Software Process Assessment and Improvement Using Multicriteria Decision Aiding - Constructivist

Authors

  • Leonardo Ensslin Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Produção - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Campus Universitário – Trindade, Caixa Postal 476, CEP 88040-900, Florianópolis, SC, Brasil
  • Luiz Carlos Mesquita Scheid
  • Sandra Rolim Ensslin Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Produção - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Campus Universitário – Trindade, Caixa Postal 476, CEP 88040-900, Florianópolis, SC, Brasil,
  • Rogerio Tadeu de Oliveira Lacerda Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Produção - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Campus Universitário – Trindade, Caixa Postal 476, CEP 88040-900, Florianópolis, SC, Brasil, email: rogerlacerda@gmail.com

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4301/s1807-17752012000300003

Keywords:

software process assessment, software process improvement, decision, performance measurement, CMMI, SPICE

Abstract

Software process improvement and software process assessment have received special attention since the 1980s. Some models have been created, but these models rest on a normative approach, where the decision-maker’s participation in a software organization is limited to understanding which process is more relevant to each organization. The proposal of this work is to present the MCDA-C as a constructivist methodology for software process improvement and assessment. The methodology makes it possible to visualize the criteria that must be taken into account according to the decision-makers’ values in the process improvement actions, making it possible to rank actions in the light of specific organizational needs. This process helped the manager of the company studied to focus on and prioritize process improvement actions. This paper offers an empirical understanding of the application of performance evaluation to software process improvement and identifies complementary tools to the normative models presented today.

References

BARTHÉLEMY, J.; R. BISDORFF, R., e; COPPIN, G. Human centered processes and decision support systems, European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 136, No. 2, Pag.: 233-252, 2002.

CMMI V1.1 – SCAMPI V1.1 – Class A Appraisal Results. Carnegie Mellon University. Software Engineering Institute. www.sei.cmu.edu, 2004.

CMMI-SE/SW CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION. CMMI for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering/Integrated Product and Process Development, Version 1.02, Continuous Representation. www.sei.cmu.edu, 2002.

CMMI-SE/SW STAGED REPRESENTATION. CMMI for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering/Integrated Product and Process Development, Version 1.02, Staged Representation. www.sei.cmu.edu, 2002.

ENSSLIN, L.; NETO G.; ZANELLA I.; NORONHA, S. Apoio à Decisão: Metodologias para Estruturação de Problemas e Avaliação Multicritério de Alternativas. INSULAR, LabMCDA; Florianópolis- SC; 2002.

ISO/IEC15504-1: Information Technology – Software Process Assessment Part 1: Concepts and Introductory Guide. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 N1592.6, 1996.

ISO/IEC15504-2: Information Technology – Software Process Assessment Part 2: A Reference Model For Processes And Process Capability. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 N1594, 1996.

ISO/IEC15504-3: Information Technology – Software Process Assessment Part 3: Rating Processes. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 N1594, 1996.

LEE, H.; JUNG, H.; CHUNG, C.; LEE, J.; LEE, K.; JEONG, H. Analysis of interrater agreement in ISO/IEC 15504-based software process assessment. Quality Software, 2001. Proceedings.Second Asia-Pacific Conference on, Vol., Iss., Pages:341-348, 2001.

NIAZI, M.; WILSON, D.; ZOWGHI, D. A maturity model for the implementation of software process improvement: an empirical study. The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 74, Pag.: 155-172, 2003

PITTERMAN, B. Telcordia technologies: the journey to high maturity. IEEE Software (July–August), 89–96, 2000.

KUILBOER, J.; ASHRAFI, N. Software process and product improvement: an empirical assessment, Information and Software Technology, Volume 42, Issue 1, Pages 27-34, 2000.

RAINER, A. e HALL, T. Key success factors for implementing software process improvement: a maturity-based analysis. Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 62, No. 2, Pag.: 71-84., 2002.

SAIEDIAN, H.; MCCLANAHAN, L. A study of two frameworks for quality software process. Symposium on Applied Computing, Nashville, Tennessee, Estados Unidos, Pag.: 434 – 439, 1995.

SHEARD, S.; ROEDLER G. Interpreting continuous-view capability models for higher levels of maturity. Systems Engineering Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Vol. 2, No. 1, Pag.: 15-31, 1999.

WANG, Y.; COURT, I.; ROSS, M.; STAPLES, G.; KING, G. Towards a Software Process Reference Model (SPRM), Proceedings of International Conference on Sofrware Process Improvement (SPI’96), Brighton, 1996

WANG, Y., KING, G., DORLING, A., PATEL, D., COURT, I., STAPLES, G. ROSS, M., A Worldwide Survey of Base Process Activities Towards Software Engineering Process Excellence, IEEE, 1998.

Downloads

Published

2012-12-21

How to Cite

Ensslin, L., Scheid, L. C. M., Ensslin, S. R., & Lacerda, R. T. de O. (2012). Software Process Assessment and Improvement Using Multicriteria Decision Aiding - Constructivist. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 9(3), 473–496. https://doi.org/10.4301/s1807-17752012000300003

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 3 (2012)

Section

Articles

License

Terms and Conditions The articles are author's responsibility. The publisher allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and to retain publishing rights without restrictions. When submitting an article to JISTEM, authors are responsible for acknowledge and list any conflict of interest and financial support that may have influenced on the research results. Authors are required to sign an official copyright form. CC licensing You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Notices: You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation. No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material. The aim of the Directory of Open Access Journals is to increase the visibility and ease of use of open access scientific and scholarly journals thereby promoting their increased usage and impact. The articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles Creative Commons License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Al papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Journal's policy of screening for plagiarism: Plagiarism is strictly forbidden, and by submitting the article for publication the authors agree that the publishers have the legal right to take appropriate action against the authors, if plagiarism or fabricated information is discovered.