Academic
Publications
An Empirical Investigation of the Key Factors for Success in Software Process Improvement

An Empirical Investigation of the Key Factors for Success in Software Process Improvement,10.1109/TSE.2005.53,IEEE Transactions on Software Engineerin

An Empirical Investigation of the Key Factors for Success in Software Process Improvement   (Citations: 55)
BibTex | RIS | RefWorks Download
Journal: IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering - TSE , vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 410-424, 2005
Cumulative Annual
View Publication
The following links allow you to view full publications. These links are maintained by other sources not affiliated with Microsoft Academic Search.
    • ...Some elements of influence, such as critical factors and risks, are recognized and their influences on SPI projects are discussed by several authors such as, for example, in [25-31]...

    Gisele Villas Boaset al. An Approach to Implement Software Process Improvement in Small and Mid...

    • ...In addition, Software Process Improvement (SPI) and Critical Success Factors (CSF) were discussed during the interviews ([19], [20], [21], [22]) to understand the situation, main goals, and behavior in the observed projects...

    Andrey Maglyaset al. Comparison of two models of success prediction in software development...

    • ...Dybä reports on the results of an empirical investigation on key success factors in a quantitative survey of 120 software organizations [10]...

    Dietmar Winkleret al. Software Process Improvement Initiatives Based on Quality Assurance St...

    • ...We have replicated Dyba’s theoretical model of SPI success factors [12] in [26], and later also in this paper...
    • ...However, the study described herein differs from [12] and [26] in that Dyba used data from both software and Web companies, and Sulayman and Mendes used data from Web companies that developed Web applications and sometimes also software applications by employing quantitative assessment techniques...
    • ...Numerous researchers have also investigated SPI success factors [11] [12] [13] [14] and people issues as they adopt new processes and also support in approving existing ways of performing tasks [6]...
    • ...This paper investigates the suitability of an existing theoretical model of SPI success factors, proposed for small and large software companies [12] to two different types of companies i.e., small and medium ‘Web’ and ‘Web and software’ development companies...
    • ...Finally, a comparison between the results from using these two datasets and those from Dyba’s [12] and our previous replicated study [26] was carried out...
    • ...Other publications of the same author further clarified the model replicated by us [12] [16]...
    • ...Population in [12] [15] and [16], had a very small sample which comprised Web development companies and no specialized success factors of the SPI success for small and medium Web companies were presetned...
    • ...Dyba’s theoretical model consists of seven independent variables/hypotheses – ‘business orientation’, ‘involved leadership’, ‘employee participation’, ‘concern for measurement’, ‘exploitation of existing knowledge’, and ‘exploration of new knowledge’ (hypotheses 1-6) [12]...
    • ...These six variables independently and collectively measure ‘SPI success’ as a dependent variable (hypothesis 7) [12] [15]...
    • ...Two moderating variables – ‘organizational size’ and ‘environmental conditions’ - are also a part of the model [12] [15]...
    • ...The conducted survey based on [12] and [26] had three sections...
    • ...The same variables (dependent, independent and moderating) and the similar scale types by Dyba [12] [16] and Sulayman and Mendes [26] were used to determine important conditions to find the differences in ‘Web development’ and ‘Web & Software development’ organizations in the context of SPI success...
    • ...Cronbach alpha [18] was used to determine the reliability of scales in this research. (as also in [12] [16] [26])...
    • ...Similar to Dyba [12] [16] and Sulayman and Mendes [26], we performed a detailed item analysis based on Nanually’s method [19] to evaluate item assignments for both ‘Web development’ and ‘Web & software development’ companies separately...
    • ...Correlated matrix for the variables of both company types, and proposed by Dyba [12] is given in appendix...
    • ...Scree tests [60] and eigenvalue rules [20] were used to check construct validity in [12] and [26], hence we have also used same measures for that purpose...
    • ...All six independent variables were positively correlated with the dependent variables for both cases (proposed in [12] [16] and used in [26]), which is relative criteria for us. We have used the the same statistical techniques used in [12] and which we have already applied in [26]: Multiple regression analysis, Pearson correlation coefficient, T-tests and F statistic...
    • ...All six independent variables were positively correlated with the dependent variables for both cases (proposed in [12] [16] and used in [26]), which is relative criteria for us. We have used the the same statistical techniques used in [12] and which we have already applied in [26]: Multiple regression analysis, Pearson correlation coefficient, T-tests and F statistic...
    • ...As in [12] and [26], we also present bivariate and partial order correlations for the independent variables calculated for both company types (Tables 1 and 2)...
    • ...Success factors or hypotheses were tested similar to the way presented in [12] and [26], which using bivariate correlations...
    • ...As in [12] and [26], stepwise regression analysis was employed for both types of companies to find which factors influenced SPI success more significantly...
    • ...Hypotheses 7 was tested using the same technique used in [12] and [26] - Cohen’s coefficient (f 2 = R 2 / (1- R 2 )) [21], to check the variance of the independent variables in SPI success...
    • ...A comparison of the overall findings of Dyba’s study [12], our previously conducted study [26], and this study are given in table 13. The table clearly shows that the extent to which most factors (‘Business Orientation’, ‘Leadership Involvement’, ‘Employee Participation’, ‘Measurement’) explain SPI success for small and medium ‘Web’ companies is different to the extent the same factors explain it for small and medium ‘Web and Software’ ...
    • ...results [12] Sulayman & Mendes’ results [26] Our results (Web) Our results (Web & software) 1 (Business Orientation) Strong Partial Partial Strong 2 (Leadership Involvement) Partial Strong Strong Partial 3 (Employee Participation) Strong Strong Strong Partial 4 (Measurement) Strong Strong Strong Partial 5 (Exploitation) Strong Partial Partial Partial 6 (Exploration) Partial Partial Partial Partial 7 (Overall SPI Success) Strong ...
    • ...This means that SPI success for small and medium ‘Web’ and ‘Web and Software’ companies may not be explained only on the basis of the six independent variables presented in Dyba [12] and investigated by this study’s authors...
    • ...The level of support for the 7 hypotheses was in most cases different for the three studies and 4 discussed cases Dyba’s results [12], our previous findings [69 and findings of this study for two data sets, as shown in table 7. One important finding of this study is that the strength of the support for all the hypotheses in case of small and medium ‘Web development’ companies is exactly the same as that of Sulayman and Mendes [26]...
    • ...Further analysis of the results (see Table 13) reveal that the hypotheses 5-7 converge and 1-4 differ between ‘Web & software development’ companies and our findings in [26], whereas hypotheses 1-2, 6-7 converge while 3-5 diverge from Dyba’s findings [12]...
    • ...The study uses the same theoretical model, techniques, questionnaire and statistics proposed in [12] and used in [26]...
    • ...The similarities and differences were noted between the two data sets and compared with Dyba’s findings [12] [15] [16] and the findings of our previously conducted study [26]...
    • ...The population of interest for this study is different from that of Dyba’s [12] where the population of interest was small and large software companies...
    • ...Various similarities as well as differences were observed between this study’s findings, the findings from Dyba’s studies [12] [15] [16] and those from our previous study [26]...
    • ...In terms of similarities, similarly to previous studies [12] [26], all the hypotheses (1-7) were also supported herein...
    • ...Dyba [12] removed sub-factor 29 and our previous study [26] removed sub-factors 29 and 36 (see appendix) from the corresponding scales due to their low correlation scores...
    • ...However, the difference from Dyba’s findings [12] may be attributed to contextual factors given that he investigated small and large companies, where some developed Web applications...
    • ...The study has empirically obtained evidence in support of the theoretical model of SPI success factors proposed by Dyba [12] and already validated in [26]...
    • ...This study performed a quantitative assessment of SPI success factors for 12 small and medium ‘Web development’ and 8 ‘Web & software development’ companies by revisiting our previous work [26], which replicated the work presented by Dyba [12]...

    Muhammad Sulaymanet al. Software and Web Process Improvement – Predicting SPI Success for Smal...

    • ...These studies analyze data collected via questionnaires in order to answer such questions as “key factors for success in software process improvement” valid for small and large organizations [7], impact of the risk factors on time to market as one of the key success indicators [22] or best managerial practices for in-house projects [20]...
    • ...In order to perform a feasible study we selected the list of common factors in the recent literature, e.g. [1], [7] and number of others...

    Evgenia Egorovaet al. Evaluating the Perceived Effect of Software Engineering Practices in t...

Sort by: