Post on 10-Jan-2023
Complementing the SEI-IDEAL Model with Deployers’
Real Experiences: The need to address human factors in
SPI initiatives
Marília Guterres Ferreira1, Raul Sidnei Wazlawick1
1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Computação, PPGCC, Universidade Federal de
Santa Catarina, UFSC, Caixa Postal: 476, CEP: 88.040-900, Florianópolis, Brazil
{mariliagf, wazlawick}@gmail.com
Abstract. This paper examines the SEI-IDEAL model and verifies that
although it satisfies the needs of technical guidelines in SPI implantations, there
is an important lack related to human factors guidelines. This paper proposes
that that lack can be filled with some recommendations based on the Change
Management theory (CM). Through face-to-face interviews and questionnaires,
thirty-eight successful implantations of SPI were studied from the point of view
of twenty-four deployers with an average of eight years of experience in SPI,
one appraiser, three representatives of a company that was evaluated for
certification and one practitioner. All interviewees were members of the SPI
leading teams. The paper provides suggestions based on human factors to the
IDEAL Model gleaned from the real experience of the SPI leading teams.
Those suggestions complement the IDEAL Model addressing human factors
according to the Change Management practices.
Keywords: software process improvement; change management; human
factors; motivation; IDEAL
1 Introduction
During the recent decades, models for Software Process Improvement (SPI) are being
increasingly applied by the software industry in the pursuit of higher quality software
[1]. Such efforts are challenging, complex and demanding [2]. The IDEAL Model
(Initiating, Diagnosing, Establishing, Acting and Leveraging), proposed by SEI (Software Engineering Institute), aims to guide a SPI program providing a generic
description for a sequence of recommended steps for SPI [3].
Nevertheless, about 70% of the SPI initiatives fail and a number of them do not get
even started [2], [4], [5]. Researchers report that the main problem is that the
initiatives are not adequately conducted [5], [6], [7].
Normative models for process improvement usually focus more on technical,
instrumental and procedural aspects than on human and social aspects [4]. Moreover,
there is a lack of ability of organizations in introducing, implanting and
institutionalizing those initiatives for the people that would be affected by the new
working methods [4], [6]. This is explained in part because most researchers and
professionals in the technology area have superficial and insufficient knowledge on
human and social sciences. This weakness can result in a return of investment below
expectations, and it can also have a negative impact on the development team [6].
The influence of human factors in Software Engineering is being seriously
addressed in literature during the last years [8]. It can be said that people are an utterly
important factor for the success of software development [7]. However, human factors
are still the less formalized aspect in software process models [9] which demonstrates
the need for a new approach which, in addition to technical guidance also addresses
human factors, as Change Management (CM) proposals.
Many leading teams have struggled with SPI implantations for underestimating the
complexity of a change process and for not recognizing that resistance to change is
the norm, and not immediate adoption of change. Many of these initiatives fail
because they have neglected human factors in change [10], [11].
Initiatives for improving software processes imply in changes in the way software
is developed. This can be considered as an organizational change [12]. The CM
theory is a generic framework which provides tools and techniques to efficiently
manage the human aspects of business change [13]. Successful changes require CM [10], [11].
This paper examines the IDEAL Model and verifies that although it satisfies the
needs of technical guidelines in SPI implantations, there is an important lack related
to human factors guidelines. The paper also proposes that this lack can be filled with
some recommendations based on CM.
This paper also shows that some deployers already use motivational strategies for
involving people in the changing process, even though they are not usually aware of
that. Those initiatives use to be based on their previous ad-hoc experiences. This
suggests the need for a systematic guidance on how to address people during SPI
implantations. This human factors guidance is sketched in this paper.
The analyses and findings are presented and discussed as follows. Section 2
presents the research method. Section 3 brings an overview of the IDEAL Model.
Section 4 describes CM, the conceptual framework for addressing human factors in
SPI. Section 5 compares IDEAL practices with CM proposals. Section 6 presents the
results of the research conducted with SPI deployers, which aimed to see what kind of
human factors are already present in successful implementations of SPI, and section 7
presents the final remarks.
