Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information (한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지)

Korean Society of Computer Information (한국컴퓨터정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation the Relationship of Software Engineering Level and Project Performance by Organization Change Management

조직변화관리 수준에 따른 SW공학수준과 프로젝트의 성과

  • Kim, Seung-Gweon (SW Engineering Center of National IT Promotion Agency) ;
  • Yoon, Jong-Soo (School of Business Administration, Kangnam University) ;
  • Cho, Kwun-Ik (School of Information Sciences, Dongduk Women's University)
  • 김승권 (정보통신산업진흥원 SW공학센터) ;
  • 윤종수 (강남대학교 경영대학) ;
  • 조권익 (동덕여자대학교 정보과학대학)
  • Received : 2013.11.19
  • Accepted : 2014.01.14
  • Published : 2014.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

With rapid convergence of information technology and expending role of software, many organizations have taken interested in We explore the relationship between the level of change awareness and deployment of software process improvement (SPI) approaches using a competing values framework. To measure awareness level of organization's change, DICE framework which provides means for predicting the outcome of change management initiatives is used. The four factors for organizaton's change: duration, integrity, commitment, and effort are evaluated and a score is calculated. In this paper, we apply the DICE(R) score as an independent variable to predict the outcome of a software process improvement. Our results indicated that the Organization have a higher chance of success have the better outcome in software process improvement.

IT 융 복합화와 소프트웨어의 역할의 급속한 확대되면서 많은 기업들이 소프트웨어 프로세스 개선에 관심과 투자를 늘려왔다. 하지만 이런 소프트웨어 프로세스 개선활동이 조직의 실제 성과나 프로젝트의 성과로 이어진다는 것을 보여주는 국내 실증연구는 여전히 부족한 편이다. 본 연구에서는 기존의 소프트웨어 프로세스 개선 모델들이 제시하고 있는 기본적인 가정사항인 소프트웨어 프로세스성숙도가 높으면 조직이나 프로젝트의 성과가 좋게 나타나는지를 살펴보고, 이들의 관계가 조직의 변화의지에 따라 달라지는지를 살펴보는 것이다. 이를 위해 총 104개 소프트웨어 프로젝트 데이터를 수집하여 분석에 활용하였다. 분석결과 소프트웨어 프로세스 수준이 높은 조직일수록 프로젝트 납기성과가 좋은 것으로 나타났으며, 조직변화의지가 높을수록 프로세스 개선의 성과도 높게 나타나고 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. SEI. "Maturity Profile Reports: CMMI v1.2/V1.3 Class A Appraisal Results." SEI.Caregie Mellon Univ, March, 2013.
  2. SEC, "Software Engineering White Book : Korea 2013, Software Engineering Center, p. 6, 2013.
  3. SEI, Process Maturity Profile: Software CMM 2004, Mid-year Update, SEI., Caregie Mellon Univ., 2004.
  4. Ravichandran, T. and Rai, A., "Total Quality management in information systems development: key constructs and relationships," Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 24, No. 3, Winter 1999-2000, pp. 81-415. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250980
  5. Aaen, I., Arendt, J. Mathiassen, L., and Ngwenyama, O., "A conceptual MAP of software process improvement," Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 13, 2001, pp.79-99.
  6. Hansen, B., Rose, J. and Tjornehoj, G., "Prescription, description, reflection: the shape of the software process improvement field," International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2004, pp. 457-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2004.08.007
  7. Nielsen, P.A. and Norbjerg J., "Software process maturity and organizational politics," in: Proceedings of the IFIP TC8/WG8.2 Working Conference on Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development: The Social and Organizational Perspective, 2001, pp. 221- 240.
  8. Harold L. Sirkin, Perry Keenan, and Alan Jackson, "The Hard Side of Change Management," Harvard Business Review Online, april 2005.
  9. SEI, "CMMI for Development, Version 1.3" Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 2010.
  10. Bartlomiej, Z. and Geoffrey, D., "Rolling the DICE for Agile Software Projects," XP'06 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, 2006, pp. 114-122
  11. Madeyski, L. and Biela W., "Capable Leader and Skilled and Motivated Team Practices to Introduce eXtreme Programming," CEE-SET, 2007, pp. 96-102.
  12. El Emam, Khaled, and Andreas Birk. "Validating the ISO/IEC 15504 measures of software development process capability." Journal of Systems and Software 51.2 (2000): 119-149.
  13. Dennis R. Goldenson, Herbsleb, D. James, "After the Appraisal: A Systematic Survey of Process Improvement, its Benefits, and Factors that Influence Success", Technical report CMU/SEI-95- TR-009, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1995.
  14. Humphrey, W. S., Snyder, T. R., & Willis, R. R. (1991). Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft. Software, IEEE, 8(4), 11-23.
  15. Lawlis, P., Flowe, R. and Thordahl, J. (1995), A Correlational Study of the CMM and Software Development Performance, Crosstalk, Vol. 8, No. 9, September, 1995, pp 21-25
  16. Clark, B. K. (1997). The effects of software process maturity on software development effort.
  17. Diaz, M., & Sligo, J. (1997). How software process improvement helped Motorola. Software, IEEE, 14(5), 75-81.
  18. Brodman, J. G., & Johnson, D. L. (1995). Return on investment (ROI) from software process improvement as measured by US industry. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 1(1), 35-47.
  19. Mathiassen, L., Ngwenyama, O. K., & Aaen, I. (2005). Managing change in software process improvement. Software, IEEE, 22(6), 84-91. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2005.159