rigor-based assessment, 186, 191–192
Requirements engineering
techniques, 311
Requirements-related analysis,
140–141
Requirements specification initiative at Brüel &
Kjær A/S, 105–106
Reuse initiative at Brüel &
Kjær A/S, 106
Rigor-based assessment versus relevance-based
assessment, 186, 191–192
Risk management,
160
at Danske Data A/S, 273,
283
in the literature,
284
in process action teams,
273–285
Risk resolution
actions
improvement actors and,
324
improvement areas and,
320
improvement ideas and,
321
improvement process and,
322–323
Risks
improvement actors
and, 323
improvement areas and,
319
improvement ideas and,
320–321
improvement process and,
322
in project assessment, 183
Rollout
Workshop, at Systematic Software Engineering, 231
Scenarios,
311
Scope, defining, for problem diagnosis method,
155–156
Self-assessments
independent
model-based, 190–191
independent
project-based, 191
Silver bullet syndrome, 6
Socialization in
knowledge creation, 10
Soft Systems Methodology, 7,
19
interaction mode,
19
interventionist mode, 19
Software
Acquisition Capability Maturity Model, 31, 224–225,
226
Software capability evaluation, 190
Software
engineering
holistic view of,
33–34
as target of software process
improvement, 32
Software Engineering Institute, xvii
Software
organizations, Balkan syndrome at, 16
Software process assessment,
190
Software process engineering groups at Systematic Software
Engineering, 238–239, 240
Software processes,
32–34
competence in,
34–35
context in,
35–36
defined,
32
persistence in, 32–34
Software
process improvement (SPI), xviii,
xxi
alternatives to measuring
effectiveness, 28–29
assessment of
current processes in, 3
association with
maturity assessments, 154
benefits in
collecting appropriate data, 29
at
Brüel & Kjær, 241–243,
247
commitment in,
31–32
continuous improvement planning
in, 17–19
at Danske Data,
208–212, 245–246,
247
development of focused strategy for,
3
difference from traditional approches,
4
encouraging participation in,
11–14
at Ericsson Denmark,
243–245, 247
as evolutionary process,
29–30
goal of,
3–4
implementation plan for,
27–28
initiatives in,
xxi
integration of leadership in,
14–16
knowing and implementing,
201–213
framework for,
202–204
knowledge creation in,
7–11
management of feedback,
28–29
organization,
25–27
planning,
27–28
mapping ideas and practices in,
23–43
in Network Products,
204–208
norm-based approach for,
30–31
organizational approach to
implementing, 31–32,
257–269
diffusion in,
258–259
implementation workshop in,
261–267
lessons learned in,
267–269
project context in,
260
perspectives of,
32–36
problem diagnosis in,
153–165
problem solving in,
4–7
rhetoric in,
3
software engineering practice as target
of, 32
steps in improving,
3
strategic factors in,
31
strategies for organizational learning
in, 235–252
supporting, with project
assessments, 177–183
at Systematic
Software Engineering, 239–241,
247
tactical factors in, 31
Software
process improvement (SPI) group, 238–239
establishment of,
26
resources for,
26
risks to institutionalizing,
26
Software requirements specification and requirements management,
160
Software reuse, 160
SPI. See Software process improvement
(SPI)
SPICE (Software Process Improvement And Capability
Determination), 18, 30, 185, 187, 290, 294
SPIRE, 225,
226–227
Stability, 31
Stakeholder analysis,
268
State-of-the-art knowledge in facilitating a knowledge creation
approach to SPI, 9
Static analysis, 143
Strategic focus,
31
Structionalist perspective, 202, 205,
209–210
Structural control,
222
balancing trust with, 222
Support
teams at Brüel & Kjær A/S, 102–103,
108–109
Synquest, 168
Systematic assessments in knowledge
creation, 9, 10
Systematic Software Engineering, xv–xvi, xxi,
65–82
Aalborg University’s
Questionnaire Based Assessment at, 69,
70
ambitions at, 65, 73, 76,
80
ambitious effort at,
39–40
Bootstrap assessment at, 117,
118, 240
configuration management at,
72
core competence at,
67
culture at,
67–68
customer relations at,
217–233
Establishing Requirements
Workshop at, 231
establishment of quality
management system at, 9
expectations for
SPI at, 66
goals at, 65,
71
IDEAL model at,
66
improvement diffusion at,
76–79
insider solutions at, 65, 66,
73–74, 75–76, 78–79,
81
leadership integration at,
15
leadership principles at,
68
organizational learning at,
124–125
organization at,
67–68
peer-based structure at,
67–68
process action teams at, 74,
75, 239, 240
Project Diagnosis Workshop at,
231
Project Establishment Workshop at,
231
Project Evaluation Workshop at,
231
project management at,
72
project teams at,
67–68
quality assurance system at,
68–70
role of the organization at,
80–81
Rollout Workshop at,
231
software process engineering groups at,
238–239, 240
SPI at, 239–241,
247
stalemates at, 65, 66, 72–73,
74–75, 76, 77–78, 81
Test
Planning Workshop at, 231
work groups at,
71, 72
Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model,
31
Tacit knowledge, 237
Task pool, 89
Taylor, Frederick,
92
Teams. See also Process action teams
(PATs)
in customer-supplier relationship,
220
in software development, 311,
312–313
support, 102–103,
108–109
Technical University, Denmark, xxi
Technology
transfer, xvii–xviii
failures in,
xvii
as supply-driven, 202
Test Planning
Workshop at Systematic Software Engineering, 231
Time-boxes,
104–105
Total Quality Management (TQM), 25, 193 Trust,
221–222
balancing with structural
control, 222
calculus-based, 222,
228
identification-based, 222,
228
knowledge-based, 222,
228
performance-based, 222,
228
Understanding, 223
Unit testing, 134
Usability test
of functional prototype, 311
Validation, offering, in problem
diagnosis method, 159
Vision,
31
establishing clear, for project
assessment, 178
Waterfall model, 134
Weber, Max, 92
Work
groups at Systematic Software Engineering, 71, 72
More Information
Other Things You Might Like
- Book $35.99
- eBook (Watermarked) $15.99