2 Methodology
This research was conducted with specialists in SPI deployment in order to seek for
human factors relevant to the implantation of SPI. The theoretical reference for the
organization of the interviews is the theory of change management [12], [13]. From
the answers to a questionnaire and unstructured interviews, some important
recommendations based on human factors were identified and presented in section 7.
The research method used in this paper follows the concepts specified in Juristo
and Moreno [14]. The method is inductive and uses a qualitative approach. This study
was organized in two phases: literature review, following Zoucas, Thiry and Salviano
[15], and questionnaires application according to Kasunic [16]:
2.1 A. Literature Review
The literature review was developed following the statements of Zoucas, Thiry and
Salviano [15]:
1. Identifying specific literary sources: background information on SPI deployment
and how the SPI implantation has been made by deployers. The related keywords
used in this phase were: software process improvement, implantation of SPI,
people in SPI, human factors. The research included journals and proceedings from IEEE and ACM, as well as other journals in the area.
2. Collecting specific literary sources: selecting the relevant documents to this
research from the list of the documents obtained in the previous step.
3. Analyzing specific literary sources: a thorough and intensive reading of selected papers.
4. Collecting the problems: the bibliographical research was narrowed and the keywords SPI problems were used to find specific papers.
5. Analyzing how others areas solve similar problems: a collateral bibliographical research was made and the following keywords were searched: business
management, production engineering and organizational management.
6. Analyzing which correlated theory could be a best candidate to solve the problems
identified: from other areas the most promising theoretical framework is Kotter’s Change Management [13].
7. Building a questionnaire: having chosen a theoretical framework, a survey was conducted with mainly SPI deployers to see whether those issues are already
considered in a tacit or explicit way in successful initiatives.
2.2 Questionnaires Application (Survey)
In order to examine how SPI implantations have been made and characterize how
human factors have been approached during those efforts, the research approach
chosen was a survey. The survey phase was guided by the recommendations of
Kasunic [16]:
1. Identifying the research objectives: the problem stated is that about 60% of the SPI initiatives fail. A survey was made to analyze how successful SPI initiatives
address human factors from the perspective of Change Management.
2. Identifying and characterizing the target audience: based on required knowledge,
availability, neutrality, and especially on an active role in implementing the SPI
initiative, the chosen target public was constituted by the SPI deployers.
3. Designing the sampling plan: the target population was chosen as the MPS.Br
deployers. The interviewed sample represents around 30% of the total universe of
MPS.Br deployers. MPS.Br [4] is a SPI program based on CMMI [3] which does
not have a SPI Deployment Guide yet, therefore SEI-IDEAL is the most used
alternative.
4. Designing and writing the questionnaire: the questionnaire was designed based on
the CM theory.
5. Piloting test the questionnaire: in order to verify if the questionnaire was adequate,
it was tested face-to-face with some SPI's deployers.
6. Distributing the questionnaire: after making the necessary improvements, a digital
version of the questionnaire was available to the entire population of deployers.
7. Analyzing the results and write a report: the results were analyzed and interpreted.
3 IDEAL Model: procedures to deploy SPI
The IDEAL Model is a generic SPI program proposed by SEI which serves as a
roadmap for initiate and manage SPI initiatives. It is a five phase model executed in a
continuous loop through recommended steps for SPI. Each phase presents a set of
tasks that are practiced during the implementation of a SPI program [3]. The
following is a short description of the IDEAL Model phases:
1. Initiating: is the starting point. In this phase the initial improvement infrastructure is established, typically two key components are created: a management steering
group (MSG) and a software engineering process group (SEPG); a SPI plan is
created to guide the company through the change process and the general SPI goals
are defined. This phase is concentrated on:
─ Stimulating the change;
─ Setting the context of SPI in the company;
─ Establishing the sponsors and the SPI infrastructure.
2. Diagnosing: lays the groundwork for the later phases. The SPI plan is initiated according to organization’s vision, strategic business plan, lessons learned from the
past improvement efforts, key business issues faced by the organization and long-
range goals. The focus of this phase is on:
─ Appraising and characterizing the current state of the company;
─ Developing the recommendations and the documents results are developed to be
the basis for the SPI action plan.
3. Establishing: during this phase, the issues that drove the organization to a SPI process are highlighted to be addressed, the strategies to reach the solutions are
developed, the SPI action plan draft is completed, measurable goals and metrics are
defined and training is provided for the technical working groups (TWGs). This
phase is focused on:
─ Setting SPI issues, strategies, measurable goals, metrics and resources;
─ Establishing process, the action teams and the plan action.
4. Acting: the solutions to the issues pointed in the Diagnosing phase are created, piloted and deployed throughout the organization. After, deployment,
institutionalization and plans to accomplish the roll-out are developed and
executed. In this phase:
─ Planning, executing and tracking the action plan; and based on it;
─ Defining a solution;
─ Testing, piloting, simulating the company’s reality at the best possible way;
─ Refining from the pilot tests results, and implanting it.
5. Leveraging: this phase prepares the company for the next SPI programs. The learned lessons, developed solutions and collected metrics and goals are added to
the database to serve as source of information to the next pass through the model.
Corrections or adjustments to the strategy, methods or infrastructure can be made
based on evaluations of collected information. This phase is concentrated on:
─ Documenting and analyzing learned lessons to be transmitted to the new
interaction cycle; and
─ Revising organizational approach.
Table 1 summarizes the process of each phase of the IDEAL Model:
Table 1. Phases of the IDEAL Model [3]
IDEAL Model
Initiating Diagnosing Establishing Acting Leveraging
─ Getting Started
─ Identify
Business Needs
and Drivers for
Improvement
─ Build a
Software
Process
Improvement
(SPI) Proposal
─ Educate and
Build Support
─ Obtain
Approval for
SPI Proposal
and Initial
Resources
─ Establish
Software
Process
Improvement
Infrastructure
─ Assess the
Climate for SPI
─Define General
SPI Goals
Define the
Guiding
Principles of
the SPI
Program
Launch the
Program
─ Determine
What
Baseline(s)
Are Needed
─ Plan for the
Baseline(s)
─ Conduct
Baseline(s)
─ Present
Findings
─ Develop Final
Findings and
Recommenda
tions Report
─ Communicate
Findings and
Recommenda
tions to
Organization
─ Select and Get Training in a
Strategic Planning Process
─ Review Organization’s Vision
─ Review Organization’s
Business Plan
─ Determine Key Business Issues
─ Review Past Improvement
Efforts
─ Describe the Motivations to
Improve
─ Identify Current and Future
(Planned) Improvement Efforts
─ Finalize Roles and
Responsibilities of the Various
Infrastructure Entities
─ Prioritize Activities and
Develop Improvement Agenda
─ Reconcile the Existing/Planned
Improvement Efforts with the
Baseline Findings and
Recommendations
─ Transform the General
Software Process Improvement
(SPI) Goals to Specific
Measurable Goals
─ Create/Update the SPI
Strategic Plan
─ Build Consensus, Review, and
Approve the SPI Strategic Plan
─ Commit Resources to Action
─ Form the Technical Working
Group (TWG)
─ Complete
Tactical Plan
for Technical
Working Group
(TWG)
─ Develop
Solutions
─ Pilot Potential
Solutions
─ Select Solution
Providers
─ Determine
Long-Term
Support Needs
─ Develop
Rollout
Strategy and
Plan Template
─ Package the
Improvement
and Turn Over
to the Software
Engineering
Process Group
(SEPG)
─ Disband the
TWG
─ Rollout
Solution
─ Transition to
Long-Term
Support
─ Gather Lessons
Learned
─ Analyze
Lessons
Learned
─ Revise
Organizational
Approach
─ Review
Sponsorship
and
Commitment
─ Establish High
Level Goals
─ Develop
New/Revised
Software
Process
Improvement
(SPI) Proposal
─ Continue With
SPI
As it can seen at a glance, IDEAL Model has a technical approach, focusing on
procedures to achieve the software process improvements, explaining more what to
implement than how to implement [4], [12]. In other words, there is an emphasis on
the methods and tools to implant SPI over the individuals and interactions, and this
focus may undermine the success of the initiative.
4 CM: A human approach to implant SPI
Changes in organizations are demanded constantly by the global market and by the
increasing economic competition [13]. In this context, organizational change has been
often defined as the distinction between the state of an organization at a T0 time and the state of the same organization at a Tn time [17]. SPI programs introduce changes
in the software development process. In this context, SPI represents an organizational
change for the company [6], [12], [18].
According to Conner and Patterson [20], the degrees of support for an
organizational change follow three phases: Preparation, Acceptance and
Commitment. At the first phase, change is advertized and publicized in order to cross
the ―Disposition Threshold‖. Then, the Acceptance phase aims to drive people to
cross the next threshold to reach the Commitment Phase. In each phase, there are
problems that can undermine the change initiative, as can been seen in Figure 1:
Fig. 1. Steps in Building Change Commitment [11], [20]
As shown in Figure 1, changing is a complex process and demands a significant
effort to succeed [6], [12], [13], [20]. Kotter proposes a process consisting of eight steps through which every company that aim to implant a change should pass to reach
Pre
par
atio
n
Acc
epta
nce
C
om
mit
men
t
PHASE VIII. Internalization
VII. Institutionalization
VI. Adoption
V. Installation
IV. Positive Perception
III. Understanding
II. Awareness
I. Contact
Disposition
Threshold
Commitment
Threshold
Negative
Perception
Decision
not to attempt
/support
installation Change aborted after
initial utilization
Change aborted after
extensive utilization Confusion
Unawareness
TIME
Deg
ree
of
Su
pp
ort
fo
r th
e C
ha
ng
e
its goal [13]. He highlights the importance of focus on the people involved in the
change process [13]. Later, Kandt improved this approach to SPI [12]. The eight steps
should rather be performed in the sequence suggested, and all of them should be
followed. A short description of them is given below:
1. Establishing a sense of urgency: The first step is about to convince people in the
organization about the need to change. If the whole organization truly wants it, the
changes will be facilitated. It is made by creating a sense of urgency for the
change. It is necessary to invest lots of energy and hard work to drive people from
their comfort zone.
2. Creating an administrative coalition: the second step is related to the need to
assemble a powerful team to lead the process. It is important to identify the effective leaders in the company (not necessarily following the corporative
hierarchy) and composing the coalition that will head the change. Leadership and
authority are required characteristics.
3. Developing a strategic view: this step is about drawing a clear picture of the
company in the future with the changes established, effective strategies to reach it
and showing it to people. It is essential that they comprehend perfectly the target of
the change process.
4. Communicating the view of the change: the fourth step supports the idea that
communicate a vision to people is as important as to create it. The communication
of the vision is not only dependent on the speech, but mostly on the examples of
coalition team’s behavior. Showing is more effective than just talking.
5. Investing on empowerment for employees for broad actions: the fifth step is
focused on combating all the resistance that may be undermining change in the
company. Obstacles and barriers should be removed. All the structures and systems
that could sabotage the success of the vision should be minimized. Attitudes
contrary to the vision should be discouraged. But it is also important to stimulate
the postures in favor of the change. 6. Achieving short term wins: the sixth step will support the progress of the
change’s process with a plan of short term wins. People will be more motivated
after every victory achieved, and this will strongly collaborate to the success of the
initiative. It is recommended to create a plan of achievements that occur at regular
intervals. Every improvement caused by the change should be highlighted. Focus
should not be on long term goals, but in the little ones necessary to reach it.
7. Achievements consolidation and production of more changes: this step is
concentrated on avoiding declaring victory too soon and stopping investing on the
change. The short term wins should serve to sustain the quest for the real
implantation of the changes. The credibility of short-term wins should be used to
continue motivating people to believe in the changes and to adapt the systems,
structures and policies.
8. Establishing new methods in the company’s culture: the last step is about
institutionalizing the changes in the company’s culture. In order to really
establishing the changes, it is necessary to embody them into existing processes,
and make them necessary for the continuity of the production. And the new
practices, ideals and values should be passed on to the new staff.
5 Comparing the IDEAL Model and CM
In this section, the IDEAL Model is compared with CM practices. Comparing and
contrasting proposals of different guidelines can help leading teams to better
understand the orientations of each one [19]. Table 2 shows the ways they are similar and the ways they can complement one another:
Table 2. Comparison between IDEAL Model and Change Management
IDEAL
MODEL Comparisons and Contrasts
(continues)
CHANGE
MANAGEMENT
Ph
ase
Main Points Main Points Steps
Init
iati
ng
─ Stimulus for
improvement ─ Set context
and establish sponsorship
─ Establish improvement
infrastructure
Both start mobilizing the company
about the change effort. But IDEAL
concentrates on build and refine the
SPI proposal and infrastructure while
CM focus on really convincing
people about the need for change and
suggests showing people the business
impact of the change to drive them of
their comfort zones.
─ Outline the
situation of competitors
─ Convincing at least 75% of
managers about the need of
change
1. Establishing
a sense of
urgency
Dia
gn
osi
ng
─ Appraise and characterize
current and desired state
─ Develop
recommendations and
document phase results
Both advise to appraise the company
current situation and then defining
the improvements and the desired
future of the company. From those
activities, IDEAL concentrates on
establishing the baselines to reach the
improvement. CM, instead, keeps the
efforts on building the vision and on
the strategies to reach it.
─ Picture the
future
company’s state
─ Develop strategies to
reach the vision
3. Developing a
strategic view
Est
ab
lish
ing
─ Set strategies
and priorities ─ Establish
process action teams
─ Plan actions
In both, this is the phase to organize
the change initiative. IDEAL review
the past efforts, set the priorities and
establish the structure of the
procedures to initiate the SPI process.
CM detaches the importance of the
choice of the leading team to the
success of the initiative. And focus
on the need for effective
communication and for a behavior of
managers consistent to the change proposals to persuade practitioners to
execute the changes.
─ Commitment and power
should be present in the
leading team
─ They should work outside
hierarchy
2. Creating an
administrative
coalition
─ Communicate
the vision and
strategies in all
possible way ─ The leading
team should
teach by example
4.
Communicatin
g the view of
the change
IDEAL
MODEL Comparisons and Contrasts
(conclusion)
CHANGE
MANAGEMENT
Ph
ase
Main Points Main Points Steps
Act
ing
─ Define
process and measures
─ Plan and
execute
pilots
─ Plan, execute and track
installation
In this phase, both execute and
analyze the changes. IDEAL
proposes process, measures, plans,
pilots and installation of SPI in a well-defined hierarchy. CM is
focused on manage the people side of
the change. This theory brings
effective practices to motivate
practitioners to execute the change, as
encouraging them to collaborate and
removing the obstacles. More
important to motivate people is
defining a plan of short term wins
and highlight them during the change
process as well as acknowledge and
reward practitioners who collaborate
to the initiative.
─ Encourage activities, ideas
and actions ─ Remove
obstacles
(structures, process, people)
to the change process
5. Investing on
empowerment
for employees
for broad
actions
─ Define and
highlight improvements
resulting from the changes
─ Recognize and reward
employees who cooperate
6. Achieving
short term
wins
Lea
rnin
g ─ Document
and analyze
lessons ─ Revise
organizational approach
In both, this is the phase to analyze
the SPI initiative, learn from the
effort and improve it for the next
ones. IDEAL gathers and analyzes
the learned lessons, revises approach,
sponsorship, develops a new SPI
proposal and continues the SPI program. CM analyzes the
company’s context during the change
process and uses the wins to give
credibility to and reinvigorate the
next undertakings. Besides, CM
analyzes also the company after the
changes and suggests adapting the
changes to the ongoing reality,
stimulating to pass the new approach
to the hired people and promoting the
ones who collaborated to the
program. Still, CM also proposes
consolidate, establish the new
methods and continue to invest in
more changes.
─ Change the
policies and structures that
undermine the vision
─ Hire, promote
and develop
employees who
implement the
vision
─ Use change agents and
projects to reinvigorate the
change process
7.
Achievements
consolidation
and production
of more
changes
─ Connect new
behavior and
organization success
─ Create succession plan
consistent with
the new approach
8. Establishing
new methods
in the
company’s
culture
It can be noticed that IDEAL establish effective procedures to implant SPI, but
there is a lack of human factors treatment. By analyzing Tables 1 and 2, it can be seen
that IDEAL focuses on the improvements and, on an ideal state, proposing procedures
to control the SPI process. CM concentrates on people and on the company’s context,
suggesting practices to address practitioners, convincing them to apply the new
processes, engaging them in the initiative and suggestions to consolidate the changes
in the company’s culture.
