Software
Process is considered to be a set of methods, practices, and tools for
producing software products based on certain plans (Paula et al. 2010).
Provision of organizational stability alongside effective control is the major
goals of software process.
Apart
from the fact that a number of software process definitions exist, the aim of
each and every one of them is assisting the software engineers in developing
software that is of advanced quality. Pressman (2005) believes it to be a
framework of numerous tasks for building high quality software. On the other
hand, it was stated by Somerville (2001) that it is rather an activity
structure for developing software systems and the major activities are Software
Specification, Software Design and Implementation, Software Validation, and
lastly, Software Evolution.
In spite of the great amount of diversity that exists in the
various maturity levels of the software processes that have been implemented by
organizations as well as various VSEs, a number of characteristics are shared
by them all/. All these features were presented as hypotheses when the work
initially began, after being confirmed through the observations that were made
while the experience was going on. Many other studies also corroborated the
same experiences in relation to SMEs.
The life cycle of the software is very simplified, and most of its
phases like maintenance, implementation and analysis are rather un-formal. The
most important phases are testing and development. Even though testing is
considered incredibly important, it often has to be cut off as a result of lack
of funds, resources, or time.
Variations in maturity levels of the processes in a single
organization can also greatly vary, with high quality processes combined with
lower quality ones. There are also many practices that have to be artificially
imposed, for instance the supplier relationship practices that are considered
as liabilities of the company rather than strategic assets. There is no
formalization of the quality control procedures. Moreover, the incentive of
adhering to regulated procedures is also discarded in such environments.
Not many common elements were witnessed in most VSEs relating to
project management as well as planning practices. While some were doing
incredibly well, some simply weren’t. However, depending on the project
manager, client, project, or the development team, practices within the
organization itself can greatly differ. Moreover, funds for HR development and
training also tend to be rather limited, and it only utilized in the face of
immediate technical problems.
These are considered as emergency exists where self-training of
teams is not possible.
Moreover, such small scale operations are also project driven,
rarely possessing a longer term strategy. Moreover, knowledge management
practices are also not carried out. Many larger structures have indicated these
deficiencies as well but mostly it is apparent is VSEs. A methodological
approach has to be imposed by VSEs as a result of their size.
Moreover, risk management is also not carried out, as the view is
rather short term. The level of risks being entertained by the company could be
incredibly high and still uncalculated. This is therefore how leveraged small
structures might end up generating huge returns.
Management is not really involved with quality issues. It was also
discovered that the ISO standards barely seemed applicable in the context of
VSEs. A working group WG24 was established by ISO/IEC JTC1 SC7 for addressing
some of these issues and providing vital guidance of how compliance can be
attained with ISO software engineering standards by VSEs at substantially lower
maturity levels (Laporte et al.
2006).
Software
process improvement programs required qualified statements regarding the status
of the software development in organizations as well as the respective
strengths as well as the weaknesses that can be worked upon. The 6 methodologies
presented below were deduced as a result of the literature search that is
currently employed by various SMEs.
Because
there are not enough assists available, and considering the level of the
companies, a substantial, a proper evaluation was done on the programming
techniques after outlining extensive techniques such as the ISO/IEC 90003.
(2004), the TickIT scheme (1992), Kuvaja et al. (1994) and Kautz et al (2000)
framework was not looked upon as a requirement, or even perhaps acceptable
under these circumstances. In addition, it has also been backed up by Kautz
(1998). MESOPYME’s other targets run parallel with the targets of the IDEAL
model (McFeeley, 1996) of the Software Engineering Institute (SEI). Within this
segment, the most prominent attributes of the application enhancement
strategies have been pointed out.
Application
enhancement strategies, structured on three steps, have been used (Alexandre et
al, 2006).
Stage
1: Micro-assessment. Here, in order to gather data regarding the ongoing observance of
applications in minor organizations, and to raise awareness on how significant
the standard of applications is, a fairly refined questionnaire is used, which
is named as micro-evaluation (Alexandre et
al, 2006). It covers namely 6 fields
(supervising the standards, monitoring consumers, administering the
subcontractor, controlling the growth and expansion of the scheme, supervising
units, guidance and HR operations), and is accustomed by the judge who uses it
to analyze the spokesperson of the company (Habra et al, 2008). It is important for the judge to have an
insight on application standard maintenance and application development, and
for the spokesperson to have enough information regarding the IT operations of
their firms (Habra et al, 2008). The outcomes of the micro-evaluations are
failed, and displayed in a document prepared by the judge. Keeping in mind the
company and its targets, the report offers suggestions, and certain steps to augment
the activities of the firm (Habra et al, 2008).
Stage
2: OWPL evaluation. Making use of the micro-evaluation, a comprehensive review is obtained.
With the OWPL evaluation, up to 10 practice segments can be taken care of,
however, it calls for multiple people to be questioned for each practice (Habra et al, 2008).
Together with the explanation, and a catalog of methods that makeup the
procedure, each practice is shown next to its targets (Renault et al.
2006). This step-by-step outline of
each methodology presents a target, the efforts and the results, and the
material required (Renault et al. 2006). OWPL was crafted in a way that it would immediately point out the
methods required for the enhancement of the applications, and not just that,
another aspect was that it would assist in sketching a basic, yet effective
master-plan that would strengthen the methodologies and keep a note on the
developments (Renault et al. 2006). Generally, an OWPL evaluation aims only on certain methods that are
picked out depending on previous evaluations, like the micro-evaluation, or
questioning the applicant before carrying out the OWPL evaluation (Renault
et al. 2006). The very direct
requirements of companies to evaluate, or the outcomes of the value-chain
evaluation of a company can have direct influence on how much emphasis is paid
on certain procedures (Renault et al. 2006).
Stage
3: SPICE assessment. If suitable, larger firms with moderate or excellent standards are
ultimately asked to carry out an ISO/IEC15504 or a CMMI assessment (Alexandre et al. 2006).
Making
use of this system, firms can understand the significance of application
methods. Operations that are of higher priority, Software Process Matrix (SPM)
determines the operations that ought to be done. Quality Function Deployment
(QFD) lays the foundations for SPM. QFD takes into account the reviews of the
consumers, the extent to which these reviews are significant are calculated. In
the standard maintenance department, these reviews are then utilized to
determine the factors that influence the needs of the consumers in the best
possible manner. Even though there are several departments in QFD, more
emphasis is laid on this department, largely because it could go on and have a
considerable big influence on the assembling methods (Fortuna, 1988). With the
QFD, the application assembling system is addressed as a consumer, whereby the
needs of the consumers are the application systems. The literary work relating
the application systems helped in the revealing of these operations. Another
one of the operations that were revealed as a result of the literary
application system work were the styling properties that were a must-follow for
the system to be productive.
Figuring
out the associations among the procedures and the operation was a significant
element in the enhancement of the application programming department. The ones
that had been clearly stated in the literary work were found effortlessly.
However, the remaining associations between the two were recognized by making
use of the viewpoints of the professionals, as well as several records. It
helped in enhancing and authentication of the application systems in the
market, which were later certified.
Any
company based on a small scale which plans on using an application system to be
more efficient, it is vital that only marginal energy be spent. And with SPM,
they are offered simplified divisions that had been concluded, and could be
utilized for their firms. In order to gain information of the present operation
of the company, its scheduled long-term operation, and the significance each
practice hold, the company is presented a questionnaire. From where the firms
are, they only have to present details regarding the analytics for working out
the general significance of the application systems, keeping in mind these
points (Richardson, 2002):
·
Existing
potential according to the their own evaluations
·
Potential for
the coming years as an effort from the administration
·
Significance of
the applications systems to the company
·
Economic
evaluations
·
Influence in
terms of firm’s absolute needs. e.g. ISO-certification
The
stiffness of the system depends on whether the administration has been allowed
to incorporate stats for a better economic position, and influencing the
industry.
