The Role of Process Improvement in Attaining Strategic Goals and Providing Financial Value

Customers are demanding increasing value for the money they spend on high technology products. Moreover, competition in the high tech industry is increasing -nationally as well as internationally. As a result, satisfying the customer and providing increased customer value are becoming primary objectives for high technology executives and managers.Many firms that once considered themselves hardware companies are now finding that they are developing a significant amount of software. This software is becoming increasingly sophisticated and costly. Moreover, software projects are increasingly on the critical path . Software developers can put in more effort and work harder. However, it isthe process used to develop the software which coordinates developer efforts and tools. This process can make or break the ability of the firm to deliver. From a strategic standpoint for many high tech firms, improving the software development processes is becoming critically important. However, it is difficult to determine which processes to improve. Studies have shown that firms are finding it difficult to quantitatively justify the resources required to successfully improve their software development processes [5]. Still, many firms are involved in software process improvement efforts.This paper provides summarized results from several companies who have been involved in process improvement activities to show the potential which can be achieved. We then discuss a framework for viewing process changes along strategic lines -with the goal of improving customer value. Once a set of potential process changes has been identified, these changes need to be evaluated. We discuss an approach which can be used to evaluate and tradeoff among proposed alternatives. This approach predicts the performance of process alternatives quantitatively in terms of development cost, product quality, and project schedule. In addition, financial measures such as return on investment (ROI) and net present value (NPV) can be obtaine

Moving Toward CMM Levels 4 and 5: Combining Models and Metrics to Achieve Quantitative Process Management

The ability to quantitatively monitor and assess software project performance supports the Quantitative Process Management and Software Quality Management Level 4 Key Process Areas (KPAs) of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM). In this paper, we discuss ongoing work with an industrial partner to integrate software process metrics with a discrete event simulation model to improve process performance predictions. A flexible metrics repository provides data that are used to generate updated simulation model parameters at predefined project milestones. Model predictions are updated using a flexible metrics repository and are compared to Outcome Based Control Limits (OBCLs) defined for the project. These predictions enable a project manager to take corrective action as necessary with the simulation model providing insight on potential performance impacts of the corrective actions proposed

Experience Using State-Based Simulation Models in Industry to Support Process Improvement

The process of developing software is seldom static. The process changes constantly in response to market demands for the faster, more reliable and cheaper production of software [4]. The process is also driven by rapid evolution of software development and quality standards, as well as advances in processes, methods and tools

Editorial : A five year retrospective

Non peer reviewedProo

The Role of Defect Potential in Understanding the Economic Value of Process Improvements

Software companies face relentless pressure to reduce costs, improve quality, and improve time-tomarket. To accomplish these objectives and to remain competitive, companies must improve their software development processes. Many process changes have been proposed as part of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), SPICE, ISO and other standards. Financial techniques have been applied to assess the economic value of various process improvement activities. These include simple payback and cost-benefit ratios standard present value, risk and return formulations and options theory. In this paper, we introduce the notion of defect potential and propose a framework and high level model that, better accounts for fixed and variable costs and can be used for valuing and justifying process improvement activities

What are Hybrid Development Methods Made Of?

Regardless of company size or industry sector, a majority of project teams and companies use customized processes that combine different development methods-so-called hybrid development methods. Even though such hybrid development methods are highly individualized, a common understanding of how to systematically construct synergetic practices is missing. Based on 1,467 data points from a large-scale online survey among practitioners, we study the current state of practice in process use to answer the question: What are hybrid development methods made of? Our findings reveal that only eight methods and few practices build the core of modern software development. This small set allows for statistically constructing hybrid development methods

What are Hybrid Development Methods Made Of? An Evidence-Based Characterization

Among the multitude of software development processes available, hardly any is used by the book. Regardless of company size or industry sector, a majority of project teams and companies use customized processes that combine different development methods— so-called hybrid development methods. Even though such hybrid development methods are highly individualized, a common understanding of how to systematically construct synergetic practices is missing. In this paper, we make a first step towards devising such guidelines. Grounded in 1,467 data points from a large-scale online survey among practitioners, we study the current state of practice in process use to answer the question: What are hybrid development methods made of? Our findings reveal that only eight methods and few practices build the core of modern software development. This small set allows for statistically constructing hybrid development methods. Using an 85% agreement level in the participants’ selections, we provide two examples illustrating how hybrid development methods are characterized by the practices they are made of. Our evidence-based analysis approach lays the foundation for devising hybrid development methods

Failure to Recover from Proactive Semantic Interference Differentiates Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and PreMCI from Normal Aging after Adjusting for Initial Learning Ability

Background: There is increasing evidence that the failure to recover from proactive semantic interference (frPSI) may be an early cognitive marker of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, it is unclear whether frPSI effects reflect deficiencies in an individual’s initial learning capacity versus the actual inability to learn new semantically related targets. Objective: The current study was designed to adjust for learning capacity and then to examine the extent to which frPSI, proactive semantic interference (PSI) and retroactive semantic interference (RSI) effects could differentiate between older adults who were cognitively normal (CN), and those diagnosed with either Pre-Mild Cognitive Impairment (PreMCI) or amnestic MCI (aMCI). Methods: We employed the LASSI-L cognitive stress test to examine frPSI, PSI and RSI effects while simultaneously controlling for the participant’s initial learning capacity among 50 CN, 35 aMCI, and 16 PreMCI participants who received an extensive diagnostic work-up. Results: aMCI and PreMCI participants showed greater frPSI deficits (50% and 43.8% respectively) compared to only 14% of CNparticipants. PSI effects were observed for aMCI but not PreMCI participants relative to their CN counterparts. RSI failed to differentiate between any of the study groups. Conclusion: By using participants as their own controls and adjusting for overall learning and memory, it is clear that frPSI deficits occur with much greater frequency in individuals at higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and likely reflect a failure of brain compensatory mechanisms.Fil: Curiel, Rosie E.. University of Miami; Estados UnidosFil: Crocco, Elizabeth A.. University of Miami; Estados UnidosFil: Raffo, Arlene. University of Miami; Estados UnidosFil: Guinjoan, Salvador Martín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay; Argentina. Fundación para la Lucha contra las Enfermedades Neurológicas de la Infancia; ArgentinaFil: Nemeroff, Charles B.. University of Miami; Estados UnidosFil: Penate, Ailyn. Mount Sinai Medical Center; Estados Unidos. University of Miami; Estados UnidosFil: Piña, Daema. University of Miami; Estados UnidosFil: Loewenstein, David A.. Mount Sinai Medical Center; Estados Unidos. University of Miami; Estados Unido