The Influence of Situational Factors in Software Product Management: An Empirical Study

Current research in the field of software product management (SPM) and software process improvement does not take the situational context of a company into account. Taking the context into account, allows small and medium sized companies to improve their SPM processes in a more optimal manner. This research shows that situational factors (SFs) influence the selection process of method fragments for SPM in two applications: SPM process maintenance - the influence level of SFs on the SPM processes: if the SF changes value the SPM process may need to be changed; and method fragment choice - selecting a method which fits the situational context of the company. This paper presents a list of 27 situational factors in 5 categories, relevant to SPM, with the level of influence they have on the selection of (parts of) methods.

[1]  Donald J Reifer.  The CMMI: it's formidable , 2000, J. Syst. Softw..

[2]  Sami Zahran.  Software process improvement - practical guidelines for business success , 1998 .

[3]  Casper Lassenius,et al.  An Approach to Product Roadmapping in Small Software Product Businesses , 2002 .

[4]  Horst Lichter,et al.  A Cost-Based Approach to Software Product Line Management , 2006, 2006 International Workshop on Software Product Management (IWSPM'06 - RE'06 Workshop).

[5]  Mark C. Paulk,et al.  The Capability Maturity Model , 1991 .

[6]  Inge van de Weerd,et al.  On the Creation of a Reference Framework for Software Product Management: Validation and Tool Support , 2006, 2006 International Workshop on Software Product Management (IWSPM'06 - RE'06 Workshop).

[7]  Mayuram S. Krishnan,et al.  Effects of Process Maturity on Quality, Cycle Time, and Effort in Software Product Development , 2000 .

[8]  Phillip G. Armour.  The business of software , 2001, CACM.

[9]  J. G. Brodman,et al.  What small businesses and small organizations say about the CMM , 1994, Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[10]  Khaled El Emam,et al.  Does Organizational Maturity Improve Quality? , 1996, IEEE Softw..

[11]  Jan Bosch,et al.  On the notion of variability in software product lines , 2001, Proceedings Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture.

[12]  Sjaak Brinkkemper,et al.  Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools , 1996, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[13]  Jean-Pierre Kuilboer,et al.  Software process and product improvement: an empirical assessment , 2000, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[14]  Mark C. Paulk,et al.  Capability Maturity Model for Software , 2001 .

[15]  Sjaak Brinkkemper,et al.  A product software knowledge infrastructure for situational capability maturation: Vision and case studies in product management , 2006 .

[16]  Slinger Jansen.  Customer Configuration Updating in a Software Supply Network. , 2007 .

[17]  Bradford K. Clark.  Quantifying the effects of process improvement on effort , 2000 .

[18]  Igor H.Ansoff.  Strategic Management , 1979 .

[19]  Sjaak Brinkkemper,et al.  A reference framework for software product management , 2006 .

[20]  Dan Condon,et al.  Software Product Management: Managing Software Development from Idea to Product to Marketing to Sales , 2002 .

[21]  Sjaak Brinkkemper,et al.  Situational Requirements Engineering of Web Content Management Implementations , 2005 .

[22]  R. Woodworth.  Archives of psychology , 2010 .

[23]  Deb Jacobs.  Requirements Engineering so Things Don't Get Ugly , 2007, 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07 Companion).

[24]  Sandeep Purao,et al.  Design Research in the Technology of Information Systems: Truth or Dare , 2002 .

[25]  S. Dasgupta.  Technology and Creativity , 2006, Woman with a Movie Camera.

[26]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Research in Information Systems , 2010 .

[27]  R. Likert.  “Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, A” , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[28]  Jan Bosch,et al.  Maturity and Evolution in Software Product Lines: Approaches, Artefacts and Organization , 2002, SPLC.