Setting SPI practices in Latin America: an exploratory case study in the justice area

ABSTRACT

Little is understood about which factors affect a software process improvement (SPI) initiative in a governmental organization and how the organization's environment determines these factors. This lack of understanding can inhibit SPI initiatives in organizations that find themselves too small for formal SPI models or standards. The main objective of our project is to investigate whether the recommendations of a Latin American SPI model -- Competi Soft -- would be useful for a middle-ranged governmental organization. In this paper, we introduce a case study, where customer satisfaction is improved. Our preliminary experience indicates that customer satisfaction might be significantly increased by incorporating supporting processes.

REFERENCES

• 1: Baskerville R. L., Distinguishing Action Research from Participative Case Studies, Journal of Systems and Information Technology 1(1), 25--24, 1997.
• 2: Capability Maturity Model Integration. Accessed at http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/
• 3: Capability Maturity Model, Accessed at http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmm/
• 4: CompetiSoft, Accessed at http://alarcos.inf-cr.uclm.es/Competisoft/index.aspx, 2005.
• 5: CyTED. Accessed at http://www.cyted.org/
• 6: eGA (e-Governance Academy). Accessed at http://www.ega.ee/en/eGAabout
• 7: Mohamed E. Fayad , Mauri Laitnen, Process assessment considered wasteful, Communications of the ACM, v.40 n.11, p.125-128, Nov. 1997 [doi>10.1145/265684.265701]
• 8: ISO/IEC 15504 Information Technology -- Software Process Assessment standard, 2004.
• 9: ISO/IEC 9000-1. Quality Management and Quality Assurance standard, 2000.
• 10: Luzuriaga J., Martínez R., and Cechich A. Improving Resource Management: Lessons from a Case Study from a Middle-Range Governmental Organization. Book chapter in Software Process Improvement or Small and Medium Enterprises: Techniques and Case Studies. Hanna Oktaba and M. Piattini (Eds), IGI Global Publishing, USA. 2008.
• 11: Networking government in New Zealand. Accessed at http://www.e.govt.nz/
• 12: Oktaba H. et al. Modelo de Procesos para la Industria de Software: MoProSoft Por Niveles de Capacidad de Procesos, 2003. Accessed at http://victoria.fciencias.unam.mx/MoProSoftV1.3/espaniol/MoProSoft.html
• 13: Hanna Oktaba , Félix García , Mario Piattini , Francisco Ruiz , Francisco J. Pino , Claudia Alquicira, Software Process Improvement: The Competisoft Project, Computer, v.40 n.10, p.21-28, October 2007 [doi>10.1109/MC.2007.361]
• 14: PMBOK: The Project Management Body of Knowledge -- Accessed at http://www.pmi.org
• 15: Saiedian H., Practical Recommendations to Minimize Software Capability Evaluation Risks, Software Process Improvement and Practice (8), 145--156, 2003.
• 16: Susman G., Evered, R. An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. The Administrative Science Quarterly 23(4), 101--114, 1998.
• 17: US Department of the Interior: Accessed at http://www.doi.gov/e-government

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.9 Management

General Terms:
Documentation, Management, Standardization

Keywords:
CompetiSoft process model, customer satisfaction, software process evaluation, software process improvement