Realities and Rewards of Software Process Improvement
IEEE Software
Prescription, description, reflection: the shape of the software process improvement field
International Journal of Information Management: The Journal for Information Professionals
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The Capability Maturity Model specifies several hundredkey practices that must be implemented as a team moves from Level1 to Level 5 of the model. However, the model does not specifywithin each level the optimal sequence in which to implementthe practices. Level 2 contains 121 such practices grouped undersix key process areas (KPAs) which are further subdivided intofive common feature areas (CFAs). Although the KPA/CFA structurehas a logical fit with the organizational structure of very largesoftware development teams, it does not correspond to the realityof small teams. Using Level 2 audit data collected on 10 smallsoftware development teams, the authors try to determine whetherthe data itself can point to a more appropriate implementationstrategy for small teams. The data is analyzed using Guttmanscaling techniques (scalogram analysis). The results indicatethat there is a single underlying, orderable dimension at Level2 which lays out a step-by-step path upward from Level 1. Theorder of the items is found to map well to the familiar Plan-Do-Check-Actcycle widely used by project managers to organize and controlwork efforts. The extracted scale can be used as an assessmenttool to provide management with a quick snapshot of a team‘scurrent position relative to Level 2.