Issues in the implementation of software process improvement project in Malaysia

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Issues in the implementation of software process improvement project in Malaysia

Source

WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications archive
Volume 5 , Issue 6 (June 2008) table of contents

Pages 1031-1043

Year of Publication: 2008

ISSN:1790-0832

Authors

Mohd Hairul Nizam Md. Nasir	Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Rodina Ahmad	Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Noor Hafizah Hassan	Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Publisher

World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS) Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): n/a, Downloads (12 Months): n/a, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

abstract references index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

ABSTRACT

Software Process Improvement (SPI) became known in the last twenty years. SPI is crucial to augment software process capabilities in software companies to face present demanding and global market. There were numerous published studies in United States, Europe, Australia and North America. Yet, there was still being short of research and published studies on SPI in Malaysia. This research attempts to fill this gap by focusing to analyze the resistance factors that de-motivate the implementation of SPI project specifically software companies operated in Malaysia. This research has been conducted during March 2008 until August 2008 and it used a survey instrument to gather data from 39 companies operated across Malaysia with the total of 251 professionals responded. The findings showed that organizational factors specifically human factors are playing an important role in determining the success of the SPI project. Participation and commitments from all individuals across the organization are also vital and imperative to ensure success for SPI initiative.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Deming, W. E. Out of the Crisis, MA: MIT Press, Cambridge, 1986.
	2	Juran, J. M. and Gryna, F. M., Juran's Quality Control Handbook, Fourth ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988.
	3	Brietzke, J. and Rabello A., Resistance Factors in Software Process Improvement, CLEI Electronic Journal, Vol. 9, 2006.
	4	Syed Jawad Hussain , Khalid Rashid , H. Farooq Ahmad , Syed Fawad Hussain, Effective software management: where do we falter?, Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Software Engineering, Parallel and Distributed Systems, p.13-18, February 16-19, 2007, Corfu Island, Greece
	5	ISO/SPICE, 2008. URL http://www.isospice.com/categories/SPICE-Project/ (15/03/2008).
	6	Russell C. H. Cheng, Bootstrap methods in computer simulation experiments, Proceedings of the 27th conference on Winter simulation, p.171-177, December 03-06, 1995, Arlington, Virginia, United States [doi>10.1145/224401.224459]
	7	Carnegie Mellon, Software Engineering Institute, "Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)", Version 1.1, 2002.
	8	Shari Lawrence Pfleeger, Software engineering: theory and practice, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998
	9	Lonchamp, J., A Structured Conceptual and Terminological Framework for Software Process Engineering, Second International Conference on the Software Process, IEEE-CS Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA., Oct. 1993, pp 41-53.
	10	Analia Irigoyen Ferreiro Ferreira , Gleison Santos , Roberta Cerqueira , Mariano Montoni , Ahilton Barreto , Andrea O. Soares Barreto , Ana Regina Rocha, Applying ISO 9001: 2000, MPS.BR and CMMI to Achieve Software Process Maturity: BL Informatica's Pathway, Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Software Engineering, p.642-651, May 20-26, 2007 [doi>10.1109/ICSE.2007.15]
	11	Pat Ferguson , Watts S. Humphrey , Soheil Khajenoori , Susan Macke , Annette Matvya, Results of Applying the Personal Software Process, Computer, v.30 n.5, p.24-31, May 1997 [doi>10.1109/2.589907]
	12	Antonio Amescua , Javier García , Maria-Isabel Sánchez-Segura , Fuensanta Medina-Domínguez, Software process improvement for practitioners based on knowledge management tools, Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS International Conference on Software Engineering, Parallel and Distributed Systems, p.24-29, February 15-17, 2006, Madrid, Spain
	13	Keishi Sakamoto , Kumiyo Nakakoji , Yasunari Takagi , Naoki Niihara, Toward computational support for software process improvement activities, Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Software engineering, p.22-31, April 19-25, 1998, Kyoto, Japan
	14	Noor Habibah Arshad , Azlinah Mohamed , Zaiha Mat Nor, Risk factors in software development projects, Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Software Engineering, Parallel and Distributed Systems, p.51-56, February 16-19, 2007, Corfu Island, Greece
	15	Sarah Beecham , Tracy Hall , Austen Rainer, Software Process Improvement Problems in Twelve Software Companies: An Empirical Analysis, Empirical Software Engineering, v.8 n.1, p.7-42, March 2003 [doi>10.1023/A:1021764731148]
	16	Barbara Ann Kitchenham, Evaluating software engineering methods and tool part 1: The evaluation context and evaluation methods, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.21 n.1, p.11-14, Jan 1 1996 [doi>10.1145/381790.381795]
	17	Pekka Abrahamsson, Commitment development in software process improvement: critical misconceptions, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, p.71-80, May 12-19, 2001, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
	18	Weigers, Karl E. Software Process Improvement: Ten Traps to Avoid, Software Development, 1996.
	19	Statz, J., Oxley, D., O'Toole, P. Identifying and Managing Risks for Software Process Improvement, 2007.
	20	Tore Dybå, Factors of software process improvement success in small and large organizations: an empirical study in the scandinavian context, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.28 n.5, September 2003
	21	Deniss Kumlander, Personnel motivating projects: reasons, implementation and risks, Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Software Engineering, Parallel and Distributed Systems, p.30-34, February 16-19, 2007, Corfu Island, Greece
	22	Sharon Wheeler , Sheryl Duggins, Improving software quality, Proceedings of the 36th annual Southeast regional conference, p.300-309, April 1998 [doi>10.1145/275295.275375]
	23	Dan Taylor , Gary McGraw, Adopting a Software Security Improvement Program, IEEE Security and Privacy, v.3 n.3, p.88-91, May 2005 [doi>10.1109/MSP.2005.60]
	24	Lazic, L. and Mastorakis, N., Cost Effective Software Test Metrics, WSEAS Transactions on Computers, 2008, Vol 6, No. 7, pp. 559-619.
	25	Leon J. Osterweil , Lori A. Clarke, Continuous self-evaluation for the self-improvement of software, Proceedings of the first international workshop on Self-adaptive software, p.27-39, April 2000, Oxford, United Kingdom
	26	Miler, J. and Górski, J., Risk-driven Software Process Improvement - a Case Study, EuroSPI'2004, 2004.
	27	Pasi Ojala, Towards a value-based approach in software engineering, Proceedings of the 2nd WSEAS International Conference on Computer Engineering and Applications, p.54-59, January 25-27, 2008, Acapulco, Mexico
	28	Ojala, P. Experiences of Implementing a Value-Based Approach. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science & Spplications. Vol. 5, No 4. 2008. pp. 385-395.
	29	Ljubomir Lazic, The software testing challenges and methods, Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS International Conference on Communications, p.1-17, July 14-16, 2005, Athens, Greece
	30	Umarji, M. and Seaman, C., Predicting Acceptance of Software Process Improvement, 2005.
	31	Paulk, M. C. The Evolution of SEI's Capability Maturity Model for Software, Software Engineering Institute, CMM Evolution, 1994, pp. 1-71.
	32	Herbsleb, J., Carleton, A., Rozum, J., Siegel, J. and Zubrow, D. CMM, Benefits of CMM-Based Software Process Improvement: Initial Result, 1994.
	33	CORPORATE Carnegie Mellon University , Mark C. Paulk , Charles V. Weber , Bill Curtis , Mary Beth Chrissis, The capability maturity model: guidelines for improving the software process, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1995
	34	Kumar, G. P. Software Process Improvement - TRIZ and Six Sigma, (Using Contradiction Matrix and 40 Principles), 2005.
	35	Brian M. McCarthy , Rip Stauffer, Six sigma: enhancing six sigma through simulation with iGrafx process for six sigma, Proceedings of the 33nd conference on Winter simulation, December 09-12, 2001, Arlington, Virginia
	36	Knuth, K., Niebuhr, G., Lind, M. amd Mauer, B. Six Sigma - Making Corporations and Stockholders, Industrial Engineering 361, 2002.
	37	Kermani Amir H. M. Empowering Six Sigma methodology via the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ), 2003.
	38	Hurber, C. and Mazur, G. H., DFD and Design for Six Sigma, symposium on DFD, 2000.
	39	Ajit Ashok Shenvi, Design for six sigma: software product quality, Proceedings of the 1st conference on India software engineering conference, February 19-22, 2008, Hyderabad, India [doi>10.1145/1342211.1342231]
	40	Galin D., Software Quality Assurance: from theory to implementation, Addison Wesly, United States, 2003.
	41	Paulk, M. C., A Comparison of ISO 9001 and the Capability Maturity Model for Software, Software Capability Maturity Model Project, 1994, pp. 1-71.