Software Process Improvement barriers: A cross-cultural comparison

  • Authors:
  • Mahmood Niazi;Muhammad Ali Babar;June M. Verner

  • Affiliations:
  • School of Computing and Mathematics, Keele University, ST5 5BG, UK and Department of Information and Computer Science, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Saudi Arabia;IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark;School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia

  • Venue:
  • Information and Software Technology
  • Year:
  • 2010

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Context: Software Process Improvement initiatives have been around for many years with the growing globalisation of software development is making them increasingly important. Objective: The objective of this exploratory research is to gain an in-depth understanding of barriers that can undermine SPI, in the context of Global Software Development, from the perspective of software development practitioners; this will enable SPI managers to better manage SPI initiatives. We intend to discover if the barriers to SPI initiatives in a developed country are different to those in a developing country. Method: In an empirical study, Vietnamese software practitioners' experiences of SPI barriers are compared with barriers identified by Australian practitioners. Face-to-face questionnaire-based survey sessions with 23 Vietnamese SPI practitioners were conducted. Our survey included barriers to SPI improvement initiatives identified in previous research. We asked the participants to rank each SPI barrier on a three-point scale (high, medium, low) to determine the importance of each barrier. We then compare our results, with results (identified in previous work), from 34 Australian software development practitioners. Results: We identify (1) lack of project management, (2) lack of resources, (3) lack of sponsorship, (4) inexperienced staff/lack of knowledge, and (5) lack of SPI awareness as 'high' value SPI barriers in Vietnam. The results also reveal similarities and differences between the experiences of Australian and Vietnamese practitioners regarding the importance of the SPI barriers identified. While the Australian practitioners were also concerned with (1) lack of SPI awareness, they were even more concerned with (2) organisational politics, and (3) lack of support. Conclusions: Practitioners identify SPI barriers based on previous SPI implementation experience. Their role(s) in their different organisations have helped them to understand the importance of that barrier. Vietnamese software practitioners cited more SPI barriers than their counterparts in Australia. The Vietnamese SPI barriers relate to project management, resources, and sponsorship while the Australian barriers are concerned with organisational politics and lack of support.