6 Survey Results and Discussion
This section provides suggestions based on human factors to the IDEAL Model
gleaned from a survey made with SPI leading teams. Those suggestions complement
the IDEAL Model addressing human factors according to change management (CM)
practices.
Thirty-eight successful implantations of SPI were studied from the point of view of
twenty-four deployers with an average of 8 years experience in SPI, one appraiser,
three representatives of a company that was evaluated for certification and one
practitioner. All interviewees were members of the SPI leading teams.
The analysis of the interviews and questionnaires is structured according to the
IDEAL’s phases which are supplemented by the recommendations to address human
factors. The names of CM phases were adapted to SPI reality. Effective motivational tools used by deployers during SPI implantation process are presented on Table 3.
6.1 Initiating complemented by phase 1 of CM
The IDEAL Initiating phase can be complemented by phase 1 of CM, whose goal is
convincing people about the real need to implant a SPI initiative. Deployers reported
a need of a stronger effort on persuade practitioners to apply SPI. Deployers agree
that practitioners are often not aware about the goals of change, and this is the reason
for them to show resistance. They suggested providing statistical data about the
market and competitor realities to practitioners, especially senior management, and
only move to the next step after approximately 75% of them were convinced.
6.2 Diagnosing complemented by phases 3
The Diagnosing can be complemented by defining the future state of the company
with the SPI deployed. Deployers pointed this phase as the most crucial and critical of
the entire SPI implantation process. They assume that it is extremely important to
define the current state of the company and to show the benefits that SPI will bring to
the organization, and also argue that the success of the initiative depends on this.
Thus, goals and strategy are usually clearly presented, but sometimes there is still no
emphasis on clearly showing to people the situation that the company would reach after the changes.
6.3 Establishing complemented by phase 2 and 4 of CM
Establishing is complemented by assembling a powerful leading coalition to the SPI
initiative. Deployers informed that the leading team should have characteristics such
as leadership and autonomy to apply the power of persuasion necessary for the
success of the SPI implantation and they should act united for the same goals.
Table 3. IDEAL complemented by CM and respective Motivational Tools
IDEAL Phase
CM Phase Motivational Tool
Initiating
Convincing
people about the
real need to implant a SPI
initiative
Awareness workshop: for presenting all the statistical data about the situation of the company and
of the competitors, possible crises and improvements
brought with a SPI initiative.
Diagnosing
Defining the
future state of the
company with the
SPI deployed
Definition meetings: meetings to clearly identify all
the benefits of the SPI initiative and characterize the
company’s situation in the future with the SPI
established.
Establishing
Assembling a
powerful leading coalition to the
SPI initiative
Meetings outside work: scheduled extra-work meetings carefully planned for unwinding and
stimulating the union of the team.
Leadership with strong social and psychological
features: those are acknowledged features to lead people and integrate them in the goal of SPI
deployment.
Communicating
the SPI practices
to the
practitioners
Clarifier workshops: those seminars should have the
objective of truly enlightening the benefits of the SPI
implantation and assuring that the practitioners
understand the reasons of the initiative.
Acting
Investment on empowerment for
employees for
broad actions
Discussion forum: in which opposite ideas can be freely expressed, analyzed and openly discussed.
Best employee: the practitioners more involved with
the initiative should be acknowledged and rewarded.
SPI achieving
short-term wins in the SPI initiative
Achievements board: a board, in which all SPI aims
will be presented, such as artifacts, pre-established
milestones, processes, etc. Each accomplishment should be detached as well as the people who helped
obtaining it.
Leveraging
Achievements consolidation and
production of
more changes
One level meeting: meetings to discuss the current
SPI and the next ones, in which all practitioners
should feel at the same hierarchical level. Senior management should be listening to developers as
equals.
Establishing the
SPI practices in
the company
culture
Rewards and benefits to the contributors of the
initiative: people who contributed to the initiative
may be rewarded with days off, public recognition or
material items, example.
