Ja
Refine
Document Type
- Conference proceeding (16)
- Journal article (6)
- Book chapter (1)
- Report (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Has full text
- yes (25)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (25)
Institute
- Informatik (25)
Publisher
- Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V (11)
- Springer (4)
- PeerJ Inc. (2)
- RWTH Aachen (2)
- DIMECC Oy (1)
- Fachausschuß Management der Anwendungsentwicklung und -wartung (1)
- Hochschule der Medien (1)
- IARIA (1)
- IGI Publishing (1)
Software process improvement (SPI) has been around for decades: frameworks are proposed, success factors are studied, and experiences have been reported. However, the sheer mass of concepts, approaches, and standards published over the years overwhelms practitioners as well as researchers. What is out there? Are there new trends and emerging approaches? What are open issues? Still, we struggle to answer these questions about the current state of SPI and related research. In this article, we present results from an updated systematic mapping study to shed light on the field of SPI, to develop a big picture of the state of the art, and to draw conclusions for future research directions. An analysis of 769 publications draws a big picture of SPI-related research of the past quarter-century. Our study shows a high number of solution proposals, experience reports, and secondary studies, but only few theories and models on SPI in general. In particular, standard SPI models like CMMI and ISO/IEC 15,504 are analyzed, enhanced, and evaluated for applicability in practice, but these standards are also critically discussed, e.g., from the perspective of SPI in small to-medium-sized companies, which leads to new specialized frameworks. New and specialized frameworks account for the majority of the contributions found (approx. 38%). Furthermore, we find a growing interest in success factors (approx. 16%) to aid companies in conducting SPI and in adapting agile principles and practices for SPI (approx. 10%). Beyond these specific topics, the study results also show an increasing interest into secondary studies with the purpose of aggregating and structuring SPI-related knowledge. Finally, the present study helps directing future research by identifying under-researched topics awaiting further investigation.
Software and system development faces numerous challenges of rapidly changing markets. To address such challenges, companies and projects design and adopt specific development approaches by combining well-structured methods and flexible agile practices. Yet, the number of methods and practices is large and the actual process composition is often carried out in an ad-hoc manner. This paper reports on a survey on hybrid software development approaches. We study which approaches are used in practice, how different approaches are combined, and what contextual factors influence the use and combination of hybrid software development approaches.
Software process improvement (SPI) is around for decades: frameworks are proposed, success factors are studied, and experiences have been reported. However, the sheer mass of concepts, approaches, and standards published over the years overwhelms practitioners as well as researchers. What is out there? Are there new emerging approaches? What are open issues? Still, we struggle to answer the question for what is the current state of SPI and related research? We present initial results from a systematic mapping study to shed light on the field of SPI and to draw conclusions for future research directions. An analysis of 635 publications draws a big picture of SPI-related research of the past 25 years. Our study shows a high number of solution proposals, experience reports, and secondary studies, but only few theories. In particular, standard SPI models are analyzed and evaluated for applicability, especially from the perspective of SPI in small-to-medium-sized companies, which leads to new specialized frameworks. Furthermore, we find a growing interest in success factors to aid companies in conducting SPI.
This summary refers to the paper Software process improvement : where is the evidence? [Ku15].
This paper was published as full research paper in the ICSSP’2015 proceedings.
A software process is the game plan to organize project teams and run projects. Yet, it still is a challenge to select the appropriate development approach for the respective context. A multitude of development approaches compete for the users’ favor, but there is no silver bullet serving all possible setups. Moreover, recent research as well as experience from practice shows companies utilizing different development approaches to assemble the best-fitting approach for the respective company: a more traditional process provides the basic framework to serve the organization, while project teams embody this framework with more agile (and/or lean) practices to keep their flexibility. The paper at hand provides insights into the HELENA study with which we aim to investigate the use of “Hybrid dEveLopmENt Approaches in software systems development”. We present the survey design and initial findings from the survey’s test runs. Furthermore, we outline the next steps towards the full survey.
The emergence of agile methods and practices has not only changed the development processes but might also have affected how companies conduct software process improvement (SPI). Through a set of complementary studies, we aim to understand how SPI has changed in times of agile software development. Specifically, we aim (1) to identify and characterize the set of publications that connect elements of agility to SPI, (2) to explore to which extent agile methods/practices have been used in the context of SPI, and (3) to understand whether the topics addressed in the literature are relevant and useful for industry professionals. To study these questions, we conducted an in-depth analysis of the literature identified in a previous mapping study, an interview study, and an analysis of the responses given by industry professionals to SPI-related questions stemming from an independently conducted survey study.
Managers recognize that software development project teams need to be developed and guided. Although technical skills are necessary, non-technical (NT) skills are equally, if not more, necessary for project success. Currently, there are no proven tools to measure the NT skills of software developers or software development teams. Behavioral markers (observable behaviors that have positive or negative impacts on individual or team performance) are beginning to be successfully used by airline and medical industries to measure NT skill performance. The purpose of this research is to develop and validate the behavior marker system tool that can be used by different managers or coaches to measure the NT skills of software development individuals and teams. This paper presents an empirical study conducted at the Software Factory where users of the behavior marker tool rated video clips of software development teams. The initial results show that the behavior marker tool can be reliably used with minimal training.
Context: Agile practices as well as UX methods are nowadays well-known and often adopted to develop complex software and products more efficiently and effectively. However, in the so called VUCA environment, which many companies are confronted with, the sole use of UX research is not sufficient to find the best solutions for customers. The implementation of Design Thinking can support this process. But many companies and their product owners don’t know how much resources they should spend for conducting Design Thinking.
Objective: This paper aims at suggesting a supportive tool, the “Discovery Effort Worthiness (DEW) Index”, for product owners and agile teams to determine a suitable amount of effort that should be spent for Design Thinking activities.
Method: A case study was conducted for the development of the DEW index. Design Thinking was introduced into the regular development cycle of an industry Scrum team. With the support of UX and Design Thinking experts, a formula was developed to determine the appropriate effort for Design Thinking.
Results: The developed “Discovery Effort Worthiness Index” provides an easy-to-use tool for companies and their product owners to determine how much effort they should spend on Design Thinking methods to discover and validate requirements. A company can map the corresponding Design Thinking methods to the results of the DEW Index calculation, and product owners can select the appropriate measures from this mapping. Therefore, they can optimize the effort spent for discovery and validation.
The business landscape is changing radically because of software. Companies in all industry sectors are continously finding new flexibilities in this programmable world. They are able to deliver new functionalities even after the product is already in the customer's hands. But success is far from guaranteed if they cannot validate their assumptions about what their customers actually need. A competitor with better knowledge of customer needs can disrupt the market in an instant.
This book introduces continuous experimentation, an approach to continuously and systematically test assumptions about the company's product or service strategy and verify customers' needs through experiments. By observing how customers actually use the product or early versions of it, companies can make better development decisions and avoid potentially expensive and wasteful activities. The book explains the cycle of continuous experimentation, demonstrates its use through industry cases, provides advice on how to conduct experiments with recipes, tools, and models, and lists some common pitfalls to avoid. Use it to get started with continuous experimentation and make better product and service development decisions that are in-line with your customers' needs.
Due to rapidly changing technologies and business contexts, many products and services are developed under high uncertainties. It is often impossible to predict customer behaviors and outcomes upfront. Therefore, product and service developers must continuously find out what customers want, requiring a more experimental mode of management and appropriate support for continuously conducting experiments. We have analytically derived an initial model for continuous experimentation from prior work and matched it against empirical case study findings from two startup companies. We examined the preconditions for setting up an experimentation system for continuous customer experiments. The resulting RIGHT model for Continuous Experimentation (Rapid Iterative value creation Gained through High-frequency Testing) illustrates the building blocks required for such a system and the necessary infrastructure. The major findings are that a suitable experimentation system requires the ability to design, manage, and conduct experiments, create so-called minimum viable products or features, link experiment results with a product roadmap, and manage a flexible business strategy. The main challenges are proper, rapid design of experiments, advanced instrumentation of software to collect, analyse, and store relevant data, and integration of experiment results in the product development cycle, software development process, and business strategy. This summary refers to the article The RIGHT Model for Continuous Experimentation, published in the Journal of Systems and Software [Fa17].
Objective: This paper aims at getting an understanding of current problems and challenges with roadmapping processes in companies that are facing volatile markets with innovative products. It also aims at gathering ideas and attempts on how to react to those challenges.
Method: As an initial step towards the objectice a semi-structured expert interview study with a case company in the Smart Home domain was conducted. Four employees from the case company with different roles around product roadmaps have been interviewed and a content analysis of the data has been performed.
Results: The study shows a significant consensus among the interviewees about several major challenges and the necessity to change the traditional roadmapping process and format. The interviewees stated that based on their experience traditional feature-based product roadmaps are increasingly losing their benefits (such as good planning certainty) in volatile environments. Furthermore, the ability to understand customer needs and behaviors has become highly important for creating and adjusting product roadmaps. The interviewees see the need for both, sufficiently stable goals on the roadmap and flexibility with respect to products or features to be developed. To reach this target the interviewees proposed to create roadmaps based on outcome goals instead of product features. In addition, it was proposed to decrease the level of detail of the roadmaps and to emphasize the long-term view. Decisions about which feature to develop should be open as long as possible. Expected benefits of such a new way of product roadmapping are higher user centricity, a stable overall direction, more flexibility with respect to development decisions, and less breaking of commitments.