Refine
Document Type
- Conference proceeding (7)
- Journal article (2)
Language
- English (9)
Has full text
- yes (9)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (9)
Institute
- Informatik (9)
Publisher
- IEEE (9) (remove)
For decades, Software Process Improvement (SPI) programs have been implemented, inter alia, to improve quality and speed of software development. To set up, guide, and carry out SPI projects, and to measure SPI state, impact, and success, a multitude of different SPI approaches and considerable experience are available. SPI addresses many aspects ranging from individual developer skills to entire organizations. It comprises for instance the optimization of specific activities in the software lifecycle as well as the creation of organization awareness and project culture. In the course of conducting a systematic mapping study on the state-of-the-art in SPI from a general perspective, we observed Global Software Engineering (GSE) becoming a topic of interest in recent years. Therefore, in this paper, we provide a detailed investigation of those papers from the overall systematic mapping study that were classified as addressing SPI in the context of GSE. From the main study’s result set, a set of 30 papers dealing with GSE was selected for an in-depth analysis using the systematic review instrument to study the contributions and to develop an initial picture of how GSE is considered from the perspective of SPI. Our findings show the analyzed papers delivering a substantial discussion of cultural models and how such models can be used to better address and align SPI programs with multi-national environments. Furthermore, experience is shared discussing how agile approaches can be implemented in companies working at the global scale. Finally, success factors and barriers are studied to help companies implementing SPI in a GSE context.
Software development consists to a large extent of human-based processes with continuously increasing demands regarding interdisciplinary team work. Understanding the dynamics of software teams can be seen as highly important to successful project execution. Hence, for future project managers, knowledge about non-technical processes in teams is significant. In this paper, we present a course unit that provides an environment in which students can learn and experience the role of different communication patterns in distributed agile software development. In particular, students gain awareness about the importance of communication by experiencing the impact of limitations of communication channels and the effects on collaboration and team performance. The course unit presented uses the controlled experiment instrument to provide the basic organization of a small software project carried out in virtual teams. We provide a detailed design of the course unit to allow for implementation in further courses. Furthermore, we provide experiences obtained from implementing this course unit with 16 graduate students. We observed students struggling with technical aspects and team coordination in general, while not realizing the importance of communication channels (or their absence). Furthermore, we could show the students that lacking communication protocols impact team coordination and performance regardless of the communication channels used.
Software engineering courses have to deliver theoretical and technical knowledge and skills while establishing links to practice. However, due to course goals or resource limitations, it is not always possible or even meaningful to set up complete projects and let students work on a real piece of software. For instance, if students shall understand the impact of group dynamics on productivity, a particular software to be developed is of less interest than an environment in which students can learn about team-related phenomena. To address this issue, we use experimentation as a teaching tool in software engineering courses. Experiments help to precisely characterize and study a problem in a systematic way, to observe phenomena, and to develop and evaluate solutions. Furthermore, experiments help establishing short feedback and learning cycles, and they also allow for experiencing risk and failure scenarios in a controlled environment. In this paper, we report on three courses in which we implemented different experiments and we share our experiences and lessons learned. Using these courses, we demonstrate how to use classroom experiments, and we provide a discussion on the feasibility based on formal and informal course evaluations. This experience report thus aims to help teachers integrating small- and medium sized experiments in their courses.
Software process improvement (SPI) is around for decades, but it is a critically discussed topic. In several waves, different aspects of SPI have been discussed in the past, e.g., large scale company-level SPI programs, maturity models, success factors, and in-project SPI. It is hard to find new streams or a consensus in the community, but there is a trend coming along with agile and lean software development. Apparently, practitioners reject extensive and prescriptive maturity models and move towards smaller, faster and continuous project-integrated SPI. Based on data from two survey studies conducted in Germany (2012) and Europe (2016), we analyze the process customization for projects and practices for implementing SPI in the participating companies. Our findings indicate that, even in regulated industry sectors, companies increasingly adopt in-project SPI activities, primarily with the goal to continuously optimize specific processes. Therefore, with this paper, we want to stimulate a discussion on how to evolve traditional SPI towards a continuous learning environment.
Among the multitude of software development processes available, hardly any is used by the book. Regardless of company size or industry sector, a majority of project teams and companies use customized processes that combine different development methods— so-called hybrid development methods. Even though such hybrid development methods are highly individualized, a common understanding of how to systematically construct synergetic practices is missing. In this paper, we make a first step towards devising such guidelines. Grounded in 1,467 data points from a large-scale online survey among practitioners, we study the current state of practice in process use to answer the question: What are hybrid development methods made of? Our findings reveal that only eight methods and few practices build the core of modern software development. This small set allows for statistically constructing hybrid development methods. Using an 85% agreement level in the participants’ selections, we provide two examples illustrating how hybrid development methods are characterized by the practices they are made of. Our evidence-based analysis approach lays the foundation for devising hybrid development methods.
Together with many success stories, promises such as the increase in production speed and the improvement in stakeholders' collaboration have contributed to making agile a transformation in the software industry in which many companies want to take part. However, driven either by a natural and expected evolution or by contextual factors that challenge the adoption of agile methods as prescribed by their creator(s), software processes in practice mutate into hybrids over time. Are these still agile In this article, we investigate the question: what makes a software development method agile We present an empirical study grounded in a large-scale international survey that aims to identify software development methods and practices that improve or tame agility. Based on 556 data points, we analyze the perceived degree of agility in the implementation of standard project disciplines and its relation to used development methods and practices. Our findings suggest that only a small number of participants operate their projects in a purely traditional or agile manner (under 15%). That said, most project disciplines and most practices show a clear trend towards increasing degrees of agility. Compared to the methods used to develop software, the selection of practices has a stronger effect on the degree of agility of a given discipline. Finally, there are no methods or practices that explicitly guarantee or prevent agility. We conclude that agility cannot be defined solely at the process level. Additional factors need to be taken into account when trying to implement or improve agility in a software company. Finally, we discuss the field of software process-related research in the light of our findings and present a roadmap for future research.
Large critical systems, such as those created in the space domain, are usually developed by a large number of organizations and, furthermore, they have to comply with standards. Yet, the different stakeholders often do not have a common understanding of the needed quality of requirements specifications. Achieving such a common understanding is a laborious process that is currently not sufficiently supported. Moreover, such a common understanding must be aligned with the standards. In this paper, we present an approach that can be used to align the different stakeholder perceptions regarding the quality of requirements specifications. Existing quality models for requirements specifications are analyzed for equivalences, and transferred into a common representation, the so-called Aligned Quality Map (AQM). Furthermore, a process is defined that supports the alignment of different stakeholder perspectives with regard to the quality of requirements specifications using AQM, which is validated in a case study in the context of European space projects. AQM has been created and populated with an initial set of quality models. It is designed in such way that it can be extended to include further quality models. The case study has shown that an alignment of different stakeholder perspectives and the quality model of the European Cooperation for Space Standardization using AQM is feasible. The approach allows for aligning different stakeholder perspectives for a common understanding of the quality of requirements specifications in the context of standards. Furthermore, AQM supports the assessment of requirements specifications.
Software development teams have to face stress caused by deadlines, staff turnover, or individual differences in commitment, expertise, and time zones. While students are typically taught the theory of software project management, their exposure to such stress factors is usually limited. However, preparing students for the stress they will have to endure once they work in project teams is important for their own sake, as well as for the sake of team performance in the face of stress. Team performance has been linked to the diversity of software development teams, but little is known about how diversity influences the stress experienced in teams. In order to shed light on this aspect, we provided students with the opportunity to self-experience the basics of project management in self-organizing teams, and studied the impact of six diversity dimensions on team performance, coping with stressors, and positive perceived learning effects. Three controlled experiments at two universities with a total of 65 participants suggest that the social background impacts the perceived stressors the most, while age and work experience have the highest impact on perceived learnings. Most diversity dimensions have a medium correlation with the quality of work, yet no significant relation to the team performance. This lays the foundation to improve students’ training for software engineering teamwork based on their diversity-related needs and to create diversity-sensitive awareness among educators, employers and researchers.