Software Process Improvement barriers: A cross-cultural comparison

Context: Software Process Improvement initiatives have been around for many years with the growing globalisation of software development is making them increasingly important. Objective: The objective of this exploratory research is to gain an in-depth understanding of barriers that can undermine SPI, in the context of Global Software Development, from the perspective of software development practitioners; this will enable SPI managers to better manage SPI initiatives. We intend to discover if the barriers to SPI initiatives in a developed country are different to those in a developing country. Method: In an empirical study, Vietnamese software practitioners' experiences of SPI barriers are compared with barriers identified by Australian practitioners. Face-to-face questionnaire-based survey sessions with 23 Vietnamese SPI practitioners were conducted. Our survey included barriers to SPI improvement initiatives identified in previous research. We asked the participants to rank each SPI barrier on a three-point scale (high, medium, low) to determine the importance of each barrier. We then compare our results, with results (identified in previous work), from 34 Australian software development practitioners. Results: We identify (1) lack of project management, (2) lack of resources, (3) lack of sponsorship, (4) inexperienced staff/lack of knowledge, and (5) lack of SPI awareness as 'high' value SPI barriers in Vietnam. The results also reveal similarities and differences between the experiences of Australian and Vietnamese practitioners regarding the importance of the SPI barriers identified. While the Australian practitioners were also concerned with (1) lack of SPI awareness, they were even more concerned with (2) organisational politics, and (3) lack of support. Conclusions: Practitioners identify SPI barriers based on previous SPI implementation experience. Their role(s) in their different organisations have helped them to understand the importance of that barrier. Vietnamese software practitioners cited more SPI barriers than their counterparts in Australia. The Vietnamese SPI barriers relate to project management, resources, and sponsorship while the Australian barriers are concerned with organisational politics and lack of support.

[1]  Herb Krasner,et al.  Accumulating the Body of Evidence for The Payoff of Software Process Improvement , 1997 .

[2]  A. Kakabadse,et al.  Outsourcing: Current and future trends , 2005 .

[3]  Austen Rainer,et al.  Software Process Improvement Problems in Twelve Software Companies: An Empirical Analysis , 2003, Empirical Software Engineering.

[4]  J.S. Reel,et al.  Critical Success Factors in Software Projects , 1999, IEEE Softw..

[5]  June M. Verner,et al.  Software project managers and project success: An exploratory study , 2006, J. Syst. Softw..

[6]  Didar Zowghi,et al.  A framework for assisting the design of effective software process improvement implementation strategies , 2005, J. Syst. Softw..

[7]  Mary Lacity,et al.  A US Client’s learning from outsourcing IT work offshore , 2008, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[8]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  After the Appraisal: A Systematic Survey of Process Improvement, its Benefits, and Factors that Influence Success. , 1995 .

[9]  Muhammad Ali Babar,et al.  Demotivators of software process improvement: an empirical investigation , 2008 .

[10]  York P. Freund Critical success factors , 1988 .

[11]  Bill Pitterman Telcordia Technologies: The Journey to High Maturity , 2000, IEEE Softw..

[12]  Per Runeson,et al.  Are the Perspectives Really Different? – Further Experimentation on Scenario-Based Reading of Requirements , 2000, Empirical Software Engineering.

[13]  Mario Rivas,et al.  What do software practitioners really think about project success: A cross-cultural comparison , 2008, J. Syst. Softw..

[14]  Peter Axel Nielsen,et al.  Implementing software process improvement: two cases of technology transfer , 2000, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[15]  Al Florence Lessons Learned in Attempting to Acheive Software CMM Level 4 , 2001 .

[16]  Uday R. Kulkarni,et al.  Critical success factors for software projects , 1998, ICIS '98.

[17]  R. Henry,et al.  Principles of survey research. , 2018, Family practice research journal.

[18]  Tracy Hall,et al.  De-motivators for software process improvement: an analysis of practitioners' views , 2003, J. Syst. Softw..

[19]  D. Ross Jeffery,et al.  An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI , 2007, J. Syst. Softw..

[20]  Andrew Taylor,et al.  IT projects: sink or swim , 2000 .

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

[22]  Rory O'Connor,et al.  Investigating software process in practice: A grounded theory perspective , 2008, J. Syst. Softw..

[23]  Deependra Moitra,et al.  Managing change for software process improvement initiatives: a practical experience‐based approach , 1998 .

[24]  Didar Zowghi,et al.  Critical success factors for software process improvement implementation: an empirical study , 2006, Softw. Process. Improv. Pract..

[25]  Sun-Jen Huang,et al.  Exploring the relationship between software project duration and risk exposure: A cluster analysis , 2008, Inf. Manag..

[26]  Judith G. Brodman,et al.  What small business and small organizations say about the CMM: experience report , 1994, ICSE '94.

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

[28]  Hugh Coolican Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology , 1993 .

[29]  BaddooNathan,et al.  De-motivators for software process improvement , 2003 .

[30]  KitchenhamBarbara,et al.  Principles of survey research part 6 , 2002 .

[31]  Muhammad Ali Babar,et al.  Motivators of Software Process Improvement: An Analysis of Vietnamese Practitioners' Views , 2007, EASE.

[32]  Subhash Bhatnagar India ’ s Software Industry , 2007 .

[33]  Muhammad Ali Babar,et al.  Demotivators of software process improvement: an empirical investigation , 2008, Softw. Process. Improv. Pract..

[34]  Tracy Hall,et al.  Motivators of Software Process Improvement: an analysis of practitioners' views , 2002, Journal of Systems and Software.

[35]  Hiroshi Tsuji,et al.  An empirical investigation of the drivers of software outsourcing decisions in Japanese organizations , 2008, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[36]  Gaurav Caprihan Managing Software Performance in the Globally Distributed Software Development Paradigm , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE'06).

[37]  Shari Lawrence Pfleeger,et al.  Principles of survey research: part 5: populations and samples , 2002, SOEN.

[38]  Mahmood Niazi,et al.  An Empirical Study Identifying High Perceived Value Requirements Engineering Practices in Global Software Development Projects , 2012, ICSEA 2012.

[39]  Didar Zowghi,et al.  A Maturity Model for the Implementation of Software Process Improvement: an Empirical Study , 2022 .

[40]  Louis Raymond,et al.  Project management information systems: An empirical study of their impact on project managers and project success , 2008 .

[41]  Mark Staples,et al.  Systematic review of organizational motivations for adopting CMM-based SPI , 2008, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[42]  Hugh Coolican Research Methods and Statistics , 1999 .

[43]  Austen Rainer,et al.  Key success factors for implementing software process improvement: a maturity-based analysis , 2002, J. Syst. Softw..

[44]  Didar Zowghi,et al.  Critical barriers for software process improvement implementation: An empirical study , 2004, IASTED Conf. on Software Engineering.

[45]  R. L. Feldmann,et al.  Outsourcing in India , 2001, IEEE Softw..

[46]  Janice Singer,et al.  Studying Software Engineers: Data Collection Techniques for Software Field Studies , 2005, Empirical Software Engineering.

[47]  Mark Keil,et al.  Understanding software project risk: a cluster analysis , 2004, Inf. Manag..

[48]  Suma Athreye,et al.  The Indian Software Industry and its Evolving Service Capability , 2005 .

[49]  Ofer Zwikael,et al.  Planning effort as an effective risk management tool , 2007 .

[50]  Marvin V. Zelkowitz,et al.  Lessons learned from 25 years of process improvement: the rise and fall of the NASA software engineering laboratory , 2002, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2002.