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)