Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critical success factors taxonomy for software process deployment

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many organizations have adopted methods, models, and standards to improve their software processes. However, despite these efforts, they can still find it difficult to deploy processes throughout the organization because most of them focus more on the technical rather than human aspects. This paper proposes a taxonomy of critical success factors for software process deployment. A method to create this taxonomy was developed and applied based on a systematic review of existing literature and is complemented with industry experiences where software processes have been deployed or implemented. Finally, the categories, subcategories, and items of this taxonomy are presented.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ayala, C. (2006). Systematic construction of goal-oriented COTS taxonomies. In Proceedings of 3rd doctoral consortium at the 18th conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAISE 2006).

  • Baddoo, N., & Hall, T. (2002a). Motivators of software process improvement: An analysis of practitioners’ views. Journal of Systems and Software, 62(02), 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddoo, N., & Hall, T. (2002b). Software process improvement motivators: An analysis using multidimensional scaling. Journal of Empirical Software Engineering, 7(2), 93–114.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Baddoo, N., & Hall, T. (2003). De-motivators for software process improvement: An analysis of practitioners’ views. Journal of Systems and Software, 66(1), 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayona, S., Calvo-Manzano, J., Cuevas, G., & San Feliu, T. (2008). Process deployment in a multi-site CMMI level 3 organization: A case study. In L. Roger (Eds.), Studies in computational intelligence (Vol. 131, pp. 147–153). Berlin: Springer.

  • Bayona, S., Calvo-Manzano, J. A., Cuevas, G., & San Feliu, T. (2010). Taxonomía de factores críticos para el despliegue de procesos software. Revista Española de Innovación Calidad e Ingeniería del Software (REICIS), 6(3), 6–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beecham, S., Hall, T., & Rainer, A. (2003). Software process problems in twelve software companies: An empirical analysis. Empirical Software Engineering, 8(1), 7–42.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Biolchini, J., Gomes, M., Cruz, N., & Horta, T. (2005). Systematic Review in Software Engineering, Software Engineering and Computer Science Department, Technical Report RT-ES679/05.

  • Bruno, D., & Richmond, H. (2003). The truth about taxonomies. Information Management Journal, 37, 48–50, 52–53. http://news-business.vlex.com/vid/the-truth-about-taxonomies-54584663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, J. (2008). Teaching taxonomy methodology. http://www.taxonomystrategies.com/presentations/2008/Woodley-2008-07-24.pdf.

  • Centelles, M. (2005). Taxonomías para la Categorización y la Organización de la Información en Sitios Web. Hipertext.net, http://www.hipertext.net.

  • Chrissis, M., Konrad, M., & Shrum, S. (2007). CMMI second edition guidelines for process integration and product improvement. United States, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. (2007). A taxonomy of information systems audits, assessments and reviews. http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/auditing/a_taxonomy_of_information_systems_audits_assessments_and_reviews_1801?show=1801.php&cat=auditing.

  • Crandall M. (2000). Using taxonomies effectively in the organization. Microsoft information services. http://www.infotoday.com/kmworld2000/presentations/crandall.ppt.

  • Debar, H., & Dacier, W. (2000). A revised taxonomy for intrusion-detection systems. Journal Annals of Telecommunications, Paris: Springer, 55, 361–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyba, T. (2000). An instrument for measuring the key factors of success in software process improvement. Empirical Software Engineering, 5(4), 357–390.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dyba, T. (2005). An empirical investigation of the key factors for success in software process improvement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(5), 410–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Emam, K., Goldenson, D., McCurley, J., & Herbsleb, J. (2001). Modeling the likelihood of software process improvement: An exploratory study. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(3), 207–229.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Goldenson, D., & Herbsleb, J. (1995). After the appraisal: A Systematic Survey of Process Improvement, its Benefits, and Factors that Influence Success, Technical Report, CMU/SEI-95-TR-009, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Eng. Inst.

  • Graef, J. (2001). Managing taxonomies strategically. Montague Institute Review. http://www.montague.com/abstracts/taxonomy3.html.