Basing
the practices of the organization is the most crucial aspect, and thus, it is
recommended that this factor should be focused and worked upon within the
organization primarily. This shall be of help to the organization in designing
the strategy of improvement by deciding upon the main concerns to incorporate
in any of the process of improving the software. Through a complete SPM, the
organization is provided with a group of options of actions, that are rated, to
be used as inputs in their approach towards software process enhancement. The
list can be used to determine the plan of action of the organization by
combining the list with the cost and time saving calculations.
MESOPYME has been explained, by taking into account
a generic SPI model explained by the ISPI in four stages whose aims are
identical to those of the IDEAL model from the SEI (Calvo-Manzano et al. 2002).
The main characteristics of MESOPYME are as follows:
Stage
1: Commitment to improvement
Its
aim is to gather the support of the senior management to start the necessary
improvement project.
Stage
2: Software process evaluation
Its
main aim is to get gold of the strengths and weaknesses of the methods assessed
with regards to a software process model known as the CMM (Capability Maturity
Model). From this evaluation, processes (usually 1 to 3) to be improved are
chosen.
Stage
3: Improvement Solution
It
aim is to give the necessary infrastructure to bring about the improvements (in
selected processes), and to create the plan to follow in order to describe and
apply improvements in the necessary processes. The improvement solution phase
is taken through the application of a generic series of components which we
have called an Action package. An action Package is a general answer to the
necessary software process are which should be customized for a business,
taking into consideration its business goals and assessment results. An action
package is carried out in the selected plot projects.
Stage 4: Institutionalize
Lastly, the improvement should be institutionalized.
The
Approach for Software Process Establishment in Micro and Small Companies
(ASPE-MSC) is explained with the inclusion and adaptation of the present
methods (Ahonen et al. 2002, Becker-Kornstaedt, 2001, Madhavji et al. 1994,
Scott, 2000) for the small sized companies of software in their
characteristics. The main stages of method are:
Planning.
The
establishing of the procedure is planned, in the start, at a high stage. The
plan is then reviewed, finished and applied, further on during the analysis,
with respect to what was decided upon.
Phase
1, This stage is aimed towards obtaining a snapshot, which is a high
level one, of the process currently in place, by placing the organization in
context. The basis for calculating and comparing can be confirmed upon by the
help of the assessment of the software taking into use e.g. MARES (Gresse von
Wangenheim, 2006) and ISO/IEC 15504; a process of assessment made for companies
smaller in size.
Phase
2, Strategic analysis.
This
stage is aimed at specifying the capacity along with putting up the processes
of the candidate to be stated on the basis of what the diagnosis depicted along
with the goals regarding improvisation and goals regarding business of the
organization. The SWOT analysis method
(Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats) can be brought into use regarding
the significance of the procedures and their calculated potential.
Phase
3, Definition.
This
stage aims to explain the process(s) of the software that have been chosen,
forming a manual to help the performers of the procedure. Usually to express
the process that has been selected modeling of the actual process in done
descriptively. The action includes a procedure of the phase of familiarizing
and then comes the stage of eliciting it in detail. In the stage of
familiarizing, an outline of the process of the software and the major
structure of it, how it interacts and the sequence followed is taken and
acknowledged, the flow diagram of a process may be a good example. Next,
identification is done of the roles of each activity along with the
competencies and the responsibilities (Becker-Kornstaedt, 2001).
Phase
4, Implementation.
The
process(s) defined is evaluated with respect to their application, first. The
reviewing of how the methods are defined to observe and evaluate the how
effective and appropriate the process(s) have been and if the anticipated
returns have been achieved.
Monitoring
& Control.
Monitoring
is done of the process(s) getting completed and set, along with controlling.
Thus, collection and analysis of the data is done by the engineer of the process
along with the assistant. If seeming necessary, and update of the strategy is
done after doing remedial actions.
Post-mortem.
After
the completion of a proper process cycle, the approach of establishing the
process in reviewed with respect to constant betterment. By collecting the
feedback of the performers of the process and evaluating it, the evaluation is
done, along with the feedbacks of sponsors, the engineer and the assistant. The
feedback is collected through questionnaires or meetings.
PRISMS
is a three year study based with three participant researchers belonging to the
Leeds Metropolitan University, who work along with the managers of the
participating companies and their developers, who assist them and advise with
regards to the preparation and application of the programs of improvement of the process of software. This
research is based on researching upon action.
The
main aspects of the process are given below:
The
available informal process is investigated and on the availability of
resources, a clear moeld is formulated.
The
business objectives are chalked out in advance by the administration in a
PRISMS program. The activity following this action is carried out by these
goals, particularly the choice and ordering of main process fields for
betterment and the choice of dimensions.
A
discussion activity comprising of every member of development group is
conducted. Either such a discussion conference or a survey based on
questionnaire assist the team of the developers to own the SPI programmer and
to contribute in it right from the beginning.
The
research team member conduct a custom made copy of CMM evaluation principally
to assist in locating the key process areas (KPAs) for the betterment.
The
KPAs are located and ranked by employing these inputs. The key standard should
be the degree to which it is possible for the KPAs to add to the set business
objectives. Martin (2002) describes a measured choice technique which a company
found to be useful. For this purpose, Richardson’s (2001) practice/process
techniques can also be employed.
Measurements are also regarded as an essential share of the process of
SPI planning. Generally managers look for more exact methods of locating main
resources and standard pointers. Designated attributes depending on the
business objectives can be formulated for SPI program with the help of Goal
Question Metric paradigm.
The
plan of SPI is occasionally studied. This plan facilitates in gathering
stakeholder’s feedback. An extremely significant feature of calibration for SPI
programs in small scale companies is that they must be simple enough to collect
and understand and help in the process of decision making and planning. Mere
automation can assist in cutting down the overhead cost related to the
collection and data and processing.
iFlap
may either be employed to assess one process field or be calibrated in order to
assess a single or all the process fields (Pettersson et al, 2008). iFlap comprises of three essential phases:
Step
1: Selection.
It
is essential that right persons are chosen from the company as members of the research
in order to evaluate and make the stages as being representative of all the
staff members (Pettersson et al, 2008). Evaluators must have a fundamental
comprehension of the company before this phase starts (Pettersson et al, 2008).
Workshops are organized by the persons from the organizations so that
evaluators can be assisted in understanding the company (Pettersson et al,
2008). These choice phases are carried out in three main phases: firstly
projects are selected for the research, then roles (in line organizations and
project) are selected. Lastly, people are appointed to represent those roles
(Pettersson et al, 2008).
Step
2: Assessment.
In
this phase, betterment problems are collected from the company by means of
interviews from the specialists. The betterment problems collected are matched
against process and project documentation for authorization. An evaluation
comprises of two essential components: a project research, inspecting projects
along with a line research which inspects the pertinent areas of the company
which are not associated with a project (Pettersson et al, 2008).
Step
3: Improvement Planning.
First
of all, representatives who will participate in this phase are chosen from the
company. Specialists who participated in evaluation phase can be employed for
this phase; however, those roles which are not linked with system development
can be eliminated (Pettersson et al, 2008). The risks and costs attached to the
incorporate all the improvements at one go will be too high and it is necessary
that the focus of the effort should be focused on a few issues at a single
time, in order to take evolutionary steps. Thus, the improvement issues will be
prioritized according to the factors such as the cost of implementation,
practical restrictions and business goals. Finally, the packaging improvement
issues will be done in order to guide planning the implementation and planning
of the changes in the whole process.