Establishing can also be complemented by communicating the SPI practices to the practitioners. As important as defining the SPI benefits and the strategy to reach them
is to clearly and efficiently communicate them to the employers. Deployers
recognized the need for a more efficient communication about the advantages of the
changes. They suggested the use of seminars, newspapers, e-mails and conversations
to communicate about SPI. They emphasize that it is essential that the leading
coalition execute SPI practices guided by their own examples.
6.4 Acting complemented by phases 5 and 6 of CM
The forth IDEAL phase Acting can be complemented by investment on empowerment
for employees for broad actions. About this phase, deployers reported that employees
should have more openness to present their suggestions and complaints and that they
should be heard. When linked to business objectives and the SPI, the ideas are seen as
an opportunity to improve the process and can be incorporated into the initiative.
When they are negative, they have to be changed.
Achieving short-term wins in the SPI initiative also can complement the Acting
phase. Establishing a plan for short-term achievements is the phase considered by
literature [1], [6], [12], [13] as the key one, because acknowledging each achievement
and its achievers motivates practitioners. It is also very important to the credibility of
the SPI initiative, and it will support the next improvements. Nevertheless, deployers
related there should be a greater focus on the creation and highlighting of the short-
term wins to the practitioners or noticing people who assisted the effort.
6.5 Leveraging complemented by phases 7 and 8 of CM
The last IDEAL phase, Leveraging, can be complemented by SPI achievements
consolidation and production of more changes. Interviewees reported that after a
successful achievement there is a loss of intensity on the efforts regarding changes.
However, it is necessary to point the advantages of changing to incentive people to
call for more improvement. Some deployers create a software quality assurance group
to supervise the implementation of the proposed changes.
This phase can also be complemented by establishing the SPI practices in the
company culture. Deployers reported that, after the end of the change process, in
order to really establish the practices in the company’s culture, it is necessary to
designate people to supervise the new software process (for example the software
quality assurance group mentioned previously) or the changes may lose intensity.
7 Final Considerations
The success of a SPI initiative is heavily dependent on the degree of commitment of
people involved in the deployment process. However, those initiatives have been
showing high failure rates which imply the need for a new approach to SPI
deployment. The IDEAL Model presents a path of actions necessary to implant efficiently a SPI program but there is still a need for approaching human aspects. CM
can complement IDEAL by introducing the human focus necessary to manage the
people related issues of the SPI initiative.
Analyzing the CM and IDEAL models, it can be inferred that there is an agreement
on the most influential issues in an implantation of change in the company. The
difference lies in the approaches of each process. The IDEAL Model focuses on the
improvements and on the process of implantation. That model introduces procedures
to assist the deployment of a SPI program in a technical way, devoting much attention
to the solution planning, piloting and learning; addressing superficially human factors
while CM proposes ways to persuade people to accept changes in their working
processes and consolidate the changes in the company’s reality. Both technical and
human aspects must be addressed for successful SPI initiatives.
Faced with constant failures in SPI deployment, the objective of this research was
to infer that they are strongly associated with the low concern on people involved in
the SPI initiative, and it suggest practices focused on people that could help the
implantation of SPI. The main contributions of this paper are:
1. Highlighting that the IDEAL Model presents a technical approach to introduce
SPI; 2. Comparing IDEAL Model’s steps with CM’s proposals;
3. Complementing IDEAL Model with CM aiming to provide technical and social
tools to assist SPI implantation;
4. Comparing the practices suggested by CM with the ones used by SPI deployers;
5. Recommending a generic framework based on IDEAL Model, CM and SPI
deployers practices; and
6. Proposing effective motivational strategies used by professional SPI to support
those practices.
Deployers interviewed during this research recognized that besides a model to
technically guide how to implant a process, it is also needed a guide on how to
prepare people to receive and execute this new way of working. They agree that all eight recommendations based on organizational change can perform this role and if
the central practices based on human factors identified in this research are explicitly
discussed with people involved in the process, possibly much resistance can be
avoided, therefore, this framework should be considered essential for a successful
implementation of SPI. From experience in other initiatives, they reported to be
applying some isolated motivational techniques aiming to get people more involved in
the SPI process, but without any systematization; that may undermine the success of
the deployment. They agreed that defining practices for SPI implantation focused on
people is necessary. They also pointed that change management is a promising
alternative that would allow wider success on initiatives and a continuing
improvement on implantation processes.
Acknowledgments. The authors acknowledge all the interviewees that collaborated
to this work and CAPES for the financial support.
8 References
1. Dyba, T.: An empirical investigation of the key factors for success in software
process improvement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v. 31, n. NO. 5,
p. 410-424, doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/TSE.2005.53 (2005)
2. Iversen, J. H., Mathiassen, L., Nielsen, P. A.: Managing risk in software process
improvement: an action research approach. MIS Quarterly, 28 n°3, pp. 395-433
(2004)
3. SEI, Software Engineering Institute. IDEAL: A User’s Guide for Software Process
Improvement. Carnegie Mellon University. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, p. 236.
(CMU/SEI-96-HB-001) (1996)
4. Santana, F. L.: Problemas em iniciativas de melhoria de processos de software sob a
ótica de uma teoria de intervenção. Master Thesis, Recife, UFPE, Brazil, (2007)
5. Debou, C., Kuntzmann, A. C.: Linking software process improvement to business
strategies: experiences from industry. Software Process: Improvement and Practice,
5, n. 1, pp. 55 – 64, (2000)
6. Moitra, D.: Managing change for software process improvement initiatives: a
practical experience- based approach. Software Process—Improvement and Practice,
4, pp. 199–207, (1998)
7. Acuña, S. T., Gómez, M., Juristo, N.: How do personality, team processes and task
characteristics relate to job satisfaction and software quality? Information and
Software Technology, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp. 627–639 (2009)
8. Sharp, H., Robinson, H.: Some social factors of software engineering: the maverick,
community and technical practices. 27th International Conference on Software
Engineering: 2005 Workshop on Human and Social Factors of Software Engineering
(HSSE), 15th-21st may 2005, Volume 30 , Issue 4, pp. 1-6, doi:
10.1145/1083106.1083117, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, (2005)
9. Acuña, S. T., Juristo, N.: Assigning people to roles in software projects.‖ Software—
Practice and Experience, 24th March 2004, pp. 675–696 (2004)
10. Boria, J. L.: Change does not just ―Happen‖: Building sustainable change in
Organizations. WAMPS – VI MPS.Br Annual Workshop, Brazil, pp. 18-19 (2010)
11. Boria, J. L.: Change does not happen. SEI Authorized Lead Appraiser, Liveware Inc.
Austin, February (2002)
12. Kandt, R. K.: Ten steps to successful software process improvement. 27th Annual
International Computer Software and Applications Conference, Hong Kong, China,
20th September (2003)
13. Kotter, J. P.: Leading Change: why transformation efforts fail? Engineering
Management Review, IEEE, v. 37, n. 3, p. 42 - 48, Third Quarter. ISSN 0360-8581
DOI: 10.1109/EMR.2009.5235501 (2006)
14. Juristo, N., Moreno, A. M.: Basics of software engineering experimentation.‖ Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 420 p. (2001)
15. Zoucas, A, Thiry, M., Salviano, C. F.: Técnicas para Engenharia de Modelos de
Capacidade de Processo de Software. IWASE 2009 (2nd International Workshop on
Advanced Software Engineering), pp. 11-18, Santiago, Chile (2009)
16. Kasunic, M.: Designing an Effective Survey. Carnegie Mellon - Software
Engineering Institute, p. 143 (CMU/SEI-2005-HB-004), Pittsburgh, PA, (2005)
17. Bartoli, A, Hermel, P.: Managing change and innovation in IT implementation
process. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, v. 15, n. 5, p. 416–425,
ISSN 1741-038X DOI 10.1108/17410380410540417 (2004)
18. Mathiassen, L, Ngwenyama, O. K., Aaen, I.: Managing change in software process
improvement. IEEE Software, v. 22, n. 6, p. 84-91, ISSN: 0740-7459 (2005)
19. Hallowell, D.: Comparing and Contrasting IDEAL and DMAIC.
http://www.isixsigma.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1048:compari
ng-and-contrasting-ideal-and-dmaic&Itemid=169&tmpl=component&print=1
20. Conner, D. R., Patterson, R. W.: Building Commitment to Organizational Change.
Training and Development Journal, v. 36, n. 4, p. 18-26 (1982)