Abstract
The SPICE frameworks and conformant models have considerably evolved in the past two decades. However, producing SPI effects to such levels as sponsors expect is not necessarily easy, because it is closely related to the “process context” of each organization. One of the key strategies for getting over this hurdle is to assiduously consider the “process context” in each of the SPI steps, and to determine the sponsor’s satisfaction level with performance of assessment/appraisal. In most cases, the SPI sponsor, who has authority over the SPI effort, has issues in his/her business activities. By addressing these issues in the assessment/appraisal, the sponsor can recognize that the SPI activities are really connected to actual business. As an extension of the previous paper [1] that described the importance of producing ‘quality’ assessment outputs, this paper describes critical success factors for obtaining real satisfaction levels, that lead to steady generation of SPI effects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Sect. 2.2 for these data. Since the author’s SPI experience is primarily focused on CMM(I)-based appraisals, these data are described in a CMM(I)-based setting.
- 2.
Since the basic policy of “Process Improvement” underlies both SW-CMM-based assessment (CBA-IPI) and CMMI-based appraisal (SCAMPISM Class A, ‘Internal Process Improvement’ mode), it is reasonable to use the evaluation data of both SW-CMM and CMMI together.
- 3.
PP: Project Planning.
- 4.
PMC: Project Monitoring & Control.
- 5.
MA: Measurement and Analysis.
- 6.
RD: Requirements Development.
- 7.
TS: Technical Solution.
- 8.
PI: Product Integration.
- 9.
OPF: Organizational Process Focus.
- 10.
OPD: Organizational Process Definition.
- 11.
OT: Organizational Training.
- 12.
One of the notable points here is that the high SSL comes, not necessarily from just achieving the target maturity level, but rather from correctly understanding clarified PA Findings statements (Strengths & Weaknesses), in which the organization’s real-world status is reflected. (“Whether a target capability/maturity level is achieved or not” is out of scope of this study.)
- 13.
In order to establish reliable Process Performance Baselines, data from ‘stable’ processes are required. Such data can sometimes be obtained by appropriate ‘Subgrouping’ or ‘Stratification.’ In addition, it is also critical to consider the interaction of processes and sub-processes.
References
Miyoshi, T.: Emphasis on personal attributes/skills to produce ‘quality’ assessment outputs that lead to steady generation of spi effects. In: Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2015. CCIS, vol. 526, pp. 87–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)
ISO/IEC 15504-1:2004, Information technology- Process assessment - Part 1: Concepts and vocabulary
ISO/IEC 15504-2:2003, Information technology - Process assessment - Part 2: Performing an assessment
ISO/IEC 15504-3:2004, Information technology - Process assessment - Part 3: Guidance on performing an assessment
ISO/IEC 15504-4:2004, Information technology - Process assessment - Part 4: Guidance on use for process improvement and process capability determination
ISO/IEC 15504-5:2012, Information technology - Process assessment - Part 5: An exemplar Process Assessment Model
ISO/IEC 15504-6:2013, Information technology - Process assessment - Part 6: An exemplar system life cycle process assessment model
ISO/IEC TR 15504-7:2008, Information technology - Process assessment - Part 7: Assessment of organizational maturity
ISO/IEC TS 15504-8:2012, Information technology - Process assessment - Part 8: An exemplar process assessment model for IT service management
ISO/IEC TS 15504-9:2011, Information technology - Process assessment - Part 9: Target process profiles
ISO/IEC TS 15504-10:2011, Information technology - Process assessment - Part 10: Safety extension
ISO/IEC-33001:2015, Information technology - Process assessment - Concepts and terminology
ISO/IEC TR 33014:2013, Information technology — Process assessment — Guide for process improvement
ISO/IEC-33002:2015, Information technology - Process assessment - Requirements for performing process assessment
ISO/IEC-33003:2015, Information technology - Process assessment - Requirements for process measurement frameworks
ISO/IEC-33004:2015, Information technology - Process assessment - Requirements for process reference, process assessment and maturity models
ISO/IEC-33020:2015, Information technology - Process assessment - Process measurement framework for assessment of process capability
CMMI Product Team, CMMI for Development, Version 1.3, Technical report CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033, Software Engineering Institute (2010)
SCAMPI Upgrade Team, Standard CMMI® Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPISM) A, Version 1.3: Method Definition Document, HANDBOOK CMU/SEI-2011-HB-001 (2011)
Emam, K.E., Drouin, J.N., Melo, W.: SPICE – The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. IEEE Computer Society Press (1998)
Miyoshi, T., Azuma, M.: An empirical study of evaluating software development environment quality. IEEE TSE 19(5), 425–435 (1993)
Miyoshi, T.: Early Experience with Software Process Assessment Using SPICE Framework at Software Research Associates, Inc., SOFTWARE PROCESS – Improvement and Practice, vol. 2(3), pp. 211–235. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (1996)
Paulk, M.C., et al.: The Capability Maturity Model – Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Addison Wesley, Reading (1997)
Bush, M., Dunaway, D.: CMMI Assessments–Motivating Positive Change. Addison Wesley, Reading (2005)
Wheeler, D.J., Chambers, D.S.: Understanding Statistical Process Control. SPC Press, New York (1992)
Tippett, L.H.C.: The Methods of Statistics, 4th edn., pp. 344–345. Williams & Norgate Ltd. (1952)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Miyoshi, T. (2016). The Need for Obtaining Real Sponsor Satisfaction that Leads to Steady Generation of SPI Effects. In: Clarke, P., O'Connor, R., Rout, T., Dorling, A. (eds) Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. SPICE 2016. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 609. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38980-6_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38980-6_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-38979-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-38980-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)