  • Guerrero, F., & Eterovic, Y. (2004). Adopting the SW-CMM in a small IT organization. IEEE Software, 21(4), 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, T., Rainer, A., & Baddoo, N. (2002). Implementing software process improvement: An empirical study. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 7(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, W. (1998). Managing the software process. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaltio, T., & Kinnula, A. (2000). Deploying the defined software process. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 5(1), 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchenham, B. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in software engineering, EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, Keele University.

  • Lepasaar, M., Varkoi, T., & Jaakkola, H. (2001). Models and success factor of process change. In Proceedings of product focused software process improvement (PROFES 2001) (pp. 68–77), Sept. 2001. doi:10.1007/3-540-44813-6_9.

  • MacDonell, S., Shepperd, M., Kitchenham, B., & Mendes, E. (2010). How reliable are systematic reviews in empirical software engineering? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 36(5), 676–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermid, J., & Bennet, K. (1999). Software engineering research a critical appraisal. Proceedings of IEEE on Software Engineering, 146(4), 179–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messnarz, R., Ekert, D., Reiner, M., & O’Suilleabhain, G. (2008). Human resources based improvement strategies-the learning factor. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 13(4), 355–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montoni, M., Santos, G., Rocha, A., Figueiredo, S., Cabral, R., Barcellos, R., Barreto, A., Soares, A., Cerdeiral, C., & Lupo P. (2006). Taba Workstation: Supporting software process deployment based on CMMI and MR-MPS.BR COPPE/UFRJ. In Proceedings of PROFES 2006, LNCS 4034 (pp. 249–262). Berlin: Springer.

  • Niazi, M., Willson, D., & Zowghi, D. (2006). Critical success factors for software process improvement implementation: An empirical study. Software Process: Improvement and Practice Journal, 11(2), 193–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niazi, M., Wilson, D., & Zowghi, A. (2005). A framework for assisting the design of effective software process improvement implementation strategies. Journal of Systems and Software, 78(2), 204–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pino, J., García, F., & Piattini, M. (2008). Software process improvement in small and medium software enterprises: A systematic review. Software Quality Journal, Springer, 16(2), 237–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rainer, A., & Hall, T. (2002). Key success factors for implementing software process improvement: A maturity-based analysis. Journal of Systems and Software, 62(2), 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regli, T., & Daniel, R. (2005). Taxonomies and meta data for business impact. Taxonomy strategies. http://www.taxonomystrategies.com/presentations/Taxonomy_Tutorial_Regli_and_Daniel(final).ppt.

  • Stelzer, D., & Mellis, W. (1998). Success factors of organizational change in software process improvement. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 4(4), 227–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valerio, G. (2003). Desarrollo de Taxonomías. http://memoriadigital.lacoctelera.net/post/2006/04/05/desarrollo-taxonomias.

  • Verity. (2004). Classification, Taxonomies and You. Verity White Paper. http://www.weitkamper.com/download/verity/verity_mk0648.pdf.

  • Whittaker, M., & Breininger, K. (2008). Taxonomy development for knowledge management. In Proceedings of world library and information congress 74th IFLA conference and council, Aug.

  • Wilson, D., Hall, T., & Baddoo, N. (2007). A framework for evaluation and prediction of software process improvement success. Journal of Systems and Software, 59(2), 135–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahran, S. (1998). Software process improvement: Practical guidelines for business success. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was sponsored by everis Foundation and Universidad Politécnica de Madrid through the Research Chair in Software Process Improvement for Spain and Latin American Region.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Lenguajes y Sistemas Informáticos e Ingeniería de Software, Facultad de Informática, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Campus Montegancedo, 28660, Boadilla del Monte, Madrid, Spain

    Sussy Bayona-Oré, Jose A. Calvo-Manzano, Gonzalo Cuevas & Tomas San-Feliu

Authors
  1. Sussy Bayona-Oré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jose A. Calvo-Manzano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gonzalo Cuevas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tomas San-Feliu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sussy Bayona-Oré.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bayona-Oré, S., Calvo-Manzano, J.A., Cuevas, G. et al. Critical success factors taxonomy for software process deployment. Software Qual J 22, 21–48 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-012-9190-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-012-9190-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation