Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tool support for disseminating and improving development practices

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Knowledge management in software engineering and software process improvement activities pose challenges as initiatives are deployed. Most existing approaches are either too expensive to deploy or do not take an organization’s specific needs into consideration. There is thus a need for scalable improvement approaches that leverage knowledge already residing in the organizations. This paper presents tool support for an Experience Factory approach for disseminating and improving practices used in an organization. Experiences from using practices in development projects are captured in postmortems and provide iteratively improved decision support for identifying what practices work well and what needs improvement. An initial evaluation of using the tool for organizational improvement has been performed utilizing both academia and industry. The results from the evaluation indicate that organizational characteristics influence how practices and experiences can be used. Experiences collected in postmortems are estimated to have little effect on improvements to practices used throughout the organization. However, in organizations where different practices are used in different parts of the organization, making practices available together with experiences from use, as well as having context information, can influence decisions on what practices to use in projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaen, I. (2003) Software process improvement: Blueprints versus Recipes. IEEE Software.

  • Abdel-Hamid, T. K., & Madnick, S. E. (1991). Software project dynamics: An integrated approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basili V. R., Caldiera G., Rombach H. D. (2002a) Experience factory. Encyclopedia of software engineering. http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/ese/articles/sof110/sect5-fs.html. Accessed 2003-09-20 2003.

  • Basili, V., & Green, S. (1994). Software process evolution at the SEL. IEEE Software, 11(4), 58–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basili V. R., McGarry F. E., Pajerski R., Zelkowitz M. V. (2002b) Lessons learned from 25 years of process improvement: the rise and fall of the NASA software engineering laboratory. In Proceedings of the 24th International conference on software engineering (ICSE02), Orlando. ACM, (pp. 69–79).

  • Basili, V., Costa, P., Lindvall, M., Mendonca, M., Seaman, C., Tesoriero, R., Zelkowitz, M. An experience management system for a software engineering research organization. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual NASA Goddard software engineering workshop, 2001. IEEE computer society,

  • Birk, A., Dingsoyr, T., & Stalhane, T. (2002). Postmortem: Never leave a project without it. Software. IEEE, 19(3), 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnson, F. O., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Knowledge management in software engineering: A systematic review of studied concepts, findings and research methods used. Information and Software Technology, 50(11), 1055–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnson, F. O., Stålhane, T. (2005) Harvesting knowledge through a method framework in an electronic process guide. In Proceedings of the 7th International workshop on learning software organizations (LSO), Kaiserslautern, Germany, (pp. 107–111).

  • Broessler, P. (1999) Knowledge management at a software house—A progress report. In Workshop on ‘Learning software organizations’, SEKE 99, Kaiserslautern, Germany.

  • Calvo-Manzano Villalón, J. A., Cuevas Agustín, G., San Feliu Gilabert, T., De Amescua Seco, A., García Sánchez, L., & Pérez Cota, M. (2002). Experiences in the application of software process improvement in SMEs. Software Quality Journal, 10(3), 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conradi, R., & Dybå, T. (2001). An empirical study on the utility of formal routines to transfer knowledge and experience. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 26(5), 268–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A. M., & Zowghi, D. (2004). Good requirements practices are neither necessary nor sufficient. Requirements Engineering, 11(1), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desouza, K. C., Dingsøyr, T., & Awazu, Y. (2005). Experiences with conducting project postmortems: Reports versus stories. Software Process Improvement And Practice, 10(2), 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dingsøyr, T. (2000) An evaluation of research on experience factory. In workshop on learning software organisations at the international conference on product-focused software process improvement, Oulo, Finland, (pp. 55–66).

  • Dingsøyr, T., Conradi, R. (2002) A survey of case studies of the use of knowledge management in software engineering. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (IJSEKE).

  • Dingsøyr, T., & Conradi, R. (2003). Usage of intranet tools for knowledge management in a medium-sized software consulting company. In A. Aurum, R. Jeffery, C. Wohlin, & M. Handzic (Eds.), Managing software engineering knowledge (pp. 49–67). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dingsøyr, T., Moe, N., Schalken, J., Stålhane, T. (2007) Organizational learning through project postmortem reviews—An explorative case study. In Proceedings of the 14th European software process improvement conference (EuroSPI 2007), (pp. 136–147).

  • Glass, R. L. (2001). Frequently forgotten fundamental facts about software engineering. Software. IEEE, 18(3), 112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, R. L. (2002a). Project retrospectives, and why they never happen. Software. IEEE, 19(5), 112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, R. L. (2002b). Searching for the holy grail of software engineering. Communications of the ACM, 45(5), 15–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorschek, T., Garre, P., Larsson, S., Wohlin, C. (2007) Industry evaluation of the requirements abstraction model. Requirements Engineering (In Press) (doi:10.1007/s00766-007-0047-z).

  • Gorschek, T., & Wohlin, C. (2004). Packaging software process improvement issues–A method and a case study. Software: Practice & Experience, 34, 1311–1344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaakkola, H., Heimbürger, A., & Linna, P. (2010). Knowledge-oriented software engineering process in a multi-cultural context. Software Quality Journal, 18(2), 299–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, M., Sjøberg, D. The importance of not learning from experience. In: European software process improvement 2000 (EuroSPI’2000), Copenhagen, 2000. (pp. 2.2–2.8).

  • Kuilboer, J. P., & Ashrafi, N. (2000). Software process and product improvement: An empirical assessment. Information and Software Technology, 42(1), 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurniawati, F., & Jeffery, R. (2006). The use and effects of an electronic process guide and experience repository: A longitudinal study. Information and Software Technology, 48(7), 566–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindvall, M., Costa, P., Tesoriero, R. (2001) Lessons learned about structuring and describing experience for three experience bases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Learning Software Organizations, Kaiserslautern, Germany. Springer Verlag, (pp. 106–119).

  • Lindvall, M., Rus, I. (2003) Lessons learned from implementing experience factories in software organizations. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Learning Software Organizations, Luzern, Switzerland. Bonner Köllen Verlag, (pp. 59–64).

  • Lyytinen, K., & Robey, D. (1999). Learning failure in information systems development. Information Systems Journal, 9(2), 85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R. (1999). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management. Califionia Management Review, 41, 103–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolan, A. J. (1999). Learning from success. IEEE Software, 16(1), 97–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettersson, F., Ivarsson, M., Gorschek, T., & Öhman, P. (2008). A practitioner’s guide to light weight software process assessment and improvement planning. Journal of Systems and Software, 81, 972–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Product Team, C. M. M. I. (2002). Capability maturity model integration (CMMI), Version 1.1. CMMI for systems engineering, software engineering, integrated product and process development, and supplier sourcing version 1.1 (CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD/SS, V1.1). PA: Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reifer, D. J. (2000). The CMMI: It’s formidable. Journal of Systems and Software, 50(2), 97–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rus, I., Lindvall, M., Seaman, C., Basili, V. Packaging and disseminating lessons learned from COTS-Based software development. In Proceedings of the 27th annual NASA Goddard software engineering workshop (SEW-27’02), 2002. IEEE Computer Society.

  • Rus, I., & Lindvall, M. (2002). Knowledge management in software engineering. Software. IEEE, 19(3), 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schalken, J., Brinkkemper, S., & van Vliet, H. (2006). A method to draw lessons from project postmortem databases. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 11(1), 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, K., von Hunnius, J.-P., Basili, V. R. (2002) Experience in implementing a learning software organization. IEEE Software.

  • Schneider, K., & Schwinn, T. (2001). Maturing experience base concepts at DaimlerChrysler. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 6(2), 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwaber, K. (1995) Scrum development process. In OOPSLA’95 workshop on business object design and implementation.

  • Scott, L., Jeffery, R. (2003) The anatomy of an experience repository. In Proceedings of the 2003 international symposium on empirical software engineering 2003, (pp. 162–171).

  • Scott, L., Stålhane, T. (2003) Experience repositories and the postmortem. In Proceedings of learning software organizations. Citeseer, (pp. 79–82).

  • Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., Preston, J., Knowledge management—the next fad to forget people? In Proceedings of the seventh European conference on information systems, (pp. 668–678).

  • Verner, J. M., & Evanco, W. M. (2005). In-house software development: What project management practices lead to success? Software. IEEE, 22(1), 86.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Zedtwitz, M. (2002). Organizational learning through post-project reviews in R&D. R&D Management, 32(3), 255–268. doi:10.1111/1467-9310.00258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlson, M. C., Regnell, B., & Wessle′n, A. (2000). Experimentation in software engineering: An introduction. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96, Göteborg, Sweden

    Martin Ivarsson

  2. School of Computing, School of Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, 371 79, Karlskrona, Sweden

    Tony Gorschek

Authors
  1. Martin Ivarsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tony Gorschek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Ivarsson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ivarsson, M., Gorschek, T. Tool support for disseminating and improving development practices. Software Qual J 20, 173–199 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9139-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9139-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation