optimum software process improvement paradigm for quality...
TRANSCRIPT
Optimum Software Process Improvement Paradigm for Quality
Practices in Software Industry
Submitted by Faisal Tehseen Shah
in accordance with the requirement for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(August 2010)
Supervisor: Dr. Niaz Ahmad
Co-Supervisor: Dr. Shafay Shamail
Institute of Quality and Technology Management Faculty of Engineering and Technology
University of the Punjab Quaid-e-Azam Campus, Lahore-Pakistan
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the dissertation is the original work of the author
and has been carried out under our supervision. We certify that the material
included in this thesis have not been used in part or full in a manuscript
already submitted or in the process of submission in partial / complete
fulfilment of the award of any other degree from University of the Punjab or
any other institution. We also certify that the thesis has been prepared
according to the prescribed format of University of the Punjab and we submit
for its evaluation for the award of Ph.D. degree through the official procedures
of the University of the Punjab.
Prof. Dr. Niaz Ahmad (Supervisor) Ex-Director
Institute of Quality and Technology Management University of the Punjab
Dr. Shafay Shamail (Co-Supervisor)
Department of Computer Science Lahore University of Management Sciences
Abstract Overall behaviour of local software industry towards quality if simply
phrased is, “No Quality Culture”. It is the cause of lower Information
Technology (IT) exports due to non competitive nature of local software
product development practices which are laden with delays, non-
conformances and inconsistency. Local quality culture lacks quality
awareness and is immature in following good quality practices and
implementing quality improvement standards. As a step further in this
direction the objective of this study is to map the actual environment and true
culture of Small and Medium Software Houses (SMSH) towards quality
improvement and process improvement by implementing Total Quality
Management (TQM) philosophy.
It was an exploratory research effort in the domain of Total Quality
Management (TQM) and Software Process Improvement (SPI). The research
begins with literature review of major quality standards implemented in the
local industry. The behaviour of international quality standards was
deliberated towards SMSH. A survey was conducted to evaluate the current
quality practices and develop a process improvement model within the local
SMSH. For this purpose software houses that were members of statutory and
professional organizations such as Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB),
Pakistan Software House Association (PASHA) were selected. Listing of
commercially available directory of RozeePak was also referred. For this
survey the quality constructs and data collection instrument were designed
based on literature review about small and medium enterprises culture and
leading software quality models such as CMM, CMMI, ISO, SPICE and
PSP/TSP. The results of the survey were analyzed and reported to high light
quality problems being faced by SMSH to implement quality.
Study included descriptive as well as empirical analysis. Descriptive
analysis was based on comments via survey and personal interaction while
conducting the survey. The empirical analysis included correlation and
regression analysis of quality constructs. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
technique was used to develop an optimized Lean Quality Improvement
Model (LQIM) for standard quality practices in the local software industry.
Eight quality constructs were developed to ascertain the level of current
quality practices in the SMSH and evolve a LQIM. In correlation analysis all
seven independent constructs were found significant towards the dependent
variable Quality Improvement. Regression analysis revealed that only four of
these independent quality constructs contributed significantly towards the
dependant variable Quality Improvement. Through Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM) the LQIM was evolved. This model presented four quality
constructs and ten of their respective quality practices as significant.
LQIM evolved as a tailored and economized paradigm according to
the needs and perceptions of the local IT practitioners. Also LQIM evolved as
an indigenous model which when improvised in accordance to the SMSH
cultural and quality improvement recommendations is proven to be a fit model
for SMSH. The LQIM has already been ratified according to generally
accepted good fit indices in SEM analysis. In order to implement LQIM by
SMSH implementation of Indigenous LQIM was proposed using the Deming’s
philosophy of Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) Cycle for continuous process
improvement. The set of recommendations for SMSH software process
improvement and proposed LQIM paradigm will give the innovative and
flexible directions for SMSH to change their culture and improve their
processes and software quality.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am thankful to
Almighty ALLAH
who has given me the zeal to learn and seek knowledge.
my profound gratitude and regards to my visionary Supervisor for his support
Professor Dr. Niaz Ahmed.
and
my deep appreciation for my Co-Supervisor Dr Shafay Shamail
for his resolute commitment, deep insight and direction during the phase of research and especially his patience to match my pace of learning.
and
I am thankful to my class fellows for their priceless contribution in knowledge sharing especially Dr. Muhammad Usman Awan and Dr. Tajamal Hussain
and
my gratitude towards my colleagues for unprecedented support and motivation especially
Mansoor Shiraz and Muhammad Irfan
and
my thanks to young students who assisted me in conducting initial research during pilot studies especially
M. Shafique Khan (Late), and Faiza Dar
and
most importantly thanks to my wife and kids for their patience and sacrifice of their time that I consumed for this research.
CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ i
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................................... v
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH ..................................................................................... 2
1.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS .............................................................................................. 4
1.3. BACKGROUND OF PAKISTAN SOFTWARE INDUSTRY ............................................... 5
1.4. BUILDING BLOCKS OF PAKISTAN SOFTWARE INDUSTRY ......................................... 6
1.5. ROLE OF MINISTRY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY IN IT SECTOR .............................. 8
1.6. PAKISTAN’S INITIATIVES FOR QUALITY ENHANCEMENT IN IT SECTOR ................... 9
1.7. QUALITY PERCEPTION PROBLEMS IN PAKISTAN IT INDUSTRY .............................. 10
1.8. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................ 11
1.9. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ..................................................................................... 13
1.10. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 2 QUALITY IN SME ................................................................................................................... 16
2. QUALITY ....................................................................................................................... 16
2.1. Quality of Design (QoD) . ........................................................................................ 19
2.2. Quality of Conformance (QoC) ................................................................................ 19
2.3. Quality of Performance (QoP) ................................................................................ 20
2.4. IMPORTANCE OF TQM IN AN ORGANIZATION ....................................................... 22
2.4.1. CUSTOMER ORIENTATION WITH TQM ............................................................... 23
2.4.2. TOP MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT ................................................................... 23
2.5. SME QUALITY CULTURE .......................................................................................... 24
2.6. PROCESS IMPROVEMENT ........................................................................................ 27
2.7. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 3 QUALITY MODELS ............................................................................................................... 32
3.1 SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT MODELS ................................................. 35
3.1 INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ORGANIZATION (ISO9001:2000) ......................... 36
3.1.1 ISO 9000 STRENGHTS ...................................................................................... 39
3.1.2 ISO 9000 WEAKNESSES .................................................................................... 40
3.2 CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL .......................................................................... 41
3.2.1 CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL AND SME ...................................................... 43
3.3 CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL INTEGRATION .................................................. 45
3.3.1 CMMI STAGED AND CONTINUOUS ................................................................. 46
3.3.2 CMMI STAGED MATURITY LEVELS .................................................................. 48
3.3.3 CMMI CAPABILITY LEVELS FOR CONTINEOUS REPRESENTATION.................. 50
3.3.4 CMMI LIMITATIONS......................................................................................... 51
3.3.5 CMMI STRENGTHS ........................................................................................... 52
3.3.6 CMMI WEAKNESS ............................................................................................ 52
3.4 SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT & CAPABILITY DETERMINATION (SPICE) 53
3.4.1 STRENGTHS OF SPICE ...................................................................................... 58
3.4.2 WEAKNESSES OF SPICE .................................................................................... 59
3.5 PERSONAL SOFTWARE PROCESS ........................................................................ 60
3.6 TEAM SOFTWARE PROCESS ................................................................................ 61
3.7 Six Sigma .............................................................................................................. 62
3.8 BRIEF COMPARISON SOFTWARE QUALITY STANDARDS .................................... 64
3.8.1 ISO and CMM ................................................................................................... 64
3.8.2 CMM AND CMMI ............................................................................................. 65
3.8.3 ISO AND CMMI ................................................................................................ 66
3.8.4 SPICE AND CMM .............................................................................................. 67
3.9 PERFORMANCE OF PROCESS IMPROVEMENT MODELS IN SME ........................ 68
3.9.1 CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL (CMM) AND SME ......................................... 68
3.9.2 CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL INTEGRATION IN SME.................................. 70
3.9.3 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATION (ISO) IN SME ........................ 72
3.9.4 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 73
CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................... 76
4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN AND QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................. 76
4.1 TESTING AND DEBUGGING‐PILOT STUDY ............................................................... 77
4.2 INDICATORS ............................................................................................................. 77
4.3 QUALITY CONSTRUCTS ............................................................................................ 77
4.4 RELIABILITY .............................................................................................................. 79
4.5 THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK FOR DEPENDENT VARIABLE ..................................... 79
4.6 SURVEY ADMINISTRATION ..................................................................................... 80
4.6.1 SAMPLING PROCEDURE .................................................................................. 80
4.6.2 POPULATI ON SAMPLE .................................................................................... 81
4.6.3 SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION ....................................................................... 82
4.7 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 82
4.8 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING ..................................................................... 83
4.9 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 85
CHAPTER 5 DISCRIPTIVE RESULTS ............................................................................................... 86
5.1 FREQUENCY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 86
5.8 ORGANIZATION SIZE & STRUCTURE ....................................................................... 87
5.9 ORGANIZATION CULTURE ....................................................................................... 88
5.10 ORGANIZATION BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS QUALITY ................................................. 89
5.11 REQUIREMENT DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT ............................................ 90
5.12 PLANNING ................................................................................................................ 91
5.13 MONITORING AND CONTROL ................................................................................. 92
5.14 MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS.............................................................................. 93
5.15 PROCESS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ........................................................................ 94
5.16 QUALITY MODELS PRACTICED IN LOCAL IT INDUSTRY........................................... 95
5.17 RESPONDENT PROFILES........................................................................................... 95
5.18 PROBLEMS AND ISSUES RAISED .............................................................................. 96
5.19 PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF QMS IN PAKISTAN’S IT INDUSTRY ............. 99
5.20 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 100
CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ...................................................................................... 101
6.1 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 101
6.2 INTERNAL VALIDITY CONSTRUCTS ........................................................................ 103
6.3 EXTERNAL VALIDITY .............................................................................................. 104
6.4 CORRELATION ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 105
6.5 REGRESSION ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 106
6.6 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING ............................................................... 109
6.6.1 SEM IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................ 109
6.6.2 RATIO OF CHI‐SQUARE : /D.F ................................................................... 110
6.6.3 COMPARATIVE FIT INDEX (CFI) ..................................................................... 111
6.6.3.1 NORMED FIT INDEX (NFI) .............................................................................. 111
6.6.3.2 GOODNESS‐0F‐FIT INDEX (GFI) ..................................................................... 112
6.6.4 ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERROR INDEX (RMSEA) ............................................. 112
6.7 Lean Quality Improvement model conceptual detail ...................................... 116
6.8 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 118
CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 119
7.1 QUESTION 1: HOW TO CHANGE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IN SMSH ............ 119
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ON FINDINGS SMSH ...................................................... 121
7.2.1 ORGANIZATION SIZE & STRUCTURE ............................................................. 121
7.2.2. ORGANIZATION CULTURE ............................................................................. 121
7.2.3. ORGANIZATION BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS QUALITY ....................................... 122
7.2.4. REQUIREMENT DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT ...................................... 122
7.2.5. RECOMMENDATIONS: PROJECT PLANNING ................................................. 123
7.2.6. MONITORING AND CONTROL ....................................................................... 124
7.2.7. MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS .................................................................... 125
7.2.8. PROCESS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT .............................................................. 125
7.3. LQIM (PARADIGM) FOR LOCAL SMSH .............................................................. 126
7.3.1. Lean Quality improvement model deployment plan ................................... 127
7.3.2. TQM SUGGESTIONS AND GUIDELINES.......................................................... 130
7.3.3. LIMITATIONS OF PROPOSED LQIM PARADIGM ........................................... 131
7.3.4. SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 132
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK ................................................................... 133
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................... 135
APPENDIX A – COVER LETTER .............................................................................................................. 145
Optimum Software Process Improvement Paradigm for Quality Practices in Software Industry ......................................................................................................................................... 145
APPENDIX B – QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................................... 147
APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE INDICATORS .............................................................................. 151
APPENDIX D INDICATORS & MAPPING ISO 9000.................................................................... 157
i
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACM Association for Computing Machinery
AMOS Analytical Movement of Structures
ANOVA Analysis of variance
BPR Business Process Re-Engineering
BSI British Standard Institute
CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis
CFI Comparative fit index
CMM Capability Maturity Model
CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration
CPI Continuous Process Improvement
CPI Capability process Index
CPI Continuous Process Improvement
CRM Customer Relationship Management
CUS Customer Supplier
DCS Data Collection System
FFRDC Federally Funded Research and Development Centre
GFI Goodness-0f-fit Index
GQM Goal Question Matrix
HQC High Quality software creation support virtual Centre
ICT Information & Communication Technology
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISO International Standard Organization
KBL Knowledge Base Library
KM Knowledge Management
KPAs Key Process Areas
LQIM Lean Quality Improvement Model
MAN Management
MAN Measurement & Analysis
NFI Normed Fit Index
OBQ Organization Behaviour Towards Quality
OBQ Behaviour Towards Quality
OCL Organizational Culture
ORG Organization
ii
OSS Organization Size & Structure
PA Process Attributes
PASHA Pakistan Software House Association
PDP Project development plan
PITB Punjab Information Technology Board
PMC Project Monitoring Tracking
PMC Monitoring and Control
PPL Project Planning
PQI Process / Quality Improvement
PQM Product Quality Management
PSEB Pakistan Software Export Board
PSP Personal Process Software
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
QFD Quality Function Deployment
QMPs Quality Management Principles
QMS Quality Management System
QoC Quality of Conformance
QoD Quality of Design
QoP Quality of Performance
RDM Requirement Development Management
RMSEA Root Mean Square Error Index
ROI Return on Investment
SCAMPI Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement
SCM Software Configuration Management
SDLC Software Development Life Cycle
SEI Software Engineering Institute
SEM Structural Equation Modelling
SME Small and Medium Enterprises
SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises
SMSHs Small and Medium Software Houses
SPI Software Process Improvement
SPICE Software Process Improvement Determination
SQM Software Quality Management
SUP Support
SW-CMM Software Capability Maturity Model
iii
TQC Total quality control
TQM Total Quality Management
TSP Team Software Process
VSEs Very Small Enterprises
WHO World Health Organization
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS........................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 2 EVOLUTION QUAGMIRE OF QUALITY MODELS ..................................................... 34 FIGURE 3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KEY SC7 STANDARDS ............................................... 37 FIGURE 4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................... 80 FIGURE 5 THEORATICAL STRUCTURAL MODELING ............................................................... 84 FIGURE 6 QUALITY IMPROVEMENT DEPENDENCY MODEL ............................................. 108 FIGURE 7 SEM STANDARDIZED SOLUTION FOR SPI MODEL FIT. .................................. 113 FIGURE 8 IMPLEMENTATION OF LQIM MODEL ...................................................................... 127
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Structure of Quality Models .................................................................................................. 36 TABLE 2 OVERVIEW OF SPICE CAPABILITY LEVELS .................................................................. 57 TABLE 3 PSP Process Hierarchy ............................................................................................................ 61 TABLE 4 Structure of TSP ........................................................................................................................ 63 TABLE 5 CONSTRUCTS TABLE ............................................................................................................... 78 TABLE 6 ORGANIZATION SIZE & STRUCTURE ............................................................................... 87 TABLE 7 ORGANIZATION CULTURE .................................................................................................... 88 TABLE 8 ORGANIZATION BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS QUALITY .................................................. 89 TABLE 9 REQUIREMENT DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT ................................................. 90 TABLE 10 PROJECT PLANNING............................................................................................................ 91 TABLE 11 PROJECT MONITORING TOOL ........................................................................................ 92 TABLE 12 MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 93 TABLE 13 PROCESS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ............................................................................ 94 TABLE 14 QUALITY MODEL DEMOGRAPHICS .............................................................................. 95 TABLE 15 RESPONDENT’S PROFILE GROUPS .............................................................................. 96 TABLE 16 RELIABILITY OF CONSTRUCTS ................................................................................... 103 TABLE 17 RELIABILITY STATISTICS .............................................................................................. 103 TABLE 18 CORRELATION BETWEEN ALL CONSTRUCTS ..................................................... 105 TABLE 19 MODEL SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 106 TABLE 20 ANOVA .................................................................................................................................... 107 TABLE 21 COEFFICIENTS .................................................................................................................... 107 TABLE 22 CMIN CHI‐SQUARE ............................................................................................................ 110 TABLE 23 BASELINE COMPARISONS MODEL FIT INDICES ................................................ 111 TABLE 24 RMSEA ..................................................................................................................................... 112 TABLE 25 EVOLVED SPI PARADIGM PRACTICES ..................................................................... 114 TABLE 26 SEM DELETED ITEMS FROM MODEL ....................................................................... 114 TABLE 27 LQIM CONCEPTUAL DETAIL ........................................................................................ 116 TABLE 28 LQIM DEPLOYMENT PLAN MAPPED WITH PDCA ............................................. 129
Chapter 1 Introduction
1
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
This Chapter starts with introduction and background to the software
quality improvement in the Pakistan’s software industry, and highlights the
efforts made by Government of Pakistan to promote Information Technology
(IT) industry. After that research questions are mentioned to support the
research objectives of the study. Following that role of government and IT
statuary bodies in developing IT sector of Pakistan is discussed. In the end
significance and structure of research are referred to develop further
understanding into this research.
After studying quality gurus like Joseph M. Juran who is considered to
be the pioneering authority in Quality Management1; Dr. Edward Deming who
is considered by many as father of quality2 and Crosby known for his book,
“Quality without tears” and his overall philosophy, “Quality is through
prevention and conformance to customer’s requirements only” (Sharon and
Shyrel, 1998). It was finally learnt that Quality was all about customer
satisfaction on one side and mindset change, prevention and culture change
on the other side, which is all cloaked in the phrase ” Total Quality
management” (TQM). As concept of quality claimed by Juran (1988) and
Crosby (1979 ) that “Quality is free”, is indeed the concept that the local
industry failed to apprehend where savings in rework cost are much more
than the amount invested in prevention costs. On the contrary trend showed
that companies only practiced quality when it is affordable or convenient to
the top management. It is realized that very little work has been done in the
area of TQM implementation in the local software industry, and also in the
third world developing countries. The study is to investigate local (Pakistani)
software industry quality practices in the Small and Medium Software Houses
(SMSH) in the light of TQM philosophy and benchmarking the world best
1 “Quality is planned; Product quality does not happen by accident; Quality product is fitness for use and free from deficiencies. (M. Juran, 1988)
2 Deming’s teachings mainly revolve around PDCA Cycle and Deming’s 14 principles that bought industrial revolution in Japan and Japan became the market leader in 1950s. Deming preached statistical quality control and emphasized that quality is management’s responsibility. (E. Deming, 1986) as cited by (Sharon, Sheryl, 1998)
Chapter 1 Introduction
2
quality practices for quality and process improvement. This chapter introduces
the problem, objectives and purpose of carrying out the research and benefits
and significance of the research. At the end of the chapter research
framework is explained with the help of a diagram.
1.1. PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH
The software industry has become the backbone of a country’s
economic growth and prosperity and due to its nature of dealing, networking
and one to one linkage directly with foreign companies; it opens a virtual
corridor to develop industrial liaison and business linkages in the global
market. This research area deals with past and present state of software
industry in Pakistan and behaviour of software industries towards software
quality, Total Quality Management (TQM) and Continuous Process
Improvement (CPI) and above all Quality Improvement.
The main purpose of this study is to determine the level of quality
practices understood and implemented by the practitioners in Pakistan’s
software industry. The objective is to find out whether bear minimum quality
standards are being practiced. It does not matter which international standard
is being adopted by an organization, but it is important to find out if the quality
practices and processes are practically followed. If an organization utilizes its
stated standard spiritually then its product quality and product effectiveness
will match with that of software products produced at international level. The
cause of lower export rate of Pakistan software industry is the lack of
awareness with quality standards. The government of Pakistan is subsidizing
Information Technology companies to get certifications for ISO 9001 and
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) as reported on Pakistan
Software Export Board (PSEB) official website (PSEB, 2010). As a step
further in this direction the objective is to map the actual environment and true
culture of Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) towards quality improvement,
process improvement, and Continuous Process Improvement (CPI). It is an
exploratory research effort in the domain of Total Quality Management (TQM)
and SPI. A statistical industrial survey is conducted among the houses of the
local Industry. Mainly software houses which are members of Pakistan
Chapter 1 Introduction
3
Software Export Board (PSEB), Pakistan Software House Association
(PASHA) and SMSH in the major cities of Pakistan are targeted as population
sample for this study. A feedback from this survey will give a set of concrete
discrepancies between true SME culture and required culture of international
standards like CMM, CMMI, Software Process Improvement Determination
(SPICE) and ISO.
After identifying characteristics of a true SME culture, a set of guidelines
and a process improvement paradigm for SME is to be developed, which is
the basic purpose of this research. The set of guidelines for SME software
process improvement paradigm will give the innovative and flexible directions
for SMSH to change their culture and improve their processes and quality.
The aim is that organizations of all sizes especially of small size are able to
implement it for the improvement of their product and process quality.
Guidelines to change mindset of the employees and top management and
hence apply TQM philosophy to implement quality improvement and
measurement culture are proposed. Such guidelines will enable small and
medium sized software houses to build optimum quality culture and maintain
a beer minimum level of quality that will lead SMSH to become competitive,
as well as quality organizations through continuous process improvement. In
order to fully comprehend the aims and objectives of this research it will be
important to mention the research questions developed on the basis of
situation analysis. This situation analysis is based on critical analysis and
comprehensive literature review presented in Chapter-2 and Chapter3. In the
following section research questions are given that evolved during the
research design and questionnaire development phase as an output of pilot
study.
Chapter 1 Introduction
4
1.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research questions that evolved after the situation analysis and
pilot study to further highlight and support the research objective are the
following.
1. What is quality and concept of quality culture and process
improvement in the Small and Medium Software Houses (SMSH)?
Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) culture can be referred to as
behaviour of immaturity of SME towards software development that results in
threats for SME performance. SME culture concept becomes a vital issue in
the Performance of local markets especially in context of quality culture. A
detailed discussion is in Chapter-2.
2. What are the different types of leading models of Software
Process Improvement (SPI) being practiced world wide as best
practices to improve software quality?
These are the different types of leading software process models and
process management models being practiced locally and globally as best
practices in software quality improvement. These models comprise of ISO
9001, CMM, CMMI, SPICE, PSP and TSP. Detail discussion about these
models is given in Chapter-3.
3. What are the problems and issues faced by local IT practitioners
to implement quality for Software Process Improvement (SPI)?
There are many issues and constraints that local SMEs are facing in
the local industry. The attitude of the top mangers is more towards producing
bulk of code and making money and less towards solving quality issues at
work place. Some of the problems faced by the practitioners as found in the
survey and literature review are given in Chapter-2 and Chapter-5
4. What can be a proposed Software Process Improvement (SPI)
paradigm which can best fit to solve the problems of quality
Chapter 1 Introduction
5
improvement in the local Small and Medium Software houses
(SMSH)?
The proposed Optimum Software Quality Improvement Model and a
set of guidelines for software quality improvement for Small and Medium Size
Software Houses (SMSH) are reported in the chapter-7. These guidelines
are derived from the Results of descriptive analysis chapter – 5 and proposed
SPI model through Structured Equation Modelling (SEM) in chapter 6.
1.3. BACKGROUND OF PAKISTAN SOFTWARE INDUSTRY
When a brief look is taken on the Pakistan’s software/IT industry, it is
observed that local software industry has shown a very uneven pattern of
growth through its very short history. Before early nineties the Government of
Pakistan (GOP) showed a cold stance toward the Information Technology and
software industry. The IT industry was not in the GOP priorities though
software houses have existed in the country since 1970’s. From early-to-mid
1990’s, it has been stated that the IT industry is promoted and supported by
the government. It started getting attention when the software industry of the
developing countries started to groom and rose to prominence. Since then
several policy actions and infrastructure development and up-gradation
projects have been undertaken by the GOP to promote not only the local
software industry but also to export the software from Pakistan. Many national
IT policies along with their action plans are documented according to the
Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST). Our local software industry
needs a face lift and deliberation in policy making as our local software
houses do not show the kind of vitality and growth as that is expected by
contemporary software houses of international repute. To export the quality
software where there is a strong competition across the globe. IN order to
improve Pakistan has to be aware of the importance of development of local
IT industry (Osama, 2005).
There are many reasons for the poor quality of IT business in the
country. For instance there is a brain drain hence Pakistan looses to take
advantage of those qualified professionals. There is a lack of entrepreneurial
skills and managerial know-how of IT professionals. IT industry faces serious
Chapter 1 Introduction
6
problems in securing financing and credit. Unwillingness of local business
managers to pay appropriate prices for locally developed software (Salim,
2001) is another cause of poor growth of local software market. Beside all the
problems and threats faced there still are many opportunities in grooming the
software industry of Pakistan. PSEB is willing to provide all possible help to
facilitate setting up of Call Centres. The global and domestic Internet
explosion helps a lot in worldwide growth not only in communication
infrastructure but also in distance learning and education. Also the customer
awareness and empowerment has increased through IT and Internet. PSEB
and Pakistan National Accreditation Council (PNAC) have extensively trained
and developed personal of software houses through their quality improvement
trainings and certification trainings, but a lot more effort in this direction is
desirable.
1.4. BUILDING BLOCKS OF PAKISTAN SOFTWARE INDUSTRY
The building blocks of IT industry in Pakistan are Pakistan Council for
Science & Technology (PCST), National Commission for Science &
Technology (NCST), Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB), and Pakistan
Software Houses Association (PASHA), such organizations are the major hub
of activity and are taking steps to improve local software industry to make it a
candidate in the global software industry.
PASHA is an association to promote the software industry in Pakistan
and to protect the rights of its members. There were nine software houses
that formed PASHA in the last quarter of 1992. By 2007 it has grown to a
membership of over 350 software houses. The efforts of PASHA have
resulted in the formation of IT Policy and Action Plan of the government. The
guiding theme for the IT Policy is that “the government shall be the facilitator
and enabler to encourage the private sector to drive the development in IT
and telecommunications”. The government IT Policy covers the development
of human resource, IT infrastructure, software and hardware development
(PASHA, 2010).
Pakistan local software industry growth has been sluggish due to slow
development of supportive policies towards IT and local software houses in
Chapter 1 Introduction
7
last 3 decades by the GOP. For most of the 1990s, Government's policies
towards the IT Industry were a little misaligned and did not match the direction
and needs of local software houses. The hype of the IT global bubble also
affected Pakistan like other developing countries and it was believed that "all
you need is a computer and an Internet connection" to join the race (Osama,
2005). Similarly capacity building and creation of new jobs was also slow. It
was not until 2005 that GOP finally launched Digital Electronic Government
Directorate (DEGD) which gave a boost to local IT industry by creating mega
projects like E-government Portal, NADRA, and the web portals and web sites
of 34 Ministries/Divisions developed in 2002.
According to PSEB presently there are at least 1763 active IT
companies registered with PSEB in Pakistan with around 611 active
companies in Karachi, 544 in Lahore and around 479 in Islamabad. These IT
companies specialise in the domains of software development, networking,
printing, multimedia, call centres and Business Process Outsourcing (BPO).
Growth in these major cities has been three fold over the last five years.
PSEB reported the size of local market U.S. $2.6 billion and IT enabled
exports registered at State Bank of Pakistan raised to $1.6 billion (PSEB,
2010).
Since 2007, The IT sector has got greater attention from the GOP. The
National Commission for Science and Technology (NCST) is the top decision
making body that provides directions to the scientific and technological
development of the nation through the office of the Pakistan Council for
Science and Technology (PCST). The focus of NCST is on the acceleration of
scientific and technological capacity building for rapid and sustainable
economic growth. PCST is responsible to ensure proper linkage between
science and technology and production sector in the local industry. During the
years 2006-2007 PCST has scheduled to launch of more than 300 projects for
the development of science and technology in general and for the promotion
of information technology in particular. This represents a major step forward
towards building an indigenous science and technology capacity and a
knowledge-based economy in Pakistan (PCST, 2010). According to PCST in
the private sector Worldcall, Wateen Telecom and Micro Broad Band have
Chapter 1 Introduction
8
also laid down their fibre Optic networks in Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. A
fully integrated international standard fibre optic & fibre optic cable
manufacturing facility is also functioning in Pakistan and second new foreign
investments are expected in this sector too. Pakistan is still thinking to go to
T1 bandwidth connectivity (Sulkani, 2007).
1.5. ROLE OF MINISTRY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY IN IT
SECTOR
The Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST), GOP has been taking
key measures to encourage Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the country.
The aim is to make the proposition financially attractive and simplify the FDI
process to open up the opportunities in Pakistan's IT sector. In this regard,
several policy measures have been taken that include for example Ministry of
Science & Technology National IT Policy and Action Plan (MoST, 2000 ).
Pakistan Educational Research Network (PERN) by Higher education
Commission (HEC) is established to enable sharing, among educational
institutions, global digital libraries of teaching and learning materials and to
promote faculty research collaboration among local and international
educational institutions. Special concessions like lower bandwidth rates for
universities, educational institutions, software exporters and Internet Service
Providers (ISP) are part of the package.
A few of the policy inducement laid down in the IT Policy include Income Tax
holiday for IT companies and IT Professionals. Along with that software
exporting companies are allowed to retain 35% of their earnings in foreign
currency accounts. Educational grants for scholarships and enhancement of
IT infrastructure in the public sector universities have been provided. Initially
import duty on computers and parts was exempted which is again reverted to
15% in 2009. National Computing Education Accreditation Council (NCEAC)
was also established to ensure quality of training and IT education provided
by the training institutes and Higher Education Institutions (HEI) (NCEAC,
2010). Higher Education Commission (HEC) also made available foreign
expatriate faculty to improve the quality of faculty and students (MoST, 2000).
Chapter 1 Introduction
9
The Pakistan Technology Board (PTB) was established with the
Minister for Science and Technology as its head to appraise technology
needs and view national and international trade and technology implications
(PTB, 2010). PTB advises technology transfer and fosters the public/private
partnership in commercializing locally developed technologies. Provincial IT
Boards established to ensure quality IT education, strengthen IT educational
institutions, develop databases, and build capacity in IT job markets and also
to establish linkages with industry. In addition it will provide services to Small
and Medium Enterprises (SME) for training, product development,
consultancy and quality improvement (MoST, 2000).
The Pakistan National Accreditation Council (PNAC) accredits
agencies providing certification of ISO-9000 and ISO-14000 standards,
laboratories for testing and calibration, and register’s auditors and offers
training courses in the area of quality control. So far 3000 Pakistani firms have
acquired ISO 9000 certification under this program (PNAC, 2010 ).
1.6. PAKISTAN’S INITIATIVES FOR QUALITY ENHANCEMENT IN IT
SECTOR
In 2002, Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB) came up with a
quality enhancement plan for IT Sector of Pakistan. ISO 9001:2000 (now
revised ISO 9001:2008) had international acceptability in 165 countries
including western countries who would want to invest in Pakistan. PSEB
offered selected 80 IT Companies from all over Pakistan a packaged deal
where each company was to receive a full consultancy service from selected
and reputed ISO 9001 consultancy firms, and get certified by an authentic and
reliable certification body. The certification program was supposed to provide
much needed boost to the IT market and grab attention of western market
once again. The response to this step by PSEB was so overwhelming, that
their financial limit was increased by the Government to support 20 more
companies, making a total of 100 IT companies.
A full detail of the project plan of PSEB and the total 100 companies
(all of which were certified successfully) can be found at PSEB official website
(PSEB, 2010). Currently there are number of consultants and certification
Chapter 1 Introduction
10
bodies available for ISO 9001. By 2004, ISO 9001 had become quite
affordable and many software houses achieved certification. A detail about
software houses in Pakistan can be viewed at official site of Pakistan
Software Houses Association (PASHA, 2010)..
PSEB introduced another plan especially for software development
companies for achievement of CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration)
certification. This is still one of the most expensive and difficult certifications,
so very few organizations have been able to invest in it. Under the sponsored
programs of PSEB, by the end of 2007, Pakistan was expected to have 20
CMMI assessed IT companies as predicted by. (Sulkani, 2007). As per latest
statistics from PSEB there are only two CMMI maturity level 5 companies, 3
CMMI maturity level 3 software houses and 16 CMMI maturity level 2
assessed software houses. (PSEB, 2010). Apart from that PSEB has more
than 110 ISO 9000 certified companies. Most of the organizations supported
by PSEB for achievement of a CMMI maturity level, have achieved CMMI
maturity level-2 through self-help and internal consultants.
1.7. QUALITY PERCEPTION PROBLEMS IN PAKISTAN IT INDUSTRY
Most of the IT Companies in Pakistan are generally facing quality
awareness problems that lead to slow growth in quality adaptation and non-
adoptability of quality models and standard practices specifically in quality
improvement. During a personal interview and discussion on local quality
practices with Haroon3 who is consultant for implementing ISO 9000 in SMEs
and SMSH in local industry, a few of the problems that he had experienced
during ISO 9000 certification are mentioned below.
1. Pirated Applications: Pirated applications do not come with any updates
or support from the original vendor. The high cost of original application
software discourages the management from buying original software
applications and therefore many problems faced during application
3 Faisal Haroon, QA Consultant for Quality Management System ISO 9000. www.qmsiso.com
Chapter 1 Introduction
11
execution remain unanswered due to no support by the manufacturer /
vendor.
2. Expansive Quality Assurance Tools: Human labour force may be very
cheap in Pakistan, but even they need to use additional tools to bring out
better results. There are many quality assurance and quality testing
utilities available but the management avoids their cost (although one time
only) and prefers to deal with problems if caught by client.
3. Unclear Objectives: Management is not clear about the benefits behind
the achievement of certification. Management considers quality as an over
head and it is not ready to accept quality’s prevalent gains and in the form
reduced rework and product costs. They fail to realize that quality
certification cannot provide instant results as it is a continuous activity and
requires corrective and preventive actions even after the development,
implementation and certification process had ended.
4. Rework: Many organizations do not consider cost of re-work. Many
problems are ignored as the cost of a first time occurrence may be very
low. No one considers the cost of reoccurrence and its effects on
performance and the software development process.
5. Certification: ISO is not the only solution. The certification has turned into
a race, and everyone wants a certificate without much of an effort, leading
to many certification processes as baseless as the primary objective has
turned into a market perception value rather than utilization of quality
process and taking its full advantage. The full advantage costs a lot more
than mere certification process as the organization has to go through all
requirements, whereas certification can be achieved with minimum
requirements and some documentary evidence of performance.
1.8. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This research will help to develop an optimum Software Process
Improvement (SPI) Model to implement quality standard practices, which
would be tailored for the Pakistani Software Industry. In addition to this new
quality improvement suggestions will be made in the form of guidelines.
Chapter 1 Introduction
12
These guidelines will act as a quality improvement paradigm for the
practitioners of IT. Policy makers like MOS&T and PSEB can also benefit from
these for their future policy and planning in the sustainability of IT sector.
Quality Improvement Guidelines would then be used by the software houses
to determine their maturity level and quality level, devised through this
research. The set of guidelines and quality implementation factors are
suggested on the basis of best practices from literature review findings from
survey through research questionnaire.
Majority of the Pakistani software industry does not have even the
basic knowledge about quality, so then expecting them to implement quality
standards like ISO 9001:2000 or CMMI in totality is not right. In addition to the
existing software houses, new IT companies keep on sprouting up
intermittently. These new companies on most occasions are not financially
sound enough to invest in quality implementation procedure. For them
survival is a key in a cut throat market, where multiple companies vie for a
single project. These companies are the candidates of the quality standard
proposed in this research. It would help them in a multi faceted manner, first
they would have enough quality procedures to compete in the market in a
more viable manner, second quality would become part of their culture, since
implementing the proposed optimum quality standard is not expected to have
as much effort and hence monetary resources, as their more eloquent
counterparts. After the company becomes comfortable with quality procedures
and their financial standings improve, they can move ahead with
implementing complete international standard of their choice.
The increase in quality awareness and practices in the local industry
will make local software products more competitive in price and quality in the
international markets and hence will result in the increase of market share of
Pakistan software products in the international software markets. Local
software industry is expected to find a new direction and a new vision for the
quality improvement. The quality of the software products will be improved. It
will result in reducing software product development costs, increase in product
quality and hence it will make Pakistan software products more competitive
and attractive in the international market. Ultimately, as a final outcome by
Chapter 1 Introduction
13
adopting such guidelines and practices and measurement culture, the quality
culture and quality of process management in local software industry will
hopefully improve.
1.9. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS
According the research framework as shown in figure 1, the research
begins with literature review. Literature review will help in finding world’s
trends and cultures about quality and process improvement. It also provides
brief and in-depth understanding with international quality models.
Literature review will aid in finding out some concrete answers to the
following questions like: What is quality and quality culture? What are the
conditions and requirements to achieve quality in processes and product
development? What are the most widely used international quality standard
practices and models? How do international standard practices deal with
SME?
The next phase in this research framework is knowing about the local
SMEs. Local SME research has two dimensions: SME structure and SME
environment. The SME structure helps us to identify the structure and size of
Pakistani software houses. The SME environment would aid in finding true
quality culture of Pakistani software industry. The research structure is given
in FIGURE 1.
Further, the issues in implementing quality improvement practices in
the local industry are first identified with respect to culture of SMEs and
requirement of leading quality standards, then through analysis and
discussion new guidelines will be suggested for quality improvement. For
statistical analysis a survey is conducted for data collection in the local
software industry. Findings of the survey are tabulated and analyzed to depict
the level of quality practices. At the end on the basis of Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM) analysis a new SPI Model is proposed as final outcome.
The thesis report is structured as follows. Chapter 1 briefly introduces
local government’s efforts to promote IT sector and then research questions
are developed to support research objective. In the end research significance
Chapter 1 Introduction
14
and structure are narrated to give deeper understanding of this study. Chapter
2 addresses the question about quality and concept of quality culture and
process improvement in Small and Medium Software Houses (SMSH).
Chapter 3 looks at different types of leading quality models that are
practiced in the local software industry mainly ISO 9000, CMM, CMMI,
SPICE, PSP and TSP. In a way, chapter-2 is also linked with Chapter-3 in a
contextual manner that process reengineering and tailoring of existing models
should be done to develop new guidelines and optimum practices for local
software industry. The review includes the nature of process improvement
practices adopted by the organizations.
Chapter 4 presents the research methodology adopted in this research
and explains the research including Research Design, questionnaire and
survey administration.
Chapter 5 presents the results of the survey which are reported with
the help of descriptive analysis done by using statistical tool SPSS v 1.6.
In chapter 6 the results of the survey are analysed and a new paradigm
for Software Process Improvement to address the problem of quality
improvement through establishing quality culture is proposed.
Chapter 7 presents recommendations to establish the quality culture in
the local SMSH. . In the end optimum Software Quality Improvement Model
(SQIM) for local software houses (SMSH) is proposed. Chapter 8 concludes
the thesis report.
FIGURE 1 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS
Chapter 1 Introduction
15
1.10. SUMMARY
The Chapter starts from introduction and background to the Software Quality
improvement in the Pakistan Software Industry, and highlights the efforts
made by Government of Pakistan to promote IT industry. Research questions
for the study are given which evolved during the pilot study and detailed
situation analysis. The main purpose of this study is to determine the level of
quality practices understood and implemented by the practitioners in
Pakistan’s software industry. The objective is to find out whether bear
minimum quality standards are being practiced by the local IT practitioners.
The research significance is to develop an optimum Software Quality
Improvement Model (SQIM) to implement quality standard practices, which
would be tailored for the Pakistani Software Industry. In addition to this new
quality improvement suggestions will be made in the form of guidelines.
Government Policy makers like MOS&T and PSEB can also benefit from
these for their future policy and planning in the sustainability of IT sector. In
the end chapter wise structure of the thesis is discussed. Next chapter
provides literature review on Quality and SME quality practices as per
research question 1.
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
16
CHAPTER 2- QUALITY IN SME
This section addresses the question-1 of research by first emphasizing
on importance of quality and defining quality as a discipline by giving its
different definitions and conceptual understanding cited by different
authors. Then further quality is explored by defining its relative
understanding with respect to Quality of Design, Quality of Conformance,
Quality of Performance, Quality Control and Quality Assurance. After
giving complete understanding of quality its application through the
philosophy of Total Quality Management is explained to implement total
quality practices. In the next section quality culture and its implications with
respect to SMSH culture are explored. In the end global software process
improvement practices to improve quality are reviewed to give the real
understanding of SPI with respect to SME quality practices and culture.
Further SPI guidelines developed through gap analysis for local SME are
also presented.
The following section pertains to first research question.
Question: 1. What is quality and concept of quality culture and process improvement in the Small and Medium Software Houses
(SMSH)?
2. QUALITY
The word ‘quality’ is the absolute measure of ‘goodness’. The concept of
quality differs from person to person. So if an organization wants to deliver a
quality product and service, it has to understand what would be considered as
quality by its customers. Basically the quality lies in the eyes of the beholder.
What may be high quality for one customer may not be high quality for
another customer.
According to ISO 9000-2000 “quality is a relative term and is relative to
specific product requirements. “Quality: degree to which a set of inherent
characteristics fulfils requirements” where quality can be used with
adjectives excellent, good or poor and Requirement: means, “need or
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
17
expectation that is stated, or generally applied “(American Society for
Quality, 2000).
According to ANSI/ASQ Standard A-3 1987, quality is defined as
“Quality is the totality of features and characteristics bear on its
ability to satisfy implied or stated needs”. (praxiom, 2010)
According to British Standard Institute (BSI) quality is defined as
“The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs” (BSI, 1991, as
cited by Sambrook, et al, 2001).
IEEE defines quality in its IEEE Std 610.12-1990 as: (Kishore and Naik,
2003).
“The degree to which a system, component or process meets
specified requirements. The degree to which a system, component or
process meets customer or user needs or expectations”.
Another formal definition of quality given by Crosby (1979) that
“Quality is conformance to requirements or specifications”, who also
suggests that to manage quality adequately, we must be able to measure it.
A traditional industrial concept of Quality was given by Juran (2004) that
states, “Quality is necessary measurable element of a product or service
and is achieved when expectations or requirements are met”.
Every organization has its own business objectives such as to produce the
quality products/services, create the value for the stockholders, be an
employer of choice, enhance the customer satisfaction and increase the
market share, implement the best practices and cost saving techniques, gain
the popularity in the market and get industry wide recognition for excellence
etc. To achieve such objectives and get the market share the organization
must learn to take advantage from the opportunities, avoid simply reacting to
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
18
the change and fear of change. Along with the process improvement models
the organization can also make its own procedures according to its needs and
requirements. It can find the new ways to raise the productivity, lower its
expanses and predict its cost and revenue. The organization should be so
mature that it will anticipate the problems and prevent it from happening. The
top management in any organization should have the clear product viability
and profitability as all important decisions are taken at the top level (Weltgen
W., 2004). The point to ponder is whether the organization is using the
accurate data for the process inputs, or how it is known that the data is
reasonable and accurate and reliable? So an automated data collection
system has to be in place to avoid data reliability problems. Other critical
successes factor for successful implementation of quality programs are
continues improvement, customer satisfaction, quality and data management,
training and education (Huarng and Chen, 2002).
Processes are measured to make sure that the processes are adding
value to the product/service. Then a consistence work is done to make the
process comparison valid. Of course, that implies a standard way of doing
things and a baseline against which to measure. By doing such activity and
following the cycle, suitable process standards are formed. These process
standards are appropriate and successful for the workplace and business
fundamentals to better control and improve processes.
For doing all such activities there should be a good management,
fundamental technical skills, planning and tracking need to be understood and
encouraged. Version control and managing risks are essential disciplines that
need to be addressed. And managing requirements so that value to customer
delivered is a key business objective. The organization should focus on the
incremental improvement through Total Quality Management (TQM). These
elements help to make the organization capable, mature and better achieve
its objectives. Also it provides the guidance to define and standardized the
processes, increase the effectiveness, limit rework and measure the
performance of the organization, and use the data to manage the business.
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
19
So, process quality improvement promises measurable benefits for
organizations, particularly in the ability to estimate effort, build quality into
system and the delivery of quality products. Gurus of quality believe that gist
of quality is “timely achieving total customer requirements and fulfilling present
and future needs and expectations of customer, at a price what the customer
is willing to pay”.
The three basic aspects usually associated with quality are quality of
design, quality of conformance and quality of performance.
2.1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (QOD) .
Quality of Design is concerned with how good the design is. It is a value
inherent in the design. QoD is an area that is addressed early in the life cycle
of the product. It refers to the level of excellence the product is intended to
possess (Kishore and Naik, 2003). As per renowned quality guru Juran,
quality of design is an overall component of quality, which is defined as
‘fitness for use’ (Juran and Gryna, 1988). Another concept integrated into
QoD is called Quality Function deployment which builds methods for
deploying the design quality into products, systems and subsystems, and
ultimately to a specific process of product development (Akao, 1991).
2.2. QUALITY OF CONFORMANCE (QOC)
QoC is a term used to express how well the product conforms the design
specifications. A good design is pointless if the product does not conform to
the design specifications; QoC has to be ensured through the process that
builds the product. Essentially, QoC is about meeting the promise made in the
design specifications. In other words “Quality of Conformance implies that the
manufactured product or the service rendered must meet the standards
selected in the design phase” (Mitra A., 2005). Another reason why quality is
not implemented in SMEs is that organizations have generally tall structure,
decision making is only at the top level, where as low level employees have
no authority to take corrective actions and they don’t have freedom to
improvise their own ideas (Weltgen, 2004).
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
20
Both the quality of design and quality of conformance are very important.
Since QoD is a base for subsequent work. Design, too, has to conform to the
needs or requirements of the customer. Once we know what the requirements
are, it is required to come up with a creative design that meets these
requirements.
2.3. QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE (QOP)
is concerned with how well the product functions or service performs
when put to use. “It measures the degree to which the product or service
satisfies the customer” (Mitra A., 2005). This is a function of both the QoD and
QoC. Remember that the final test of product or service acceptance always
lies with the customers. Meeting their expectations is the major goal. If a
product does not function well enough to meet these expectations, or if a
service does not live up to customer standards, then adjustments need to be
made in the design or conformance phase.
The main focus of the Quality Control (QC) is to check that software
should be free of all types of functional and non functional non-conformances.
Quality Control is defined as “the set of activities designed to evaluate the
quality of developed and manufactured products and the process of verifying
one’s own work or that of a co-worker” (Kishore and Naik , 2003). Quality
control is a set of activities intended to ensure that quality requirements are
actually met (Praxion, 2010). Feigenbaum (1991) coined the term “Total
quality control”, (TQC): An efficient structure to encapsulate the quality-
development, quality-maintenance, and quality-improvement which all
together work for maximum customer satisfaction. He emphasized on
planning for quality improvement and acting on standards after they have
been set.
Quality is not just the responsibility of one person in the organization, it is
the duty of all the employees working in it. Everyone involved directly or
indirectly in the development of a software product is responsible for its
performance and services. Unfortunately, something (Quality) that is viewed
as everyone’s responsibility can fall apart in the implementation phase
because employees consider processes as overhead and try to bypass the
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
21
responsibility. One of the reasons of failure of quality implementation in most
of the small organizations is not failure of quality, but it is the failure of
management to implement satisfactory quality methodology. Another reason
for collapse of the local quality practices is that employees don’t execute
processes religiously (Thorn and Ron, 1999).
This behaviour towards quality by local practitioners portraits an
ineffective system where the quality assurance processes only exist on paper.
Thus what is needed is “a system that ensures that all procedures that have
been designed and planned are followed”. The objective of the quality
assurance function is to have in place a formal system that continually
surveys the effectiveness of the quality philosophy of the company. The
quality assurance system (team) thus audits the various departments and
assists them in meeting their responsibilities for producing a quality product.
Quality Assurance (QA) is a bundle of processes poised to establish self-
confidence that quality necessities will be met. QA is one of the functions of
quality management (Praxiom, 2010). Quality Assurance can be defined as
“all those planned or systematic actions necessary to provide confidence that
a product or service will satisfy given needs” (Mitra A., 2005).
The quality is presumed as an over head by the management and the
operational staff. They think that any type of quality control or quality
assurance activity is something that increases the costs and are therefore
reluctant to include these in their production processes. There is a very
powerful statement by the quality guru Philip Crosby, that ‘quality is free’. He
says that there is a cost of poor quality—“the cost of quality is the expense of
doing things wrong” (Crosby, 1979). He explains how creating products of
high quality is less expensive than creating products of poor quality. Spending
some cost on quality will not increase the overall cost but in real sense it will
reduce the overall cost of the product/service. Using quality mechanisms
requires time and effort (hence involves costs) but it helps us in reducing
errors and thus results in products with lower level of non conformance. Poor
quality means more product failure. Defect detection or prevention in the early
phases therefore reduces the rework costs incurred due to product failure.
When quality is poor, there are possibilities of both internal failure cost (costs
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
22
of failures that are detected before the product is shipped) and external failure
costs (costs of failures that occur or may occur after the product is shipped).
Failure implies that work will need to be done to repair the product. The later
the defect is detected, the higher the cost to fix it (Crosby, 1979).
To improve the quality the prevention costs (related to quality assurance
activities) and the appraisal costs (related to quality control activities) should
be incurred by the company. We can prevent the defects by putting in place
the processes that reduce the probability of defects getting into the product.
Quality planning, proper training of persons, setting up appropriate processes,
standards, templates, using suitable tools, having design reviews—all these
help to prevent defects. It is important to reduce the defects and catch them at
the early stage so rework cost and warranty claims in case defective product
is shipped out are minimized (Kishore and Naik , 2003).
All these activities related to the quality can only be done if the quality is
implemented with a true philosophy and mindset and culture change
according to principles and practices of TQM. Only then an organization is
able to introduce a quality program in the organization and make it a part of its
regular processes. As asserted by Fenghueih, et al, (1999) the maximum
benefits of ISO 9000 standards implementation in organizations can be
ascertained through adopting the principles and practices of TQM.
2.4. IMPORTANCE OF TQM IN AN ORGANIZATION
The local culture is quite apprehensive about quality and specially TQM,
but before going into further details let’s briefly get introduced to concepts and
philosophy of Total Quality Management (TQM). According to research
studies carried (Ross, 1994, Gulbro et al., 2000), all TQM Implementation
efforts are not met with success. This is because TQM requires varying
grounds for effective implementation, based on long term planning and zeal of
top management to pursue performance improvement. In case of SME the
chase to adopt TQM, has been slow as compared to large companies. One of
the reasons can be that SME focus mainly on ISO 9000 certification, and very
few SME have gone beyond that due to their internal culture issue and
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
23
resource constraints (Yusof, 1999). In our local software industry TQM word is
there but without the understanding of its true philosophy. In order to
successfully implement ISO 9000 a recommendation was given by a
Malaysian research study (Samat et al., 2008), that to gain maximum benefits
while doing ISO 9000 certification, SMEs should follow TQM principles and
philosophy.
2.4.1. CUSTOMER ORIENTATION WITH TQM
For continuous process improvement (CPI) in the quality of software
products the implementation of TQM philosophy plays an important role. TQM
is a customer oriented approach with a strong ingredient of customer
relationship management (CRM). CRM not only enhances the performance
and effectiveness of customer related processes but also creates a good
image in the minds of the customers. “In today’s dynamic era of globalization,
customer retention is only achieved through TQM and continuous
improvement” (Shahmoradi 2005). The organizations should strive for
meeting and exceeding customer’s current and future expectations in each
and every aspect (Kanji, 1998).
2.4.2. TOP MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT
World renowned quality gurus (Deming, Feigenbaum, Juran, Crosby and
Ishikawa) are all in agreement with one notion that, it is the management and
system that is behind the cause of poor quality and it is not due to workers.
For improving the quality of the products and staying competitive, companies
are keen to implement TQM. TQM Programs cannot be implemented without
the total and unprecedented support and full involvement of the leadership. It
is also implemented in the organization to increase the profit and also to
increase market share. TQM program provides a paradigm shift in
management philosophy for improving organization effectiveness (Lee, 2006).
By implementing TQM principles, not only it motivates the employees but also
gives new direction and quality guidelines to the company to achieve
continuous improvement through customer satisfaction (Sahraoui and
Sofiane, 2004). Top management gives direction to the organization and acts
as the driving force behind steering the organization towards achievement of
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
24
its goals and objectives through performance improvement and customer
satisfaction (Huq and Z., 2005) and (Rad and A.M.M., 2006 ). In order to
achieve TQM organizations need to change their behaviour toward quality by
creating true quality culture (Juran, 1988)b.
Training is another quality practice that is mostly ignored by the leadership
as it assumes that training is a cost. Whereas TQM emphasizes on
continuous and consistent organization wide learning. Learning induces
positive culture and by enhancing the skills of the workforce organizations can
have gains and add value to the business (Rad, 2005) .
2.5. SME QUALITY CULTURE
Small and Medium size Software Houses (SMSH) culture can be
referred to as behaviour of immaturity of organizations towards software
quality improvement that results in threats for unpredictable, inconsistent
and poor performance to deliver non conformant products to the customer.
SME and SMSH approach towards quality and its organizational culture
becomes a vital issue in the Performance of local markets, especially in
context of the prevailing attitude of leadership towards quality. A detailed
discussion is as follows.
Prerequisites of quality culture include change of attitude, beliefs, power
system, and mindset towards long term planning. TQM is the total
transformation of employee behaviour which bears quality sensitiveness
towards organizational culture (Huq, 2005) and (Rad, 2006). It is an old
saying that people always require business to work, and we have to go
through to our history which tells us that organizational culture tends people
should work towards achieving their common goals by being united
(Pennington, 2003).
According to Hofstede, (2001) Pakistan’s national culture depicts high
uncertainty avoidance, high power distance, high collectivism, high
masculinity and very low long term orientation. These behaviours challenge
TQM philosophy regarding long term planning. These characteristic can be a
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
25
major problem and resistance to change present local SME culture into quality
culture.
Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) culture can be referred to as
behaviour of SME towards software development that may results in threats
for SME performance. SME culture concept becomes a vital issue in the local
market as well as at the international level with the international standards for
process improvement not supporting SME culture. An organizational culture
can be broadly based on practices and basic values, and beliefs of the
organization (Hofstede, 2001). The concept of SMEs was introduced in
twentieth century and was adopted by the industries for specialized business
needs (Shoniregun, 2004). SMEs are mainly identified and branded by two
categories namely number of employees and annual turnover. According to a
Malaysian study by Saleh and Ndubisi (2006), SMEs in manufacturing
category have employees less than 150 or have annual sales turnover less
than $78 million. SMEs in services mainly Information & Communication
Technology (ICT) have full-time employees less than 50 and annual revenue
less than $15.6 million. 4
SMSH are facing change which is known as Information Technology (IT)
evolution because SMSH produce a large number of low cost software
products (Shoniregun, 2004). The SME criteria used in Europe typically
include employee population, turnover rate, resources and independence.
SMEs have 10-250 employees with an annual turnover of less than €40
million (Baskerville and Heje, 1999). The awareness of quality and
development process issues and available resources may discriminate SMEs
from Very Small Enterprises (VSE) with fewer than 25 employees (Habra et
al, 2007). According to Shoniregun (2004), Large enterprises usually use
predefined models like CMM, CMMI, ISO, and SPICE (also known as ISO/IEC
15504). Some extremely large enterprises have created their own reference
models. However, the structure and architecture of predefined international
models is incompatible and unable to coexist with SME. A biased model or a
4 These figures are given with respect to Malaysian manufacturing and service industry.
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
26
combination of some parts of models has been used in SME but at some
instances it affects project quality and cost schedules.
AN article by Habra et al., (2007) indicates that the SME software
processes rank very low relative to maturity scales of international process
models. Some small settings show obvious technical competence in their
local specific technical domain but global weakness of their software process
cannot be overlooked. The interdependence of maturity levels of processes
within the same organization is very imbalanced in such a way that very good
processes are combined with very low-level ones. High-quality practices are
often legally or contractually imposed customer–supplier relationship practices
which are considered as a burden rather than an asset by the organization
itself. Limited resources and cost constraints do not allow an organization to
penetrate across limited usage of available resources. SMEs are composed of
small teams, in some extant with lack of expertise so a lot of work burden is
already imposed on employees in such a way that they cannot perform
improvement tasks (Habra et al, 2007).
The quality of SME products is influenced by unawareness of quality
issues. A SME product reflects the implementation of poor quality control
procedures. The tight deadline for production tasks is a major cause that
prevents a product to be improved by quality improvement procedures. SMEs
have not adopted TQM in same extent as larger organizations (Richard
Baskerville and Heje, 1999). Quality issues are not addressed explicitly with a
real involvement of management (Montazemi, 2006). SME has flexibility to
take a quick turn toward new quality features and IT infrastructure which
remains stable (Habra et al, 2007).. The software life cycle is not completely
formalized in SMEs. Testing is usually considered to be the most important
phase after the development but testing is often shortened to meet deadlines
or because of lack of resources. The higher managers or management
authority have less familiarity with project management and project planning
that affects deadlines and quality. The resources devoted to employee
training and human resource practices are usually very limited due to budget
constraints. SME faces difficulties to impose a methodological approach. The
lack of risk management brings more complexity for quality control and project
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
27
management. SMEs lacks IT knowledge and technical skills because they
tend to have centralized structure and to employ generalist rather than
specialist workers. SME have less in the way of resources to absorb shocks
of unsuccessful investment ( Montazemi, 2006).
Process improvement efforts require investment such as budget, time,
training, task assignment and resources. It also requires sponsorship from top
executives and a good communication scheme to motivate the individuals
involved in the improvement endeavour. Due to high turnover rate and less
skilled employees who already have a bundle of work to do SME cannot put
their efforts in improvement tasks. Further challenges increase when an
organization wants to successfully carry out a process improvement project
based on ISO, CMM, CMMI or SPICE (Garcia et al., 2006).
SME needs to develop new ways of creating value and requires defined
enterprise architecture, a comprehensive IT infrastructures and diverse way of
thinking about doing business. A typical SME is looking for short-term
solutions to known problems with minimum investment, minimal disruption,
and quick demonstrable results (Miluk, 2006).
2.6. PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
In order to achieve excellence in software product development and to
produce reliable, efficient, maintainable and highly optimized software
products, the IT practitioners are becoming well aware of Quality improvement
and Software Process Improvement (SPI). The motivation behind these
quality oriented preventive practices is to reduce rework cost through
minimization of errors. This is the reason that SPI has become a separate
discipline and has gained utmost importance in the domain of software
engineering. It has resulted into introduction of new wave of products for
process modelling, evaluation and improvement (Boldyreff, Newman and
Taramaa, 1996).
Though these tools do help in managing processes and configuration
management of different standards but still these tools have issues in process
measurement, balancing, optimization and modelling of different processes. A
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
28
SPI model by the name of O-SPIM was developed by (Xiaoguang, et al,
2008), which was adaptive enough to cater process measurement and
management needs of multiproduct, multi-project organization-wide business
processes. This model supported comprehensively needs of SPI throughout
the software development life cycle. It also provided features for product and
resource balancing.
It is still argued that ISO 9000 is not suitable enough for SPI and a
rigorous and substantial approach towards SPI is required in terms of process
measurement and improvement. ISO 9000 can only be helpful to induce
quality awareness, as recorded by Stelzer, Mellis and Herzwurm, (1996).
Many practitioners have a wrong assumption that SPI can be made part of the
ongoing process quickly. According to Jansma P. A. (2005), converting to SPI
is a slow and adaptable journey which is acquired through experience
specially in software engineering scientific environment.
SPI efforts and goals must be aligned to performance measures which
should be linked directly with business goals and process technologies should
be adopted for effective automation process performance measurement and
management. SPI requires training and dedicated resources for process
tailoring and measurement. Management must stop practices for not
deploying fulltime resources for SPI, as in SMEs that deploy part time
resources all their efforts become futile (Shen and Ruan, 2008). As asserted
by (Tanaka T., et al, 1998), SPI and quality improvement starts from home.
Their team developed a “(High Quality software creation support virtual
Center (HQC)”, which first offered an in house service within organization for
SQI, SPI and automation of internal processes performance measurement.
After success HQC started offering services organization wide. A similar effort
was made by another team lead by (Basili’s) who gave us the Goal Question
Matrix (GQM), model for measuring targeted performance. GQM was based
on first deriving measures from performance goals and later developing
performance metrics based on the already developed measures to interpret
process performance results (Shull, Seaman, Zelkowltz , 2006).
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
29
Process reliability, productivity and quality are usually measured by human
perception in a poor quality environment. Preferably, an effective way to
measure process performance and quality is to first understand the process at
micro and macro levels and then use statistical measurement techniques and
automated software tools for data analysis (Siok and Tian 2007).
Many SMSHs started to work on process improvement projects but their
management is not putting full interest to continue these because of the after
effects to their enterprises and being expensive than the existing conventional
monitoring and management systems. Now the question arises to evaluate
the value of the revised process to be effectively implemented in
organizational change projects. According to study by Lee and Ahn that
evaluates process improvement from organizational change in the area of
resource utilization. In this regard some alternatives were explored like task
activity analysis, bottleneck analysis, cycle cost analysis and change resource
analysis in terms of human resource allocation, finance and time. It is
expected that new process must reduce the synchronization delay activities
and resource contention occurs. So this could be achieved if the evaluation of
business processes redesign is done organization wide (Lee S. and Ahn H.,
2008)
Business process modelling and improvement to make a successful
venture has been tried by many enterprises. Tabular Application Development
(TAD) an object oriented methodology, is another such effort which is
invaluable in developing efficient information systems. TAD has six different
phases and uses tables which represent sequences of events and are
understandable by the normal users. TAD is beneficial for business process
improvement and modelling (Dami. et al, 2008).
According to Sun and Liu (2010) to assess software processes
improvement is an expensive project and a lot of resources are required to
conduct it, therefore resource-light technologies are desirable in decision
making for improvement. A SPI framework integrating Quality Function
Deployment (QFD) with CMMI to achieve three major objectives is proposed.
It starts with mapping of process requirements including business
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
30
requirements to CMMI by using QFD. The method is based on QFD for
prioritization and integration of requirement from multiple perspectives and
SPI actions based on process requirement. This framework has a unique
feature that priority values of actions can be compared with process areas
(PAs).
2.7. SUMMARY
This chapter was divided into 3 sections. In the first section significance
of quality is explained with the help of first defining quality and importance of
quality that quality is a relative term and is judged differently by different
people according to their respective environment. At large all quality
classifications have commonality of following two characteristics: absence of
defects and meeting customer (product) requirements and needs. Quality is
further discussed in terms of quality of design, quality of conformance and
overall quality assurance. The second section highlights the importance of
TQM in organizations with an approach that TQM is a customer oriented
philosophy with a strong ingredient of customer relationship management and
long term planning and above all total management commitment. TQM
program provides a paradigm shift in management philosophy for improving
organizational business performance, effectiveness and over all
organizational improvement towards achieving goals through innovation and
CPI. In the third section importance of organizational culture and SME culture
is discussed to assert that it plays an important role in developing maturity,
learning and improvement in the business performance of SME.
Organizational quality culture groups people together with an orientation to
work towards achieving their common goals by being united. The idea is to
align all efforts towards achieving organizational set performance goals by
creating process synergy through TQM principles. In the end efforts in
process improvement are explored by citing different examples and lessons
learned during process improvement projects taken up by SMEs in the IT
sector. It is a global experience that all process improvement efforts demand
that top management to rethink quality and adopt quality religiously on
consistent basis. Management should adopt a policy to automate Quality
Management System (QMS) systems and train the work force in the domain
Chapter 2 Quality in SME
31
of quality improvement. Quality comes through experience and cannot be
improved in one go. Performance measurement of processes and tailoring of
processes requires dedicated resources which top management hesitates to
acquire. All measurements should be done through an automated tool or data
collection system, as human perception may cause issues and problems in
productivity and reliability of measures.
The analysis of literature review has revealed some gaps for SME
practices pertaining to TQM, Quality culture and process improvement
practices. The following set of guidelines is presented to fulfil these gaps and
enhance the performance of local SMSH.
Top management should guarantee total commitment and involvement
towards quality improvement activities. Employees should be involved in while
planning long term goals in order to improve employee involvement and
develop ownership. This will reduce employee turnover rate as change of
personal is the biggest risk for SME. SPI activities should be linked with
customer satisfaction and organizational goals, and top management should
prioritize to improve key process areas accordingly. Practices for short-
termism should be abolished and organization wide long term planning to be
done on continuous basis. Resources allocated on SPI should be full time
employees and process improvement activities should be considered as
investment as SPI will reap profits in the long run. All activities like process
measurement, data collection and process rating should be automated as
human perception is poor and inefficient as compared to automated process
measurement tools. Business process redesign should be carried out across
the organization to resolve the problems of resource contention which is the
biggest problem in SME. Process redesign will reduce the synchronization
delays in processes and hence improve overall effectiveness.
Chapter 3 Quality Models
32
CHAPTER 3- QUALITY MODELS
This chapter starts with introduction to evolution of quality models. It is
followed by a detailed discussion on the leading quality models for
implementation of quality improvement practices in the software industry. The
models under discussion are ISO 9001, CMM, CMMI, SPICE, PSP and TSP.
A detail structure of each model is presented along with strengths and
weaknesses of leading software quality models. Through critical analysis
comparison of each model with respect to SME environment is also
presented.
As per research structure the research question 2 is addressed in the
following section.
Question:2 “What are the different types of leading models of Software
Process Improvement (SPI) being practiced world wide as best practices
to improve software quality?
Since 1990’s the emphasis on managing the projects, quality standards and
software process models has increased. The IT industry feels that there
should be some international rules and regulations for the software houses to
built the quality product/service. Some of well known software quality models
are ISO 900: 2000, CMM, 5 CMMI 6 , SPICE, TSP and PSP. International
Standard Organization (ISO) established ISO 9001 generalized standards for
quality management systems suitable for industrial processes and it was more
popular in European countries (Darrel, 1994) and (Ibanez et al., 1996). Later
5 Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University. Capability Maturity Model Integration is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University
6 CMMI, CMM are registered with the US Patents and Trademarks Office by Carnegie Mellon University.
Chapter 3 Quality Models
33
in 1995 ISO and International Electro-technical Commission (ETC) jointly
released ISO/IEC 12207, a standard for information technology life cycle
processes. For information technology software process measurement
ISO/IEC 15939 was developed. British Standard Institute (BSI) initiated their
own standard guidelines to implement ISO 9001, and companies who satisfy
the BSI guidelines get ISO 9000/ TickIT certification (Sheard, 2001). Software
Engineering Institute (SEI) of Carnegie Mellon University developed a
framework for Department of Defence, USA, called Capability Maturity Model
(CMM). SW-CMM v.1.0 for software was released in 1991, which provided a
comprehensive framework with detailed description of processes for the
software development and system engineering (Paulk et al., 1991). Later after
having a detailed feedback from professionals in IT industry SEI rereleased
the final version 1.1 of SW-CMM in 1992 which was tailored according to the
increasing needs of the software industry (Paulk etal., 1993). The latest
version is Capability Model Integration ( CMMI) version 1.2 . (Paulk., 1994).
CMMI is a result of evolution of process areas from SW-CMM, the System
Engineering Capability model (SECM) and Integrated Product Development
CMM (IPD-CMM). CMMI team developed a cohesive set of processes to that
can be used by those who are using the source models and also those who
are new to CMMI, so that they can improve their products and services
(CMMI Team, 2006). CMMI also incorporates standard practices from ISO
9000, ISO/IEC 12207 and ISO/IEC 15288. In order to evaluate Maturity and
capability assessment it uses CMM-Based Appraisal for Internal Process
Improvement (CBA IPI), which is authorised by SEI lead assessor who
mediates the organization assessment through a rigorous self appraisal.
(Sheard, 2001). The evolution process of quality models development in the
fields of Engineering, Software, Information Technology and manufacturing
can be ascertained from the following map in FIGURE 2 given by Sheard,
(2001).
Chapter 3 Quality Models
34
FIGURE 2 EVOLUTION QUAGMIRE OF QUALITY MODELS
(Source: Sheard, (2001)).
These software process models help the organizations to put their
software development and management processes in place. They provide a
framework for the organizations for their quality journey. These software
process models stipulate the policies and processes that are adopted by the
organization to achieve its objectives through implementing Quality
Management System (QMS). All experts and gurus of quality like Crosby
(1979, Deming (1986) and Juran, (1988)b, totally agree on the notion that
implementation of quality standards, quality practices and QMS will make
organizations more competitive, reduce rework costs and minimize non
conformance. These models are increasingly adopted by organizations that
now believe in a ‘process-centric’ approach to execute successful projects
and build usable software products. Hyde and Wilson (2004) suggest that the
realization of intangible benefits to implement software improvement initiatives
is important and should be part of the top management concerns. The
Chapter 3 Quality Models
35
assumption is that by having better standards and processes, provided it is
ensured that standards are religiously practiced by the software practitioners,
output from these processes is assured. As Krasner (1994) also reasserts this
notion that investment in quality improvement will bring large profits and
biggest payoffs to organizations.
The basic aim of these software process models is to improve the
capability and enablement of the processes in the organization. By doing such
act the processes of the organization become mature and in return the
organization achieves the higher maturity levels. In addition typical software
management problems like delays, scope creep, incomplete requirements,
cost overruns and project risks are controlled and direction of organization’s
performance is geared towards growth. (Kishore and Naik, 2003) and
(Irigoyen et al., 2007). These software process models help the organization
to improve business performance provided there is a commitment from top
management, employees are motivated, quality management training and
education is administered and organization is focused towards internal and
external customer satisfaction at the work place (Porter and Parker, 1993)
and (Sila and Ebraimpour, 2002).
3.1 SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT MODELS
The rest of the chapter provides a brief introduction to ISO 9000: 2000,
CMM, CMMI, SPICE, TSP and PSP, and their suitability for Small and
Medium Software Houses (SMSH). It will be appropriate to compare the
structure and quality management life cycle of each model before going into
detailed discussion. A high level structure and architecture of these models is
given in the following chart.
Chapter 3 Quality Models
36
TABLE 1 Structure of Quality Models
3.1 INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ORGANIZATION (ISO9001:2000)
The ISO and the IEC (the International Electro technical Commission)
joined forces and put in place a joint technical committee, named Joint
Technical Committee 1 (ISO/IEC JTC1) with the following mandate:
“Standardization in the Field of Information Technology: Information
technology includes the specification, design, and development of systems
and tools dealing with the capture, representation, processing, security,
transfer, interchange, presentation, management, organization, storage, and
retrieval of information” (International Standard Organization, 1997). The
mandate of sub-committee SC7, within JTC1, is to standardize processes,
Chapter 3 Quality Models
37
supporting tools, and supporting technologies for the engineering of software
products and systems in the SMEs. In the SC7 standards, a number are
grouped together in a category called “Software and Systems Engineering
Processes”. These are standards describing good software and systems
engineering practices and their assessment. FIGURE 3 shows the high Archie
and inter relationship of these standards. Some of the significant standards
are: (Laporte and April, 2006)
• ISO/IEC 12207 Software Life Cycle Processes
• ISO/IEC 15288 Systems Life Cycle Processes
• ISO/IEC 15504 Software Process Assessment series
• ISO/IEC 90003 Guidelines for the Applications of ISO 9001 to
Computer Software.
FIGURE 3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KEY SC7 STANDARDS
(Source : Laporte and April, (2006)).
ISO/IEC 12207
&
ISO/IEC 15288
ISO 9001 &
ISO 90003
ISO/IEC 15504
Quality
MATUR I TY
Life Cycle
Chapter 3 Quality Models
38
ISO began in 1926 as the International Federation of National
Standardizing Association (ISA). ISO published its first standard in 1951.
Since then ISO has been developing technical standards suitable for all
industrial sectors with exception of electrical and electronic engineering
standards which are covered by International Electro-technical Commission
(IEC) and Information technology covered by joint committee (JTC1) between
ISO and IEC. ISO 9001:2000 QMS upgrade of ISO 9001-1994 and is
considered as a base for quality assurance (QA) in development, production,
installation, and maintenance in software .(Wadsworth et al, 2002).
The ISO family includes ISO 9002 for Quality Management in
production sector; ISO 9003 covers quality system for testing and inspection;
ISO 9004 is meant for developing quality management system and ISO 8402
is a comprehensive quality vocabulary that includes basic fundamental
definitions of quality terms (Paulk , 1994). The basic concern of the ISO 9001
is to manage the quality. This standard includes the definition of the quality,
quality management, quality management system. It is process oriented
framework and provides the ways that how the organization define its
processes and how to manage them properly. According to Claude et al.,
(2006).study, research committee on very small enterprises (VSEs) findings, it
was observed that process priorities of SMEs are different than that of large
organizations. For example consistency across teams for SMEs is at lesser
priority than larger organizations similarly SMEs have different priorities to
implement ISO 9000 processes as compared to large organizations.
The year 2008 version 4 of ISO 900:2000 standard is ISO 9001:2008.
It has five main clauses against which the conformance is checked. These
specify the requirements for the Quality Management System (QMS) of the
organization. The five clauses are: (International Standard organization,
2008)b.
Quality management system (QMS) specifies that there needs to be a
quality management system. It specifies the requirements for establishing
Chapter 3 Quality Models
39
the QMS and documentation including the way documents will be
controlled.
Management responsibility covers aspects like management commitment,
customer focus, quality policy, planning, responsibility, authority and
communication and management review. Essentially, through this clause,
the standard ensures that management is committed to and drives quality
by establishing policy and objectives, by focusing on quality and by
planning for quality.
Resource management specifies that the organization has to determine
and provide the recourses needed for implementing the quality
management system effectively and achieving customer satisfaction.
Product realization is the process that converts input requirements into
products and services and achieves customer satisfaction. In a software
organization, this would include processes for software development,
project management, tools and methodologies.
Measurement, analysis and improvement cover measurement, analysis
and improvement. Measurement and analysis are required to check
product conformity to the QMS. They also enable continuous improvement
of the effectiveness of the quality management system.
3.1.1 ISO 9000 STRENGHTS
The benefits and successes factors of using ISO in SMEs are:
• High level management support.
• Training investments.
• The existence of a process group engaged with the results and
confident in future benefits.
• Communication establishment with all stakeholders.
Chapter 3 Quality Models
40
• Dissemination of process culture.
• Maintenance of software engineering knowledge inside the
organization aiming to make the project team more independent
(Ferreira et al., 2006).
The ISO 9001:2000 version is a software process model for software
quality improvement. The QMS is a process management model for
managing all processes of an organization. Some members of the
international standard community assert that a careful insight into ISO 9001
does reflect continuous process improvement (Paulk, 1995). ISO has the
international recognition and appeal. ISO highlights development, supply and
maintenance of the software and provides the freedom for the
implementation. ISO checks the quality control activity and assures the quality
of the product/service through quality of the processes. In order to make
implementation of ISO 9000 more practical in software industry the standard
was documented explicitly for software firms by a British guide called TickIT,
(1992), provides additional information on using ISO 9000-3 and 9001 in the
software arena.
3.1.2 ISO 9000 WEAKNESSES
Besides strengths, ISO standard still has few weaknesses because:
ISO describes a brief process model for software organizations and offers a
certification which can be achieved within few months. ISO takes the first
step and breaks new ground for software development field so it has many
missing details to be covered, like the issue of the decision analysis and
resolution, no details about the organizational training, risk management and
performance measurement. All the analysis is done casually. There is a main
concern that these large models do not work in small settings such as for IT
companies with less than 15-20 employees. ISO nor CMM give explicit
requirement for the human resource (Grunmbacher, 1997).
Initial versions of ISO 9001provide no information for the organization
assets such as the repository and database. Also does not cover quantitative
project management and the organizational innovation and deployment.
Chapter 3 Quality Models
41
According to Demiriirs (1998) the following main weaknesses and
limitations of ISO 9000 and CMM implementation evolved during the study of
software houses in SMEs.
• Lack of guidance to implement QMS in IT firms.
• Lack of expertise in quality improvement missing in small settings.
• Lack of knowledge and quality management experience among
consultants in IT firms.
• Lack of maturity and long term commitment in QMS processes due to
small size of organizations, as in case of CMM in order to reach
Maturity Level 4-5, it will take five to six years.
• No motivation among senior managers to concentrate on process
improvement activities.
3.2 CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL
Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a comprehensive model for the
software organizations. It describes the principles and practices underlying
the maturity of software process. It provides help to software organization to
improve the maturity of their software processes in terms of an evolutionary
path from ad- hoc chaotic processes to mature, qualified and disciplined
software processes. It is basically based on the concept of process maturity
and levels of maturity. It is a staged model that defines the capability maturity
levels to assess the standing of the organization. CMM focus is on identifying
Key Process Areas (KPA) and the exemplary practices that may comprise a
disciplined software process where each stage acts as a foundation to
propagate to continuous Process Improvement (CPI) (Paulk at al, 1993).
In 1987, in collaboration with Department of Defence, the Software
Engineering Institute (SEI) with assistance from MITRE Corporation, started
developing a quality improvement framework based on 5 Maturity levels. In
1987 this quality improvement framework was implemented on a student
project and its findings were documented by Humphrey, (1989). The model is
known as a Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for software which evolved after
four years of extensive feedback and assessment from Industry and Defence
Chapter 3 Quality Models
42
Department. (Paulk, 1991). CMM practices are designed to help an
organization to set process improvement strategies by focusing on limited
KPA to steadily improve and achieve process capability and process maturity.
Process capability defines the range of expected results to be achieved.
Process maturity means that the organization's software process is well
defined, managed, controlled and effective. Key Practices (KP) describe the
activities to implement a KPA. CMM maturity levels define a hierarchy to
measure the development capability or maturity of an organization's quality
process. Each level focuses on one important quality practice of a process.
Achieving maturity level results in an increase in the quality improvement
capability of the software process. Common features measure key practices
associated with each process area, based on its ability, performance and
measurement and analysis (Biberoglu and Haddad, 2002) and (Paulk, 1995).
CMM Maturity Levels are discussed in many articles and case studies
including: (Paulk,1994), (Emam and Jung, 2001), (Herbsleb, 1997), (Lawlis et
al.,199 and (Clark,1997).
• Level 0- Incomplete Processes: Absence of processes or general
failure to achieve process objectives. No process to product realization.
• Level 1-The Initial Level: Performed Processes. The first and the
lowest level in CMM is the Initial level. At this point organizations have
few or no processes. Successes are mainly due to individual initiative
and effort and processes that may exist are given a go-bye in crisis.
The outcome of a project is therefore unpredictable.
• Level 2-The Repeatable Level: Managed Processes. At repeatable
level, the processes are followed at the project level for various
software project management functions and their performance is
planned and tracked through a documented process.. At this level,
since the project management processes are in place, the organization
is ‘disciplined’ and processes are expected to repeat successful
practices as done in similar projects.
• Level 3-The Defined Level: Established Processes. At this level, the
organization defines processes for software engineering and
Chapter 3 Quality Models
43
management are standardized across the organization. Tailoring
guidelines are developed to create project defined software processes
and activities become stable and repeatable for implementing them
organization-wide.
• Level 4-The Managed Level: Predictable Processes. It is reached
when the organization uses quantitative goals for managing.
Quantitative goals are set for software products and processes, using
an organization-wide measurement program. The level involves a
quantitative understanding of process capability and using this to
manage processes. Variation in process performance is tracked and
risks are identified and managed.
• Level 5-The Optimizing Level: Optimized Processes. It is the
highest maturity level of the CMM. At this level, the organization
improves continuously, setting new goals and responding to new
technologies and challenges. Processes are cost-effective and are
improved over time to meet the organization needs. At this highest
level, the process performance is measured for continuous process
improvement to verify whether the changes in the processes are
providing the expected benefits.
3.2.1 CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL AND SME
Capability Maturity Model (CMM) from Software Engineering Institute
has been used successfully by many organizations for software process
improvement. The success and the failure of CMM based SPI depends on
management control and strategy. The practices and the results of applying
the CMM as a software process improvement model are differing between
small organizations and large organizations (Biberoglu and Haddad, 2002).
The inherent CMM philosophy for SPI IN CMM is that it helps an
organization identify process weaknesses and technical areas where
improvements are needed.. And that’s how organizations leap to higher
maturity levels (Cattaneo et al, 1995).
Chapter 3 Quality Models
44
CMM does represent a broad consensus of the software community
but it does not guarantee that software products will be successfully built and
all problems in software engineering will be adequately resolved. The CMM
based company might need to apply Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
before employing CMM-based SPI. In small businesses and small
organizations the availability of resources and personnel are the most obvious
problems in applying CMM. It is a possibility to have transition from CMM to
ISO 9000 (Jalote, 1999) as CMM-based process improvement practices are
not suitable for small businesses as such practices are initially intended for
large organizations. One widely known criticism is CMM's lack of formal
theoretical basis because it is based on experience rather than formal
theories (Biberoglu and Haddad, 2002). Inappropriate process tailoring can
cause the software process not to comply with the organizational standard
process or with international standards such as CMM (Pedreira et al., 2007).
The CMM also does not provide adequate descriptions for customer
configuration updating, which is explained by the fact that the CMM does not
focus on product software specifically, (Jansen and Brinkkemper, 2006).
There exists a disconnection between business goals and maturity levels. A
new framework using Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is developed to
deal with this problem. One of the major short comings is that CMM
addresses “what to do” while leaving “how to do” to organizations. Therefore,
some methodology is needed to transform CMM activities into actions which
are detailed enough to follow by software engineers. May be a tutorial like
(TikIT) can be developed for CMM for SMEs. In addition, the process
improvements actions are directly related to process requirements but do not
consider throughout the workflow (Liu et al., 2005).
One of the characteristics of CMM is to help an organization identify
process weaknesses and technical areas where improvements are needed. In
CMM, a particular improvement process has to be practiced at certain level.
As the maturity level increases, the time spent on paper work decreases,
(Biberoglu and Haddad. 2002). The Capability Maturity Model (CMM)
summarizes the best practices for software development, and represents the
Chapter 3 Quality Models
45
mainstream in software engineering (Pedreira et al., 2007). CMM has been
working so well in many organizations that they do not have plans to replace
CMM with CMMI immediately (Liu et al., 2005).
3.3 CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL INTEGRATION
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is a simplified
representation of global software engineering processes for software industry.
CMMI is an upgraded version of CMM and a product of SEI. It is a collection
of effective processes with one or more bodies of knowledge for organizations
and industries. It is not description of processes. It provides guidance to
process development and process improvement. Process improvement
increases process and service quality when it applies to get business
objectives. According to SEI, (2010) official website, “CMMI can be used to
guide process improvement across an organization. It helps to integrate
organizational functions, set process improvement goals and priorities,
provide guidance for quality processes, and provide more visibility into
organizational activities and links the activities with business objectives”. It
helps to ensure that products and services meet customer expectations.
CMMI is a radical and innovative process improvement technology that
inculcates capability to organization human resource to adopt sudden change
in environment, technology or business processes (Garcia, 2003). It improves
quality and process by splitting up functional processes from quality
processes. In spirit this model’s philosophy is based on management and
controls and aligns the function of three entities which are tools, processes
and people. (CMMI Team , 2006)
CMMI is a framework to evaluate and describe an organization's
software development process, benchmarks with industry standards and
helps the organization towards Continuous Process Improvement (CPI).
CMMI processes are based on best practices adopted by industry in the area
of project management and software engineering. By this model the
organization can effectively tackle quality improvements and business
performance. CMMI is designed to help an organization improve processes
Chapter 3 Quality Models
46
and align them with performance goals. CMMI is not expensive model to
adopt but has high costs due to its training needs and assessment fees. Even
the level of its trainings is very abstract and one really needs to be creative to
make it applicable to SMSHs. CMMI comes in two basic representations:
staged and continuous. There is still a need of guidelines from SEI how to
implement CMMI for small firms (Beth et al., 2004).
3.3.1 CMMI STAGED AND CONTINUOUS
The CMMI v1.2 (CMMI, 2006) presents staged and continuous
representation to achieve business objectives. Each representation has
different advantages and disadvantages according to organization objectives.
The components of both the staged and continuous representations are
process areas, specific goals and specific practices. The specific goals and
specific practices are listed within each process area. The specific goals
organize specific practices and the generic goals organize generic practices.
CMMI enables process improvement approach and appraisals using
continuous and staged representations. The continuous representation
enables an organization to select a process area (or group of process areas)
and improve processes related to it. This representation uses capability levels
to characterize improvement relative to an individual process area. The
staged representation uses predefined sets of process areas to define an
improvement path for an organization. This improvement path is characterized
by maturity levels. Each maturity level provides a set of process areas that
characterize different organizational behaviours (CMMI Team , 2006).
CMMI has been developed to solve the problem of using multiple CMM
models for different areas of application. While the basic ideas remain the
same in CMM and CMMI, the primary difference is that the process
improvements are designated to individual Key Process Areas (KPA) rather
than the whole process especially in the continuous model of CMMI (Liu et al.,
2005).
Chapter 3 Quality Models
47
The continuous representation uses six capability levels. The
continuous representation groups process areas by affinity categories and
designates capability levels for process improvement within each process
area. It allows to select the order of improvement and mitigates risk areas of
an organization. It enables comparisons across and among organizations on
a process area by process area basis or by comparing results through the use
of equivalent staging. In the continuous representation, capability levels
provide a recommended order for approaching process improvement within
each process area. At the same time, the continuous representation allows
some flexibility to improve different processes at different rates and also
increases visibility of the process capability in each. (CMMI Team , 2006),
SEI (Beth M. C., et al, 2004)
The staged representation uses five maturity levels to support and
guide process improvement. The staged representation groups process areas
by maturity level, indicating which process areas to implement to achieve
each maturity level. Maturity levels represent a process-improvement path
illustrating improvement evolution for the entire organization pursuing process
improvement. It provides a proven sequence of improvements, beginning with
basic management practices and progressing through a predefined and
proven path of successive levels, each serving as a foundation for the next. It
permits comparisons across and among organizations by the use of maturity
levels and provides an easy migration from the SW-CMM to CMMI. It builds
an archive of use with the help of case studies to demonstrate Return on
Investment (ROI). IT supports organizations who want to improve their
product line across the board. SEI, (CMMI Team., et al, 2006).
CMMI is a framework that is developed with experience and maturity of
the organization therefore there is no shortcut for attaining CMMI assessment
qualification within months or days. In the SEI findings according to Siviy and
Forrester, (2004) moving from CMMI maturity Level-3 to Level- 5 takes a
duration of 9 months, and from Maturity Level-1 to Maturity Level-5 it may
take 3 years or more. A typical move from one level to subsequent level on
the average takes 12-18 months per level. According to McHale (2008) for
Chapter 3 Quality Models
48
organizations that began their CMMI-based SCAMPI effort in 2002 or later,
the median time to move from:
•From Maturity Level 1 to 2 = 4 months
•From Maturity Level 2 to 3 = 17 months
• From Maturity Level 3 to 4 = 15.5 months
• From Maturity Level 4 to 5 = 12.5 months
3.3.2 CMMI STAGED MATURITY LEVELS
The CMMI v1.2 staged representation, like its predecessor, describes five
distinct Maturity Levels to those organization who choose staged
representation : (Beth M. C., et al, 2004). A maturity level is a layer framework
based on standard and specific practices for organizational process
improvement. Each maturity level matures a specific process area of the
organization’s processes, systemizing it to excel to next maturity level. The
maturity level of an organization presents a way to foresee overall process
performance in a given discipline or process areas (CMMI Team, 2006).
1.Maturity Level 1 (initial) represents a process maturity characterized by
unpredictable results. Ad hoc approaches, methods, notations, tools, and
reactive management translate into a process dependent predominantly on
the skills of the team to succeed. Performance is not stable and processes
are not stable.
2. Maturity Level 2 (managed) represents a process maturity characterized
by repeatable project performance. The organization uses foundation
disciplines for requirements management; project planning; project monitoring
and control; supplier agreement management; product and process quality
assurance; configuration management and measurement/analysis. For
Maturity Level 2, the key process focus is on project-level activities and
practices.
Chapter 3 Quality Models
49
3. Maturity Level 3 (defined) represents a process maturity characterized by
improving project performance within an organization. Consistent, cross-
project disciplines for Maturity Level 2 key process areas are emphasized to
establish organization-level activities and practices. Additional organizational
process areas include:
Requirements development: multi-stakeholder requirements evolution.
Technical solution: evolutionary design and quality engineering.
Product integration: continuous integration, interface control, change
management.
Verification: assessment techniques to ensure that the product is built
correctly.
Validation: assessment techniques to ensure that the right product is built.
Risk management: detection, prioritization, and resolution of relevant
issues and contingencies.
Organizational training: establishing mechanisms for developing more
proficient people.
Organizational process focus: establishing an organizational framework for
project process definition.
Decision analysis and resolution: systematic alternative assessment.
Organizational process definition: treatment of process as a persistent,
evolving asset of an organization.
Integrated project management: methods for unifying the various teams
and stakeholders within a project.
4. Level 4 (quantitatively managed) represents a process maturity
characterized by improving organizational performance. Historical results for
Maturity Level 3 projects can be exploited to make tradeoffs, with predictable
results, among competing dimensions of business performance (cost, quality,
timeliness). Additional Level 4 process areas include:
Organizational process performance: setting norms and benchmarks for
process performance.
Chapter 3 Quality Models
50
Quantitative project management: executing projects based on statistical
quality-control methods.
5. Maturity Level 5 (optimized) represents a process maturity characterized
by rapidly reconfigurable organizational performance as well as quantitative,
continuous process improvement. Additional Maturity Level 5 process areas
include:
Causal analysis and resolution: proactive fault avoidance and best practice
reinforcement.
Organizational innovation and deployment: establishing a learning
organization that organically adapts and improves.
The Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement
(SCAMPI) provides detailed ratings of strengths and weaknesses relative to
the CMMI models. It helps the organization to improve their processes by
setting the priorities and focusing only on improvements that match the
business goals. It can also be used for transitioning or benchmarking to other
frameworks like CMMI to CMM or ISO Platforms (CMM, 1999).
3.3.3 CMMI CAPABILITY LEVELS FOR CONTINEOUS REPRESENTATION
To support organizations that use Continuous representation, CMMI
provides Capability levels which have flexibility to improve a specific process
area within an organization. In order to attain a certain Capability Level an
organization has to satisfy the generic goals and generic practices of a
Capability level in that specific process area. CMMI provides six Capability
Level from 0 through 5 in the following order (CMMI TEAM, 2006).
1. CAPABILITY LEVEL 1 ( PERFORMED PROCESS) is characterised to
satisfy specific goals of a process area. It supports the effort needed to
produce artefacts but it lacks institutionalization.
2. CAPABILITY LEVEL 2 (MANAGED PROCESS) is a performed process
but it is institutionalized and basic infrastructure is in place to enable the
process. Process is planned, Skilled resources are deployed and output is
Chapter 3 Quality Models
51
controlled. Training is provided and relevant stake holders are involved
and process is monitored, controlled and reviewed;
3. CAPABILITY LEVEL 3 (DEFINED) is a managed (capability level 2)
process which is tailored according to the organization’s tailoring
guidelines or process descriptions, standards and procedures are
modified according to specific project or department needs and tailored
process is part of organizational process library. Process is defined,
consistent and applied according to organizational standards.
4. CAPABILITY LEVEL 4 (QUANTITATIVELY MANAGED): Organization
wants to gain more visibility into processes and in order to managed and
control the processes organization uses quantitative and statistical
techniques.. Process performance becomes the driving force behind
achieving business goals through competitive approach.
5. CAPABILITY LEVEL 5 (OPTIMIZED PROCESSES): Process variations
in selected process areas are quantitatively managed and in control and
process is in stable state. Causes of variations are minimized and process
performance is controlled and optimized for only those processes which
are critical in achieving organizational goals and objectives. Process
optimization is an incremental CPI process through innovation and
learning.
3.3.4 CMMI LIMITATIONS
Findings of report from SEI (Beth et al., 2004) give the following limitations
of CMMI in small settings:-
• CMMI fits only large scale projects and is too risky for small projects.
• A considerable effort has to be done to make CMMI applicable for
SMEs.
• Difficult to implement in SMEs as information is too large to absorb.
• CMMI is detailed model and it is difficult to scale it down for small
projects.
• It is a good model for improvement but SMEs will require a cook book
to start.
Chapter 3 Quality Models
52
3.3.5 CMMI STRENGTHS
The CMMI is at the forefront of process improvement because it
provides the latest best practices for product and service development and
maintenance. The CMMI models improve upon the best practices of previous
models in many important ways. CMMI strengths to follow the best practices
which enable organizations to do the following:
CMMI is more templates oriented and has disciplined environment due
to that it is adopted worldwide. CMMI provides a rich usable set of best
practices that can be the basis for accurate and reliable process
assessments. CMMI encourages the improvement throughout the enterprise
and helps the organizations consider full product development life cycle.
Training course for CMMI is available for both the staged and continuous
representations. CMMI is providing the better predictability and greater
efficiency, ultimately leading to lower costs and more satisfied customers.
CMMI more explicitly links management and engineering activities to business
objectives. CMMI ensures that the products and services meet the customer
expectations. It implements more robust high-maturity practices. CMMI also
addresses additional organizational functions critical to its products and
services. CMMI is an integrated model based on consulting and assessment
service. CMMI has strategic alignment of process for better business
performance (CMMI Team , 2006).
3.3.6 CMMI WEAKNESS
Besides all the strengths there are some weaknesses in CMMI. CMMI
was invented to help military officers quickly assess and to deliver correct
software on time, however it failed to address implementation issues of other
organizations. CMMI works better for the large organizations than the small
ones due to its rigid requirements for documentation and step by step
progress. CMMI missed to tell how to implement improvements in the
software development, it merely indicates they are needed. CMMI models are
not themselves processes or even process descriptions. Its processes failed
to map one-to-one with organizational processes which are depended on
Chapter 3 Quality Models
53
many factors including application domain(s) and organization structure and
size. Its measurement behaviour is, in practice, easy to recognize but difficult
to develop. CMMI has projected role as a tool for continuous improvement but
there is still need of the process tools for benchmark process area capability
and organizational maturity. There is no explicit requirement for the customer
focus, customer satisfaction and customer property. Also there is no
management representative for quality management and control of monitoring
and measuring devices. CMMI does not discuss about infrastructure like
building, work place and equipment (Pedreira .et al., 2007).
3.4 SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT & CAPABILITY DETERMINATION (SPICE)
Software Process Improvement Capability determination (SPICE) is
process assessment and process improvement model developed by the
telecommunication field process (Rout et al., 2007). . Beside the assessment
it is an effective and good driver for the process improvement. This purposed
standard provides the software development organization a tool to initiate and
sustain a continuous process improvement. Software development can be
aligned with and support the business needs of the organization. SPICE
provides the framework that defines all aspects of conducting assessments.
The process is examined by the assessment, which leads to capability
determination. Capability determination which identifies the capability and risk
of the processes. Process assessment also leads to processes improvement,
which identifies changes to the process (Rout et al., 2007).
The foremost thread of Software Process Improvement and Capability
determination (SPICE) is the assessment of a software process in context of a
structured process model that serves as yardstick. It is a project to support the
development, validation and transition into use of an International Standard
for software process assessment. The SPICE is a project of a joint Technical
Subcommittee between International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
and International Electro-technical Committee (IEC). The initial set of working
draft documents was developed by SPICE during 1993 to 1995 as a ballot
process. The first version, ISO/IEC TR 15504 of the SPICE was released as a
Chapter 3 Quality Models
54
Technical Report in 1998. The SPICE efforts have resulted in the publication
of ISO/ICE 15504 in 2003-06 which is a five part standard for software
process assessment. (Rout et al, 2007) .SPICE provides a disciplined
technique to examine the processes used by organizations against a set of
criteria to determine the capability of those processes to perform within
quality, cost and schedule goals. The initial work of SPICE was focused on
interview technique to bring out evidence from practitioners about process
performance. The assessment results from interview technique had limited
use of documentary forms of evidence (Rout et al, 2007).
Generally SPICE provides the framework for the assessment of the
software processes. It can be used by the organizations for the following
purpose which involves the planning, managing, monitoring, controlling and
improving the acquisition, supply, development, operation, evolution and
support of software. It is used in two contexts, for process improvement and
the supplier evaluation. According to Habra et al., 2007 the most commonly
used models for software process improvement and assessment are CMMI
SM (SEI, 2002) and the ISO/IEC-15504, which is a standard of the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (ISO/EC, 2006),
commonly known as SPICE.
This process assessment examines the organization processes to
determine whether they are efficient for achieving their goals. The
assessment characterizes the current practice in terms of capability of the
selected process. Its results are further used in the process improvement
activities or process capability determination by analyzing the result according
to the business need, identify strengths, weaknesses and the risks inherited
by the processes. This will lead to find out the output of the process whether
it’s achieving its goal, to identify significant cause of the poor quality, over
runs in time and cost. These will provide the ways to improve the processes.
The assessment includes the assessment process, model for assessment,
tools and success factors. For the successful assessment the assessor must
have suitable level of relevant skills like personal qualities, relevant education,
Chapter 3 Quality Models
55
training, experience, management skills in capability assessment (Arent et
al., 2000 ).
The SPICE Model is European equivalent of CMMI used for the
purpose of software process capability assessment. CMMI is generic model
whereas SPICE is software oriented. SPICE Model is built on three process
pillars namely Process Improvement, Process Assessment and Process
Capability determination. Spice depicts five levels of process capability which
are similar to CMMI Maturity Levels namely Not Performed, Performed
Informally, Planned and Tracked, Defined, Quantitatively Controlled and
Continuously Improving levels. (White Paper, 2003)
The main purpose is to provide structured approach to the software
process assessment which involves the organization to improve its own
processes and to determine its capability for the particular requirement. Also
acquire to determine a supplier’s capability for particular requirement. The
SPICE component has nine parts and each part has its own task to perform in
order to determine the capability of the processes of the organization. These
are briefly explained below (Emam and Jung, 2001).
Part 1: Concepts and introductory guide
It is an entry point into SPICE. It guides to select and use of SPICE
parts and their requirements and applicability of assessment.
Part 2: A reference model for process and process capability
Defines two dimensional reference model that identifies a set of
processes in terms of their purpose and a framework for evaluating
capability of processes through assessment of process attribute
structured into capability levels. (ISO/IEC 15504) , (Jung, 2005)
Part 3: Performing an assessment
It defines a framework for conducting an assessment, and sets out the
basis for rating, scoring and profiling process capabilities, and how to
get reliable outcomes.
Chapter 3 Quality Models
56
Part 4: Guide to conducting assessment
It leads to select and use of an assessment model. It is generic for all
organizations that perform assessment using different methods and
tools.
Part 5: An assessment model and indicator guidance
It provides a prototype model for performing an assessment that is
compatible with reference model.
Part 6: Guide to competency to assessors
It describes the relevant competence, education, training and
experience of assessors.
Part 7: Guide for use in process improvement
It provides the guidance for process improvement by using results of
process assessment for the purposes of process improvement. It is
also supported by relevant case studies.
Part 8: Guide for use in determining supplier process capability
It provides the guidance for process capability determination by using
results of process assessment. . It addresses process capability
determination in both straightforward situations and in more complex
situations involving constructed or future capability. It is also supported
by relevant examples.
Part 9: Vocabulary
It is a consolidated vocabulary of all terms defined in SPICE. SPICE
defines a reference model (ISO/IEC 15504: Part 2) for process capability
determination. It is a two dimensional reference model enclosing both process
and capability. The associated software processes are classified into five
categories in process dimension and capability dimension comprises of 6
capability levels (0 – 5) indicating Process Attributes (PAs). PAs are
Chapter 3 Quality Models
57
applicable to any process with measurable characteristics necessary to
manage a process and to improve its performance capability. “An ISO/IEC
15504 assessment is applied to an Organizational Unit (OU) (ISO/IEC 15504:
Part 9). An OU is the whole or part of an organization that owns and supports
the software process.” According to ISO/IEC 15504 (Part 2, 5), the capability
TABLE 2 OVERVIEW OF SPICE CAPABILITY LEVELS Capability Level Description of Capability Level and Process Area Level 0 There is general failure to attain the purpose of process. Incomplete Process
Level 1 Performed Process
Process Performance : The purpose of process is generally achieved without planning and tracking. There are identifiable input work products that testify to achieve output work products.
Level 2 Performance management: The performance of the process
is planned, tracked and managed. The process delivers work products of acceptable quality, conform to specified standards and objectives.
Managed Process
Work product management: Process performance is documented, managed and controlled to produce work products.
Level 3 Process definition: The process is performed and managed using a defined definition. Individual implementations of the process use approved, tailored version of standard and documented processes to achieve outcome.
Established process
Process resource: The extent to which processes utilize appropriate resources to deploy the processes in order to achieve out comes.
Level 4 Process Measurement: The process is quantitatively understood and controlled. Process performance is measured to achieve process and business goals. The detailed measures of performance are collected and analyzed continuously.
Predictable process
Process control: Extent to which process remains within control limits through continuous process measurement to achieve process and product goals.
Level 5 Process change: Change management process is controlled to achieve optimized Process performance to meet the business and process improvement goals.
Optimizing process
Continuous improvement: Extent to which changes to process are managed and controlled through continuous improvement to fulfil business goals of organization. Continuous process monitoring against defined goals is enabled by obtaining quantitative feedback and improvement and analysis of results.
Chapter 3 Quality Models
58
level of each process instance is determined by rating PAs. Table 1
elaborates the capability levels and process attributes. (Jung, 2005) and
(Emam and Jung, 2001).
Each PA is measured by an ordinal rating ‘F’ (Fully Achieved), ‘L’
(Largely Achieved), ‘P’ (Partially Achieved), or ‘N’ (Not Achieved) that
represents the extent of achievement of the attribute as defined in ISO/IEC
15504: Part 2. In the process dimension, the processes associated with
software are defined and classified into five categories known as the
Customer-Supplier (CUS), Engineering (ENG), Support (SUP), Management
(MAN), and Organization (ORG). The above dimensions of SPICE were
reported by (Jung, 2004), (Emam and Jung, 2001).
3.4.1 STRENGTHS OF SPICE
SPICE can be used to inform process improvement within a technology
organization. Process improvement is always difficult, and initiatives often fail,
so it is important to understand the initial baseline level, and to assess the
situation after an improvement project. SPICE provides a standard for
assessing the organization's capacity to deliver at each of these stages.
In particular, the reference framework of SPICE provides a structure for
defining objectives, which facilitates specific programmers to achieve these
objectives. Process improvement is the subject of part 7 of SPICE.
There are few benefits of the SPICE which include: (Emam and Jung,
2001).
For acquirers: An ability to determine the current and potential capability
of a supplier's software processes.
For suppliers: An ability to determine the current and potential capability
of their own software processes; An ability to define areas and priorities for
software process improvement; A framework that defines a road map for
software process improvement.
Chapter 3 Quality Models
59
For assessors: A framework that defines all aspects of conducting
assessments.
The techniques of assessment are flexible enough that SPICE can be
adopted by small and large organizations. Its techniques can be extended to
include the quantitative measures for monitoring improvement of processes.
The use of process assessment encourages the culture of constant
improvement and develops the proper ways to support that culture. SPICE
helps to meet business requirements by engineering the processes and
optimizes the resources. SPICE helps the organization to satisfy the
customer, minimize the full life time cost, and maximize the responsiveness to
customer and market requirements. Software suppliers only submit just one
process assessment scheme where as presently numerous schemes are
used. SPICE not only beats the change management for improvement but
also provides the process capability determination at every single process of
change effected in software process. SPICE provides the basis in the
organization to assess and evaluate their limited area of software
development. The organization has the tool to initiate and sustain a
continuous process improvement. The programme managers can ensure that
their software development is aligned and supported by the needs of the
organization. SPICE has taken the initiative to support small companies.
SPICE is supported by the international community (Jung, 2004), (Emam and
Jung, 2001).
3.4.2 WEAKNESSES OF SPICE
SPICE has some weaknesses too. These are:
SPICE is not the framework to set out the specific standards, it only
assesses the capability provided by the organization's defined process
definitions and management commitment. SPICE is not a methodology, it sets
out a list of activities but does not set out the order in which the activities
should be carried out. It is expensive and not readily available for
implementation. (Emam and Jung, 2001).
Chapter 3 Quality Models
60
3.5 PERSONAL SOFTWARE PROCESS
The employee’s personal skills and abilities to manage work crisis
largely determine the results of software development process. It is a
challenge for top management to improve personal performance of an
employee. The personal performance of an employee is very important
because the personnel’s cost constitutes 70 percent of the cost of software
development (Lakha, 1994). Personal Software Process (PSP) is a disciplined
and structured methodology to software development for an individual. It
evaluates the personnel skills and provides a regimented approach to improve
personnel performance. (Pomeroy-Huff et al., 2005) It edifies employees
about managing projects quality, make commitments they can meet, improve
planning abilities, how to define process, measure quality and productivity
and reduce defects in their products. PSP deals with individual employees.
According to Mike Grasso in a seminar, PSP can be applied to many parts of
the organization including small program development (SEI, 2010)b, (Hayes
1997) and (Grasso, 2005). Personal software processes can also be applied
to SME due to small size of the organization and small nature of the project
that are usually done in SME.
The Personal Software Process (PSP), is a product of SEI developed
by Watts Humphrey. This methodology is meant to bring discipline,
consistency and efficiency into software project development for achieving
high quality product output in a small program development environment. It
helps the IT practitioners to manage quality at work place and make capable
commitments for project deadlines that they can meet (Ferguson et al., 1997).
According to Pomeroy-Huff et al. (2009) PSP follows a process level hierarchy
namely Planning, Design, Code, Testing and Post-mortem.
Chapter 3 Quality Models
61
TABLE 3 PSP Process Hierarchy
3.6 TEAM SOFTWARE PROCESS
The Team Software Process (TSP), developed at the SEI, is designed to
facilitate superior performance of software development teams in SMEs. The
TSP along with the Personal Process Software (PSP) helps the high
performance engineer to ensure quality software products and improve
process management in an organization. TSP uses integrated team concept
with 3-20 engineers to develop software intensive products. An organization
using TSP can built self directed teams that can plan their processes and
track their established goals, and own their processes and plans (SEI, 2010)b.
According to Ferguson and Kitson (1997) the TSP is a methodology that helps
organizations implement processes and best practices at the team and project
level. Both TSP and PSP have been successfully implemented for SPI in
small settings. It is used as supporting methodology for management,
planning and tracking activities. It covers most of the requirements of the
Quantitative Process Management (QPM) and Quality Management (QM)
KPAs of the CMM Maturity level-4. The usage of TSP as a foundation for
implementing the CMM in a small organization has shown that TSP makes
the CMM implementation easier. TSP has good coverage of the CMM at a
LEVEL PSP Description
O Not performed Current process are running on ad‐hoc basis
1 Planning
Define the process, create conceptual design, estimate product size, estimate resources and schedule of product development
2 Design & Review Design program, and implement design according to
developed schedule.
3 Code & Review Compile the program, , fix and log all the errors in the defect
log.
4 Testing
Test the program and fix and log all the defects found.
5 Post‐mortem
Record all the data in the project summary form including, time, defects and size on actual basis for comparison. Lessons documented for future
Chapter 3 Quality Models
62
project level. It has good coverage of CMM at team level. However if all teams
are exactly following the TSP, there are still many other uncovered
organizational aspects of CMM (Serrano et al., 2006). It is suggested by
Ferguson (1997) and Hayes (1997) that smaller organizations should consider
PSP and TSP models for process improvement.
According to Wall etal., (2005) CMMI is meant for building organizational
capability where as TSP and PSP represent a complimentary position to
support CMMI practices. TSP is for building self directed teams within an
organization and PSP framework is meant for building and transforming skills
and habits of individuals. Experiences of large body of evidence depict that
TSP addresses key goals of both Software CMM and CMMI, namely,
delivering high-quality software products, on time and within budgeted costs
(McAndrews, 2000). Furthermore, TSP processes in industry practices have
depicted a close correspondence to CMMI practices (McHale 05). TSP is
also efficient in staging software organizations to accelerate their
accomplishment of high maturity and good business performance (Pracchia,
2004 and Switzer, 2004).
3.7 SIX SIGMA
According to Basu and Wrightt, (2002) the goal of Six Sigma is to
increase profit by eliminating variability, defects and wastes and total
orientation towards customer satisfaction. Six sigma is a holistic approach
that integrates all organizational functions like staff, culture, quality system to
collectively strive towards continuous process improvement and achieving
virtual perfection. Stone (2006) defines Six Sigma as an effective method
which aims to reduction in variation, prevent defects and continuous
improvement towards achieving selected targets and goals. .
Chapter 3 Quality Models
63
TABLE 4 Structure of TSP
MATURITY LEVEL
TSP STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION
0 Not performed Ad‐hoc based current processes
1 Launch
Review Project Objectives, prepare customer needs policy, define TSP team structure, assign team roles and establish goals
2 Define Strategy
Create product conceptual design, define development strategy and decide what will be produced in each TSP cycle. Prepare project size and effort man hour estimates, configuration management plan and risk management and monitoring plan.
3 Plan
Estimate the size of software artifacts like , SRS, UAT, code etc. Establish Software development plan, and allocate weekly tasks to team. Prepare a Quality management Plan.
4 Requirement & Design
Develop functional and non functional specifications according to customer needs. Review the requirements and develop user acceptance test plan for the system. Create functional and non functional design and review the design as per requirements. Prepare an integrated system test plan
5 Implement
Use PSP to implement modular components. Prepare a detailed modular design and review the design. Implement the design by coding and review the code. Compile and test each module and assess the quality of each module.
6 Test Develop integrated system testing plan and carry out system testing. Generate user documentation.
7 Postmortem
Conduct Postmortem analysis and prepare summary for each TSP cycle. Generate peer review and team evaluation reports.
References: (William. 2009) & (Humphrey, 2000)
Six Sigma Metric level is for measuring defects and improving quality;
and a methodology to reduce defects levels below 3.4 Defects per (one)
Million opportunities (DPMO). According to Harry Mikel (1988) Six Sigma
methods ensure processes to produce output within specification. With the
help of Six Sigma method processes can reduce below than 3.4 defects per
million opportunities. Six Sigma makes the organisation more goal oriented
and aggressive towards quality objectives.
The fundamental objective of Six Sigma is implementation of a
measurement-based strategy that focuses on process implementation and
Chapter 3 Quality Models
64
variation reduction through the application of Six Sigma improvement projects.
According to Stone (2006) Six Sigma is implemented with DMAIC
methodology which is a formal analytical system for incremental and
continuous process improvement. It is an innovative, systematic, and close
loop measurement process that eliminates unproductive steps. It has basically
five phases (define measure, analyze, improve and control).
1. DEFINE: Involves team charter, process mapping and total focus on
customer needs and expectations
2. MEASURE: It is based on data collection, process measurement and
control of process performance variation.
3. ANALYSE: It is based on data analysis, process analysis and customer
focus. Performance of all artefacts is compared with standards, is
quantified for goal refinement.
4. IMPROVE: Problem solutions and alternatives are generated and
optimized solution is selected through regression. Solution is implemented
by first preparing an implementation plan and doing pilot testing.
5. CONTROL: All the processes are monitored and documented. Good
practices are institutionalized throughout the organization. Post-mortem
summary report prepared for future implementation.
3.8 BRIEF COMPARISON SOFTWARE QUALITY STANDARDS
In the following section a brief comparison between ISO and CMM,
CMM and CMMI and ISO and CMM is provided.
3.8.1 ISO AND CMM
This ISO standard has many versions for the software industry and
they are still improving their standard according to the new needs of the
organizational cultures. The ISO 9001 has given the less emphasis on the
processes in the organization although its focus has been to develop quality
product. The CMM in contrast has emphasis on the process improvement and
also in the continuous manner. The ISO 9001 emphasizes more on product
engineering and the hardware whereas CMM deals with the development of
Chapter 3 Quality Models
65
the software processes. ISO 9001 does not need detailed documentation
during different phases of the processes in the organization. On the other
hand the CMM requires detailed documentation for the processes.
The CMM is more suitable for the development of the quality product
and quality improvement in the standard of the organization. CMM still has
limitations that it cannot be fully implemented in the SME due to requirement
of more resources for documentation which makes the implementation more
costly as compared to ISO 9000 certification. ISO 9000 model addresses
minimal criteria to establish a Quality Management System (QMS), where as
CMM has a detailed approach to address to quality improvement paradigm. It
can be said that every KPA of CMM is weakly related to ISO 9000 to some
extent (Paulk, 2005). There are strong correlations between IS0 9001 and
CMM level 2, specifically in relation to process quality improvement .and
transition from CMM to ISO 9000 is possible without disturbing the integrity of
the ISO 9000 certified organization. This transition can be accomplished in
easy five steps namely Establish Software Engineering Process Group,
Perform Gap Analysis, Make a Plan, Provide Training and Establish Metrics
Program ( McGuire and McKeowen. 2001) It can still be argued that spirit of
TQM culture is not found in the practices. May be this issue will be addressed
in the latter additions of these models.
3.8.2 CMM AND CMMI
Both Software CMM and CMMI models are based on the pretext that
organization will follow process improvement journey in small incremental
steps rather than bringing radical change through large scale sweeping
changes. Quality improvement through reengineering can be bought through
department wise small evolutionary steps and by repeating small wins
successively across the organization (Wall et al., 2005). As asserted by Paulk
et al., (1993) that software CMM and CMMI (staged) quality improvement
models provide a baseline for incremental SPI by defining five maturity levels
that lay down a framework with measurement and assessment criteria for an
organization’s software process maturity and for assessing its SPI capability.
Chapter 3 Quality Models
66
Each of the five levels is composed of a set of KPA with component goals and
practices, that, when satisfied, provide considerable improvement in
organization’s software processes. CMMI continuous grants freedom in
improving only those process areas which are critical for organization to
improve and mitigate the risk where as CMM has a defined path for over all
organizational improvement. CMMI Continuous enables increased foresight
into process area capability improvement where as CMM focuses on set of
processes to achieve SPI by defined Maturity Levels. CMMI allows
improvement in different processes at different rates and gives cost and time
flexibility to organization where as CMM controls the pace of improvement
based on maturity level. CMM and CMMI both are supported by case studies
and data that they promote Return on Investment (CMMI team, 2006).
According to (Paulk, 2004) CMM is a logical approach and common
sense for Software engineering and quality improvement practices. Software
engineering should be done to achieve business and organizational goals one
should not get into the debate that which model is better.
3.8.3 ISO AND CMMI
Though CMMI seems similar to the ISO9001 as both are the
international standards for effective quality system for development and
maintenance but the ISO 9000: 2000 is an abstract document and can be
applied to any organization in Software Industry. For every clause in ISO an
organisation can choose to have a status “satisfied” or “not satisfied”. If an
organisation satisfies minimal acceptance quality level for the software
processes (clauses) then organization is considered ISO certified. While
CMMI establishes a framework for measuring continuous process
improvement and is more complex and integrated in nature. CMMI has two
presentations staged and continuous. CMMI Staged represents maturity
levels of an organization from 1-5 and is suitable for organizations who
choose to work on general process improvement. CMMI Continuous each
process capability level ranges from level 0-5 and is suitable for those
organizations who want to choose specific processes for improvement in
Chapter 3 Quality Models
67
order to meet their business goals. (Yoo. et al, 2004). CMMI is detailed than
ISO 9000: 2000 and provides 25 process areas (standard practices) for
continuous quality improvement. (Hence we concluded that the CMMI is
better than both the ISO 9001 and the CMM. Further according to Yoo et al.,
(2004) ISO 9001:1994 certified IT firms can satisfy majority of the level-2 and
most of the CMMI Maturity level-3 PAs. In another study to integrate ISO 9000
and CMMI, it is claimed that integrated model will be helpful to ISO certified
firms to transit to CMMI without doing redundant efforts. According to Paulk
etal., (1995) many companies are expected to move towards CMM and CMMI
framework . It is only possible if SEI establishes official guidelines for such
transition from ISO to CMMI. According to feedback during study conducted
by SEI based on 52 companies it was found that trainings of CMMI are very
abstract for small organizations to understand and adopt. Cost of trainings
and CMMI certification is a biggest hindrance for ISO to CMMI transition (
CMMI Product Team, 2009).
3.8.4 SPICE AND CMM
SPICE is more effective than all the other international standards. The
reason for this is that the SPICE shares references from many international
standards like SW-CMM (SEI), ISO 9000 and Trillium (TL 9000) (Sheard,
2001).
ISO 9000 uses the pass/fail characteristics of the quality audits while
the SPICE uses the process assessment to assess and evaluate the
capability on processes in a continual manner. SPICE provides the
opportunity to adjust the scope of assessment to cover specific processes of
interests rather than all the processes in the organization.
According to Emam and Jung (2001) SPICE framework evolved
through inheriting best references and practices from SW-CMM and the ISO
9000. SPICE is relatively effective in process assessment for continuous
improvement of the processes of the organizations including large and SME.
A survey to predict the viability of implementing SPICE in 53 firms across the
globe was done and majority of the respondents showed high confidence
Chapter 3 Quality Models
68
level and satisfaction about implementing SPICE (ISO/IESC 15504 ) up to
maturity level-3 (Emam and Jung, 2001).
3.9 PERFORMANCE OF PROCESS IMPROVEMENT MODELS IN SME
The following section discusses the implications of SME environment
and culture over acceptability of the models and their quality procedures and
practices. A brief comparison is given for each model and its viability in small
and medium size software houses.
3.9.1 CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL (CMM) AND SME
The SW-CMM is chosen as the reference model for process improvement
and also using for planning and implementing the improvement actions in
SMEs. CMM is specifically developed to provide an orderly, disciplined
framework within the software management and engineering process issues
are addressed (Paulk et al., 1993). The CMM is also guiding the SPI
implementation efforts of SMEs. It solves and addresses some of the
problems of the so called software crisis. It is also considered a roadmap for
SPI in SMEs and it has a major influence in the software community around
the world (Serrano et al., 2006).
. One of the first challenges for small organizations in using the CMM is
that their primary business objective is to survive. Even after deciding the
status quo is unsatisfactory and process improvement will help, finding the
resources and assigning responsibility for process improvement, and then
following through by defining and deploying processes is a difficult business
decision (Mark C. Paulk et al., 1993). CMM does not address all of the
important issues for successful projects. It does not currently address
expertise in particular application domains, advocate specific software
technologies, or suggest how to select, hire, motivate, and retain competent
people. Although these issues are crucial to a project's success but they have
not been integrated into the CMM (Paulk et al., 1993).
Brodman and Johnson (1994) have developed a tailored version of the
CMM for small businesses, organizations, and projects. The CMM represents
Chapter 3 Quality Models
69
a “common sense engineering” approach to software process improvement.
Its maturity levels, key process areas, goals, and key practices have been
extensively discussed and reviewed within the software community. While the
CMM is neither perfect nor comprehensive, it does represent a broad
consensus of the software community and is a useful tool for guiding
improvement efforts, and it can be used to help small software organizations
improve their processes (Paulk et al.,, 1993).
A set of key process areas of CMM is used to supplement software and
process development in SME. These processes involve a focus on managing
the knowledge and technical capability rather than the traditional project
management. According to CMM, a focus on knowledge capability
management could be important for small, medium enterprises. Typically
these firms exist unstable because these enterprises are lack of financial
resources. SME mostly use those PAs of CMM which base on Knowledge
Management (KM) because the large firms are unable to stabilize the
knowledge management key process areas (Baskerville and Heje, 1999).
An early misperception of SW-CMM by some people was that it did not
apply to small organizations or projects. In order to illustrate its application to
small organizations, according to McAndrews, (2000) Humphrey took on the
challenge to apply the SW-CMM to the smallest organization possible: an
organization of a single individual. From 1989 to 1993, Humphrey wrote more
than 60 programs and more than 25,000 lines of code (LOC). In developing
these 60 programs, Humphrey used all of the applicable SW-CMM practices
up through Maturity Level 5. He concluded that the management principles
embodied in the SW-CMM were just as applicable to individual software
engineers. The resulting process was the Personal Software Process (PSP)”
(Davis and Mullaney, 2003). The TSP and PSP are used as prescriptive
processes to perform SPI initiative and for implementing the SW-CMM at the
individual and team level respectively (Oktaba et al., 2007).
Chapter 3 Quality Models
70
3.9.2 CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL INTEGRATION IN SME
The Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is a process
improvement approach providing the essential elements of effective
processes. CMMI is also providing “a set of best practices that address
productivity, performance, costs, and stakeholder satisfaction.” The need for
process improvement and the expression of its benefits are proves in
businesses and organizations around the world. Years of research and
practice have demonstrated the competitive advantages of efficient and
effective work practices that increase the predictability and reduce the
variability of schedule and cost across the product/project lifecycle and
improve the quality of the products and services (CMMI, 2006), (Ferreira et
al., 2006).
CMMI is not readily usable by small organizations. It is much too
complicated and too expensive to implement. If CMMI appraisals appear
appropriate, the large organizations with medium to higher maturity level can
undertake CMMI (Habra et al, 2007). It entails a substantial overhead for
small settings (Mondragon, 2006). “The CMMI in its current format and
packaging is not feasible for SMEs to adopt and implement” (Miluk, 2006).
The project management element appears burdensome for a small business
due to the numerous reviews and reporting requirements that are contained in
the model (Kelly, 2006). The usage of TSP as a foundation for implementing
the CMM in a small organization has shown that TSP makes the CMMI
implementation easier. TSP has good coverage of the CMMI at a project level
and team level. Even if all teams are exactly following the TSP, there are
many other uncovered organizational aspects of CMMI in small settings
(Serrano et al., 2006). According to Mondragon (2006) “A process
improvement (PI) project based on a comprehensive reference model such as
the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) requires additional effort and
time to interpret the model.” The SME have been adopting staged
representation of CMMI are pursuing Maturity level 2 of CMMI. CMMI is not
completely compatible for small, medium enterprises but these enterprises
Chapter 3 Quality Models
71
struggle to get the right fit. Most of the SMEs are trying to get at least Level-2
of CMMI (Serrano et al., 2006).
At certain instance, the CMMI is helpful for finding relevant audience
because small and medium enterprises lack people, resources and skills of
advertisement. At least 3 CMMI process areas are exercised in a small
company. SME mostly communicating among 5 employees for which CMMI
provides a best practices framework that can help in decision making about
what and how to explicitly define, communicate, and improve (Ferreira et al.,
2007).
An easier way to undertake CMMI can be made by providing guidelines
to adopt and implement the essence of CMMI process areas for very small
settings. There should be supported templates, online help and CMMI
consultant to perform the self-assessments (Mondragon, 2006) If the barriers
to implementation of the model can be evaluated and eliminated, it would
result in reduction of cycle time and cost of implementation (Gene Kelly,
2006).The CMMI continuous representations endows with a collection of
independent solutions from which an SME can chose to implement certain
pieces based on its needs. “The CMMI performance measures should be
designed to provide comprehensive and reliable benchmark data on the
efficacy of the organization’s systems development capability” ( Miluk, 2006).
The main purpose is using CMMI in SMEs is to establish a process
improvement roadmap upon which a route can be drawn from “where we are
today” to “where we want to be”. It is very helpful for improving organization’s
processes. It defines the characteristics of good processes and avoids
prescribing how the processes must be enacted. It also provides the ability to
manage the development, acquisition, and maintenance of products and
services. It is focused on the total-system problem, troubles, unlike other
predecessor CMMs. It provides facilities for enterprise-wide process
improvement, unlike single-discipline model (Ferreira et al., 2007).
Chapter 3 Quality Models
72
3.9.3 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATION (ISO) IN SME
ISO 9001 has been adopted as a process model by over 40,000
certified companies in the US. The main purpose using ISO is the need to
leverage investments where possible. But the ISO is difficult to apply for
Small, Medium Enterprises. The main reason is that the ISO 9001 compliance
is estimated at almost $25,000 in training, external audits, and registration
costs, but SMEs lack recourses and cannot fulfil all of the ISO model
requirements. If ISO is to be adopted by SMEs than it may be divide into the
parts. According to the Mexican industry the ISO 9000:2001 is proper for
small and medium-sized enterprises with low maturity levels (Gene Kelly,
2006).
According to Gene Kelly (2006) ISO international standards are hard
to apply in the small projects, small organizations and companies that have
employees in between 1 and 25 employees. The ISO standards are not
explicitly address the needs of SMEs and the ISO standards are not easily
apply on in Small settings because the compliance with those standards is
difficult, if not impossible, for small settings to achieve them.
The observance requirements of the ISO 9001:2000 standard is
mapped to one or a combination of quality management principles (QMPs) on
which the standard is based. These principles are grouped as soft and hard
and ranked in terms of the number of compliance requirements they
represent.
In the SMEs, the compliance requirements of the ISO 9001:2000
standard stress more on the “hard” factors. The TQM (total Quality
Management) and SPI (Software Process Improvement) are also very
important factors in the ISO model.
Chapter 3 Quality Models
73
3.9.4 SUMMARY
Discussion on the leading quality models for implementation of quality
improvement practices in the local industry has been presented in the
chapter. The models under discussion are ISO 9001, CMM, CMMI, SPICE ,
PSP and TSP. The ISO 9001 consists of five key process areas namely QMS,
management responsibility, resource management, product realization and
measurement and analysis. Strengths of ISO 9001 include flexibility, relatively
lower cost and faster to implement as compared to other models. It has low
training costs and may be more appropriate for medium sized SME. However
it lacks guidance to implement in very small enterprises in IT industry and
SMSH. On the implementation side there is a gap in domain knowledge
among consultants about IT and among IT practitioners concerning Quality
philosophy, which leads to anomalies. Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a
product of SEI developed to guide an organization’s software processes to
maturity. It has five maturity levels namely Initial, Repeatable, Defined,
Managed and Optimized. CMM is suitable for large organizations but is also
expensive to implement and takes more than 3 years for a firm to reach
maturity level five on the average. CMM tells what to do but it fails to tell us
how to do it, as It lacks guidelines and trainings to implement it in SMSH.
Many practitioners indicate that CMM does point out weaker processes but it
fails to concentrate on product characteristics. SEI later introduced CMMI, the
next generation quality framework, more flexible and disciplined to replace
CMM. CMM is template oriented and encourages process improvement
throughout the organization. CMMI is an integrated model based on
assessment and consulting and it is known to implement more robust and
highly-mature quality practices. On the other side CMMI is only fit for large
scale projects and its trainings are very expensive and very abstract. One
really needs to be creative to understand implementation of CMMI. Custom
trainings are needed to be developed for SMEs to make CMMI
implementation more effective. CMMI is flexible and organizations assessed
at Maturity Level 2 can do transition to ISO 9000 without much difficulty and
vice versa. In the last section SPICE process improvement paradigm is
Chapter 3 Quality Models
74
discussed which helps to align business processes towards the needs of
organization. SPICE is not only process capability determination technique,
but it also assesses risks due to process changes and improvements. The
PSP and TSP are software development processes for individuals and teams
respectively. In the end a comparison of these quality models is given in the
context of their implementation in SME. It can be ascertained that ISO 9000,
TSP and PSP are more suitable process models for SMEs provided SMEs
top management is committed towards quality as a culture and adopt long
term quality planning in the tune of TQM philosophy.
The analysis of literature review has revealed some gaps for quality
practices pertaining to implementing quality models in local software industry.
The following set of guidelines are presented to fulfil these gaps and enhance
the performance of local SMSH.
Leading models like CMM and CMMI are designed to suit requirements
of large organizations and they are not recommended to be fit for SMSH.
These models are abstract and the cost of trainings and implementation of
CMM and CMMI is very high. These models require extra resources and take
a duration of more than 3 years to achieve optimum maturity level. SPICE is
an assessment framework also meant for large organizations and it is not a
Quality Management System (QMS) framework that can be fit for SMSH. ISO
9000 and PSP/TSP are more appropriate for SME adoption as these models
are more flexible, low cost and easy to implement. ISO 9000 is a process
centric framework and gets implemented in short duration of 3 to 6 months. IT
practitioners should be trained to develop quality concepts as literature review
reveals that there is lack of awareness about quality philosophy and domain
knowledge among IT practitioners. All processes should be spiritually followed
so that organization is able to deliver quality software products. Top
management should assure long term commitment towards CPI and optimum
resource allocation for training and quality assurance. TQM culture is not
found in these models therefore TQM should be made part of SPI activities to
Chapter 3 Quality Models
75
reduce schedule delays, cost over runs, and rework costs and to assure true
quality culture in local IT industry.
Chapter 4 Methodology
76
CHAPTER 4- METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the Research Process that how the study was
carried out. It provides detail about Research Design, and how Questionnaire
was developed, pretested and the survey was administered..
4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN AND QUESTIONNAIRE
Questionnaire was developed to get the information about the process
improvement and quality management practices being followed by the local
software industry of Pakistan. Initially the questionnaire was pretested in a
small sample of 30 respondents in 2007 in Lahore. It provided the initial
information that helped to narrow down the scope of research. It also gave an
insight into the local industry quality improvement practices. These measures
were then converted into performance level indicators. Then by following a
systematic approach corresponding to each measure and indicator, a
question was designed. The questionnaire was simply derived by developing
Performance measures and practices from ISO-9000 and CMM quality
models and practices. The questions were formulated with a purpose to depict
the level of understanding and implementation of quality standards among
SMSH. It is similar questionnaire design technique that Black and Porter
(1996) followed to developed TQM constructs by using Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award criteria (MBNQA), and that Quazi and Padibjo (1998)
used to design questionnaire based on Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award
criteria in Singapore. A five point likert’s scale is used for the data collection.
The scaling of levels in the questionnaire is: lowest value = (1) and highest
value = (5) where as middle value =3 which is considered as neutral. Copy of
the questionnaire is attached in APPENDIX-A. Copy of the questionnaire
indicators is attached in APPENDIX-B. Mapping of the questionnaire
indicators with ISO 9000 is shown in APPENDIX-C.
Chapter 4 Methodology
77
4.1 TESTING AND DEBUGGING-PILOT STUDY
In the pilot study questionnaire explores process maturity, size
estimation of organization, resource allocation, project scheduling, project
tracking, configuration management, and quantitative process measurement
which are all key practices and process areas taken from CMM (SEI) and
(ISO 9001: 2008)E (ISO, 2010). After data analysis of pilot study and
feedback from quality experts questionnaire was tailored and restructured to
improve its reliability and relevance to quality management and improvement
as recommended by Yusof, (1999). A few of questions were added and
revised as per the reviewer comments from industry experts and three faculty
members from the Institute of Quality and Technology Management (IQTM),
University of Punjab, Lahore. The final copy of the questionnaire version 3.2 is
given in Appendix A. It is a two page questionnaire having 8 quality
constructs and a total of 47 question statements. A request letter from the
researcher including information about questionnaire is also developed, which
is attached with the questionnaire (Appendix A).
4.2 INDICATORS
The questions from the survey questionnaire are used to find out the
indicators. Indicators are quantitative measures of key attributes of the
practices of institutions and their component units (Cave et al., 1988).
Indicator is a victim measurement area about which we ask questions.
Indicators help in identifying the measures in the organization. Each question
must have an indicator. One question may have more than one indicator.
These indicators become variables for statistical analysis and also for
developing metrics for measuring quality improvement and performance. The
list of performance indicators is given in Appendix-C.
4.3 QUALITY CONSTRUCTS
Different researchers have attempted to investigate the quality
constructs in TQM with various rationale and objectives. Saraph et al’s (1989)
main rationale was to develop a data collection tool to measure quality
Chapter 4 Methodology
78
management practices of companies. Black and Porter (1996) developed their
quality constructs from MBNQA criteria, on the pretext that MBNQA is a well
recognized and established quality framework. Tamimi and Gershon (1995)
also developed a data collection tool by following Deming’s fourteen points’
Critical Success Factors (CSF). Ahire et al (1996) proposed a validation
instrument based on 12 quality implementation constructs to measure quality
management practices for manufacturing industry. These constructs were
derived from literature review. Similarly Dutta et al.’s (1998) study designed a
data collection instrument for a European study based on quality assessment
models like CMM, SPICE and Bootstrap. According to these studies on quality
constructs the authors tried to systematically present CSF to measure Quality
management and to address the problems faced during TQM adoption
process.
For this study quality constructs were developed and finalised by
analysing ISO 9000, CMM and TQM quality practices through literature review
and questionnaire design. The indicators developed during questionnaire
design were grouped into eight quality dimensions (constructs) based on
literature review, feedback from pilot study and reviewer comments from
IQTM department faculty members. Similarly following constructs in TABLE 5
were developed from ISO 9000, CMM and TQM standard practices.
Appendix D gives a list of indicators corresponding to each of these
constructs.
TABLE 5 CONSTRUCTS TABLE
NO. CONSTRUCTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE
ABBREVIATION EXPLAINATION
1. STRUCTURE OSS Organization Size & Structure 2. CULTURE OCL Organization Culture3. QUALITY OBQ Organization Behaviour Towards Quality 4. REQUIREMENT
MANAGEMENT RDM Requirement Development Management
5. PLANNING PPL Project Planning6. MONITORING PMC Project Monitoring Tracking 7. MEASUREMENT MAN Measurement & Analysis
8. IMPROVEMENT PQI Process / Quality Improvement
Chapter 4 Methodology
79
4.4 RELIABILITY
The reliability of the data is determined from practical considerations.
The questionnaire was pretested during the pilot study in order to remove
ambiguities, replication of questions and research rationale. Purpose and
objectives were clearly stated in the cover letter from the researcher. Data
was collected through multiple channels and sources to get accurate and
complete unbiased sample, as emphasized by (Stake, 2005). Data quality
was checked statistically to filter the questionnaires which were skewed at
extremes. Partially filled questionnaires were left out of the analysis. During
field visits decorum and manners were insured to develop the interest of the
participants so that they are not bored (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) and (Stake,
2005). In order to ensure confidentiality of the respondents as advised by
Patton, (2002) respondents were reminded not to fill name or email address.
Assurances were also given to respondents about confidentiality and
anonymity (Cohen and Manion, 2000). In order to further clarify the concepts
and interpretations, all questions were pre-tested by discussing them with
several IT Professionals, in an attempt to eliminate biases of ambiguity
(Elphinstone, 1990).
4.5 THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK FOR DEPENDENT VARIABLE
To find out that what are the most significant best practices that effect
SPI so that a set of minimal practices for the local software industry can be
proposed as a SPI paradigm for implementation of quality, a framework
shown in FIGURE 4 was proposed. In this framework SPI constructs are
obtained from research design that included a detailed process to develop a
questionnaire for this study. These constructs were then finalised after pilot
study. Process Quality Improvement (PQI) is the dependent variable and all
other constructs are independent variables.
Chapter 4 Methodology
80
FIGURE 4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
4.6 SURVEY ADMINISTRATION
For the purpose of data collection necessary measures were used to
pilot test data collection tools to ensure accuracy, relevance and reliability for
quality of data. IT practitioners working in software houses who were the
members of Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB) or Pakistan Software
House Association (PASHA) and IT practitioners working in companies that
are registered with ROZEE, (2010) were contacted for survey. The exercise to
implement survey was conducted through following sampling technique.
4.6.1 SAMPLING PROCEDURE
A systematic random sampling technique was adopted to collect the
sample. A list of 1031 software houses was compiled by collecting names and
emails of the companies which were registered with PASHA, PSEB and
www.rozee.com.pk (ROZEE, 2010) A small sampling interval of n=3 was chosen to
attain maximum population. Systematic sampling tolerates better
representativeness as compared to simple random sampling, assuming that
there is no cyclic pattern in the distribution list. Through systematic random
sampling technique good geographical distribution according to population
PROCESS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
QUALITY BEHAVIOUR
REQUIREMENT
PLANNING
MONITORING
MEASUREMENT
STRUCTURE
CULTURE
Chapter 4 Methodology
81
density is achieved ( Iwan Ariawa, 1998). It was insured that there were no
duplicate names or emails in the list and it was not an ordered list. A
systematic sample was drawn by selecting every 3rd name from the list and a
sample was compiled of 343 names in first run. Following the same technique
229 and 153 names were selected in the second and third rounds of
systematic selection. In order to improve the response rate the respondents
were also given option to fill out the questionnaire placed online at
www.tecnologiz.com/quality (Sheraz, 2010). A total of 725 questionnaires
were administered on local IT practitioners through mail. The response rate
through mail was 19.8%, 144 out of 725 of the respondents filled out complete
questionnaires.
To further improve the response rate data collection was also administered in
person. As an additional effort during the period of last six months more than
90 software houses from the compiled sample list were approached from time
to time. A telephonic appointment was taken before approaching the software
houses. The response was quite encouraging from the lower management but
response from the top management was poor. Majority of the respondents
showed keen interest and answered the questions very carefully. These
interviews helped a lot to find out the attitude and concern of the organizations
about quality improvement. The response rate was fairly good and 83
completed questionnaires were achieved. The total number of questionnaires
completed for the study was 227, and over all response rate of 31.3% was
achieved.
4.6.2 POPULATI ON SAMPLE
In empirical studies it is important to select an unbiased sample and
hence an unbiased response (Salant and Dillman, 1994). A systematic
random sampling technique was used for this study. In order to choose
representative population for the research on Pakistan software industry
companies registered with Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB), Pakistan
Software Houses Association (PASHA) and IT companies registered at
www.rozee.com (ROZEE, 2010) were selected. Most of the respondents
Chapter 4 Methodology
82
were from four biggest metropolitan cities of Pakistan namely Lahore,
Karachi, Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Altogether, the total number of software
houses situated in these four cities represents approximately more than 80%
of the software industry in the country. Examining the response from the IT
practitioners working in these organizations, who represent the target
population sample, is expected to help us to produce information about the
general nature of sample population characteristics.
4.6.3 SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION
The optimum sample size determination technique is taken from
Lwanga, S.K. et al, (1991). According to this formula the calculated minimum
sample size for this study comes out to be 199, therefore sample size of 227
completed questionnaires obtained for this study is justified.
Equation:
Where
z = 3.84 at 95% confidence Interval (CI) P = 0.2, proportion of anticipated study population N = 1031, Population Size, d= 0 .05 absolute precision (spread+_ 5 %)
4.7 DATA ANALYSIS
In order to do data analysis frequencies were generated for indicator
variables, and measures of central tendency, Mean, Median, Mode were
calculated for numerical variables where applicable. For Inference: Chi Sq
was applied to generate inference for categorical variables was applied and
students t-test for continuous variables where applicable. Model was
generated using linear regression and structure equation modelling (SEM).
Chapter 4 Methodology
83
Data was presented using Statistical Package for System Simulation (SPSS)
version 1.6 generated values in the form of figures and tables.
4.8 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING In order to further test the model fitness Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
technique was applied A specialized statistical software called Analysis of
Moment Structures (AMOS) was used to further refine the model through
empirical analysis to come up with an optimum SPI paradigm. SEM basically
describes relationship between variables. SEM technique is similar to
regression modelling and factor analysis and is effective in a way for
removing multi-co-linearity in the model. AMOS has a graphical interface .and
is an excellent tool to use for SEM model fitting (Wei, 2009). A framework of
structural modelling is given in FIGURE 5. Discussion on empirical analysis
and SEM is given in CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS AND .
Chapter 4 Methodology
84
FIGURE 5 THEORATICAL STRUCTURAL MODELING
Chapter 4 Methodology
85
4.9 SUMMARY
The chapter describes how the data collection instrument was
designed and how it went through a pilot testing to further increase its
reliability, and subsequent development of final quality constructs. Survey
administration section discusses in detail the considerations regarding
population sample selection and systematic random sampling. In the last
section theoretical frameworks for regression modelling and structure
equation modelling (SEM) are proposed. The next chapter gives the
descriptive results.
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
86
CHAPTER 5 DISCRIPTIVE RESULTS
In this chapter descriptive results are reported from the statistical
analysis that was conducted on the data collected through the questionnaire
implemented to determine the nature of local software process improvement
practices in the SMSHs. The data was mainly collected from the four main
metropolitan cities of Pakistan namely Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad and
Rawalpindi. Total number of (227) completely filled questionnaires were
received from respondents, who were IT practitioners working in the local
software industry. Likert’s scale was implemented in the data collection
instrument. The results were divided into 8 sections according to the
constructs and percentage frequencies answered by respondents against
each indicator were reported as results in this chapter. The reported
percentage in text is based on the following criteria. The likert’s scale values
corresponding to 1 and 2 are accumulated to represent “LOW”, and likert’s
scale values corresponding to 4 and 5 are accumulated to represent “HIGH”
as both concepts either give negation or acceptance of indicator. The
perceptions of IT practitioners working in the local software industry are
presented in the following section..
5.1 FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
In this section, percentage frequency and simple frequency of
responses against each item in the questionnaire based on eight quality
constructs have been presented from TABLE 6 to TABLE 13. These percentages
have been discussed to check the perception level of each quality assurance
practice in local software houses. Total numbers of Indicators included in the
descriptive results were 47 according to the items statements presented to
respondents through the questionnaire. Results are reported through negation
and acceptance of respondent’s perception for indicators where applicable.
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
87
5.8 ORGANIZATION SIZE & STRUCTURE
TABLE 6 ORGANIZATION SIZE & STRUCTURE
(LOW) 1 2 3 4 (HIGH) 5
SIZ Size 171 (75.3 ) 13 (5.7 ) 6 (2.6 ) 12 (5.3 ) 25 (11.0 )
TND Technology/R&D 65 (28.6 ) 72 (31.7 ) 38 (16.7 ) 17 (7.5 ) 35 (15.4 )
STA Statistician 117 (51.5 ) 50 (22.0 ) 24 (10.6 ) 25 (11.0 ) 11 (4.8 )
OST ORG Structure 17 (7.5 ) 14 (6.2 ) 63 (27.8 ) 72 (31.7 ) 61 (26.9 )
RTN Retention 13 (5.7 ) 26 (11.5 ) 66 (29.1 ) 65 (28.6 ) 57 (25.1 )
The structure of organization means how organization has divided its
work or transactions into categories and subsequently these categories make
departments. The structure and environment defines the success needs of the
organization. Resources both human and structure are needed to be acquired
based on project requirements. TABLE 6 shows that 75.3% of the companies
have employees less than 50 where as 81% of the companies have
employees less than 200, hence indicating that large number of software
houses fall in the category of small and medium enterprises.
TABLE 6 shows that 60.3% of the companies do not have separate R&D
department and budget allocation for such activity. Similarly 73.5% companies
have no or little expertise for data analysis.. It is one of the causes of low
quality. It is recommended approach is that SME should employee technology
specialist for research and development to explore new technologies and
product ideas. SMEs should also have statisticians who should develop
trends and forecasts for organizational performance, process performance
and business performance. As said by Deming (1985) if “you cannot measure,
you cannot control”.
Our survey reveals that 58.6% of the local software houses agree on
more than 3 levels of management. The survey also indicates that 53.7% of
the companies try to higher employees on long term basis and try to retain
them.
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
88
5.9 ORGANIZATION CULTURE
TABLE 7 ORGANIZATION CULTURE
(LOW) 1 2 3 4 (HIGH) 5
OVT Overtime 39 (17.2 ) 29 (12.8 ) 52 (22.9 ) 48 (21.1 ) 59 (26.0 )
SHD Scheduling 10 (4.4 ) 33 (14.5 ) 78 (34.4 ) 70 (30.8 ) 36 (15.9 )
LRN Learning 13 (5.7 ) 37 (16.3 ) 56 (24.7 ) 94 (41.4 ) 27 (11.9 )
COM Communication 12 (5.3 ) 35 (15.4 ) 62 (27.3 ) 77 (33.9 ) 41 (18.1 )
TM Time Management 12 (5.3 ) 26 (11.5 ) 73 (32.2 ) 73 (32.2 ) 43 (18.9 )
TRA Training 20 (8.8 ) 49 (21.6 ) 66 (29.1 ) 52 (22.9 ) 40 (17.6 )
TST Team Structure 29 (12.8 ) 46 (20.3 ) 77 (33.9 ) 48 (21.1 ) 27 (11.9 )
ASS Assessment 29 (12.8 ) 57 (25.1 ) 57 (25.1 ) 62 (27.3 ) 22 (9.7 )
The companies that offer overtime are (47.1%) as shown in TABLE 7.
This indicates the clash in time management and time scheduling. It also
indicates that there may be more than the employees, hence overt loading the
employees and creating stress and fatigue in the long run. Time scheduling is
critical to software development and timely project completion rate should be
optimum.
TABLE 7 also indicates that in 53.3% of the companies surveyed
learning is encouraged by the management and colleagues. Similarly 52% of
the companies top management allows freedom of speech. Freedom speech
and absence of communication barriers is good for a healthy and progressive
environment. The allocation of projects in teams highly appreciated in local
SMEs Internationally. According to the survey 51.1% of the companies
support proper allocation of tasks while 16.7% indicate that there is trivial task
allocation mechanism.
Literature review indicates that there is low interest of SME in
employee training and training plans (Montazemi, 2006), the reasons being
cost and available resources. According to our survey as indicated in TABLE 7
40.5% of the organizations show an interest in training programs and
establishing employee annual training schedules. The amount of effort
exerted in employee assessment has split result as 37% say assessment is
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
89
done on the basis of employee performance while 37.9% survey respondents
agree that annual employee performance assessment is done without
ascertaining actual performance.
5.10 ORGANIZATION BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS QUALITY
TABLE 8 ORGANIZATION BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS QUALITY
(LOW) 1 2 3 4 (HIGH) 5
RA Resource Allocation 65 (28.6 ) 72 (31.7 ) 38 (16.7 ) 17 (7.5 ) 35 (15.4 )
TR Turnover Rate 117 (51.5 ) 50 (22.0 ) 24 (10.6 ) 25 (11.0 ) 11 (4.8 )
SQI Quality Improvement 17 (7.5 ) 14 (6.2 ) 63 (27.8 ) 72 (31.7 ) 61 (26.9 )
QA Quality Assurance 13 (5.7 ) 26 (11.5 ) 66 (29.1 ) 65 (28.6 ) 57 (25.1 )
MQA Management Approach 39 (17.2 ) 29 (12.8 ) 52 (22.9 ) 48 (21.1 ) 59 (26.0 )
TABLE 8 indicates that 60.3% of local IT companies would take
on a project even if sufficient resources are not available to take on a project.
The insufficient resources for quality management and projects are the major
causes of low quality in SME. 15.8% of the companies agree that their
turnover rate is high, whereas remaining 73.5% companies believe that their
turnover rate is reasonably low. Remaining responded neutrally. High
Turnover means people are not satisfied with the environment or
management policies of the company which in the long run leads to brain
drain and creates poor image of the company in the market. Companies
should take corrective actions to bring turnover rate to less than 3% annually.
TABLE 8 indicates that 58.6% of the local companies believe that quality can
be achieved by increased number of testing cycles which shows a poor
perception of quality on behalf of top management. It shows lack of quality
awareness and wrong approach towards quality improvement. Testing is an
overhead and it signifies that errors are inevitable or expected. Management
should look into preventive measures to stop inevitability of errors / bugs in
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
90
software applications. Prevention approach is suggested by quality gurus and
that don’t remove the problems/errors but remove the causes of errors.
Survey results show the mixed attitude towards establishment of a
quality improvement program. Survey shows 13.7% of the companies have
established no quality plans, 58.6% have set up quality plans where as 27.8%
have shown neutral response as shown in TABLE 8. There is a serious need to
have awareness of QA in local companies in order to promote true quality
culture. The management approach towards quality is unsatisfactory as
indicated in TABLE 8 47.1% do not allow appropriate deadlines and adequate
resources and are reluctant to invest in hiring qualified quality resources and
try to look for cheap resources rather than quality experts.
5.11 REQUIREMENT DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT
TABLE 9 REQUIREMENT DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT
(LOW) 1 2 3 4 (HIGH) 5
PR Project Review 36 (15.9 ) 46 (20.3 ) 55 (24.2 ) 62 (27.3 ) 28 (12.3 )
EST Effort Estimation 18 (7.9 ) 50 (22.0 ) 53 (23.3 ) 63 (27.8 ) 43 (18.9 )
CS Customer Satisfaction 20 (8.8 ) 57 (25.1 ) 69 (30.4 ) 65 (28.6 ) 16 (7.0 )
CM Change management 27 (11.9 ) 52 (22.9 ) 63 (27.8 ) 64 (28.2 ) 21 (9.3 )
OSR Out Sourcing 41 (18.1 ) 58 (25.6 ) 68 (30.0 ) 33 (14.5 ) 27 (11.9 )
A documented review process exists while moving project from one
stage to the other for 39.6% of the companies indicating that most of them are
using some kind of audit and review processes. As shown in TABLE 9 46.7% of
the companies follow some kind of documented procedure to estimate effort
and cost. As indicated in TABLE 9 35.6% of the companies report Increased
customer dissatisfaction due to misinterpretation of customer requirements
while 33.9% of the companies claim they have no requirement disputes.
Differences in requirement interpretation increases rework cost and
requirement change management overheads and may also delay the projects.
. The requirement change management practices reported by only 37.5%
which is low. The processes for sub contract management for out sourcing in
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
91
the local industry are rarely practiced as reported by 43.7% as shown in
TABLE 9.
5.12 PLANNING
TABLE 10 PROJECT PLANNING
(LOW) 1 2 3 4 (HIGH) 5
CNF Conformance 39 (17.2 ) 51 (22.5 ) 51 (22.5 ) 42 (18.5 ) 44 (19.4 )
UAT Acceptance Testing 20 (8.8 ) 47 (20.7 ) 70 (30.8 ) 68 (30.0 ) 22 (9.7 )
PPL Project Planning 22 (9.7 ) 38 (16.7 ) 82 (36.1 ) 63 (27.8 ) 22 (9.7 )
RM Risk Management 19 (8.4 ) 53 (23.3 ) 77 (33.9 ) 55 (24.2 ) 23 (10.1 )
CSTD coding standards 20 (8.8 ) 36 (15.9 ) 59 (26.0 ) 70 (30.8 ) 42 (18.5 )
According to survey as shown in TABLE 10 39.7% of the companies
report that software errors do occur after the project is completed and handed
over to the client, where as 37.9% say that they do not have such problems of
non conformance after project delivery. On the other hand 39.7% agree that
User Acceptance Tests (UAT) are prepared before or during the design stage,
where as 29.5% say that UATs are not prepared at design stage. As shown in
TABLE 10 37.5% practitioners believe that Project development plan (PDP) is
strictly followed where as 26.4% say PDP is not fallowed because deadlines
are always postponed during the software development life cycle process.
As reported in TABLE 10 34.3% companies agree that project risk
management is practiced where as 31.7% are of the opinion that no risk
management evaluation and mitigation is practiced before the start of project.
Coding standard are mostly practiced by 49.3% where as 24.7% IT
practitioners do not follow any particular coding standards.
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
92
5.13 MONITORING AND CONTROL
TABLE 11 PROJECT MONITORING TOOL
(LOW) 1 2 3 4 (HIGH) 5
AR Audits & review 21 (9.3 ) 41 (18.1 ) 52 (22.9 ) 81 (35.7 ) 32 (14.1 )
PM Project monitoring 17 (7.5 ) 50 (22.0 ) 63 (27.8 ) 66 (29.1 ) 31 (13.7 )
PT Project tracking 17 (7.5 ) 59 (26.0 ) 76 (33.5 ) 45 (19.8 ) 30 (13.2 )
PER Performance 38 (16.7 ) 53 (23.3 ) 56 (24.7 ) 58 (25.6 ) 22 (9.7 )
TW Team Work 32 (14.1 ) 62 (27.3 ) 55 (24.2 ) 43 (18.9 ) 35 (15.4 )
According to survey in TABLE 11 49.8% of respondents practiced
project monitoring and control audit reviews whereas 27.3% of companies do
not practice project monitoring and control audit reviews, and they do not
follow any standardize procedures. The variance in project plans is controlled
through change management and reorganized plans must not have any
chance of variance as 42.8% respondents admit that they consistently update
variation in their schedules and updated project plans. The plan monitoring
and tracking is reported low by 33.5% respondents as they don’t update plans
and consider it as just extra paper work and do not follow specified
procedures and standards spiritually whereas 33% respondents tract and
maintain different versions of project plans in order to facilitate timely delivery
and project control. Most of the organizations were able to understand CPI
and SPI and 35.3% claim to calculate these values including project earned
value whereas as indicated in TABLE 11 35.3% did not bother to calculate
process performance values. It is still unconvincing whether they have
knowledge of appropriate procedures to calculate CPI and SPI periodically.
Team culture is week as 34.3% (table-8) respondents agree that for any non
conformance individual accountability is more preferred by management and
like this shifting of responsibility on others is practiced.
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
93
5.14 MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS
TABLE 12 MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS
(LOW) 1 2 3 4 (HIGH) 5
PMR Process Measurement 17 (7.5 ) 43 (18.9 ) 72 (31.7 ) 66 (29.1 ) 29 (12.8 )
DCS Data Collection System 42 (18.5 ) 42 (18.5 ) 69 (30.4 ) 51 (22.5 ) 23 (10.1 )
PPR Process performance 33 (14.5 ) 43 (18.9 ) 79 (34.8 ) 50 (22.0 ) 22 (9.7 )
DL Defect log 21 (9.3 ) 56 (24.7 ) 61 (26.9 ) 46 (20.3 ) 43 (18.9 )
KBL Knowledge base Library 27 (11.9 ) 39 (17.2 ) 55 (24.2 ) 61 (26.9 ) 45 (19.8 )
As indicated in TABLE 12 nearly 41.9% of respondents mention that
organization practiced appropriate process performance measures and
documented the results, whereas 26.4% did not agree on and 31.7% were
neutral on this aspect.
For having data collection system (DCS) for measuring performance,
as 32.6% of respondents agreed that software houses do have DCS and
37% said that their companies did not practice data collection of performance
data. 30.4% have indicated neutral response. Majority of software houses are
unaware of performance measurement and how to use outcomes from
measurement results into process improvement as indicated in TABLE 12
31.7% organizations measure process efficiency and effectiveness for
process optimization and improvement, whereas 33.4% respondents
disagreed. Remaining 34.8% remained neutral.
For defect log maintenance and analysis 39.2% respondents said they
have organization wide data repository whereas 34% did not maintain defect
logs. The responses show a definite trend that no real data analysis is
practiced. Processes are not measured individually and there results are not
being utilized in process improvement.
Lessons learned from previous projects are shared with the rest of the
employees by 46.7% organizations and knowledge base library is maintained
for trend analysis, where as 29.1% said that lessons learned and mistakes are
not shared within the organization. Remaining 24.2% responded neutrally.
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
94
5.15 PROCESS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
According to survey as shown in TABLE 13 58.1% of respondents agree that
management is willing to invest on hiring resources for quality assurance and
improvement. After quality improvement analysis management is quick at
taking corrective action as agreed by 52%., while 26% say that management
is slow in taking corrective action, and 22% replies were neutral. Nearly
41.6% respondents confirm that top management considers investing in
quality as a cost and 31.8% say that management does not take quality as a
cost burden. Management makes plans for quality improvement is supported
by 41.5% as shown in TABLE 13 whereas 31.7% say that management does
not make any efforts to develop and practice quality improvement plans.
Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) is practiced by 35.4% respondents
and 36.2% say that management does not practice CPI.
TABLE 13 PROCESS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
(LOW) 1 2 3 4 (HIGH) 5
RP Resource Planning 17 (7.5 ) 21 (9.3 ) 57 (25.1 ) 50 (22.0 ) 82 (36.1 )
CA PI Corrective Action 14 (6.2 ) 45 (19.8 ) 50 (22.0 ) 86 (37.9 ) 32 (14.1 )
TQM TQM 22 (9.7 ) 50 (22.1 ) 60 (26.5 ) 55 (24.3 ) 39 (17.3 )
QPL Quality Planning 18 (7.9 ) 54 (23.8 ) 61 (26.9 ) 58 (25.6 ) 36 (15.9 )
CPI CPI 41 (18.1 ) 41 (18.1 ) 64 (28.3 ) 57 (25.2 ) 23 (10.2 )
OCM Org Commitment 56 (24.7 ) 55 (24.2 ) 45 (19.8 ) 47 (20.7 ) 24 (10.6 )
SCM Software configuration Management 60 (26.4 ) 59 (26.0 ) 47 (20.7 ) 34 (15.0 ) 27 (11.9 )
SPI Process Improvement 46 (20.3 ) 61 (26.9 ) 52 (22.9 ) 45 (19.8 ) 23 (10.1 )
ML Maturity Level 5 (2.2 ) 27 (11.9 ) 66 (29.1 ) 70 (30.8 ) 59 (26.0 )
For management commitment for quality improvement and
process assessments as indicated in TABLE 13 48.9% of IT practitioners don’t
agree that management supports and allocates separate budget for quality
improvement whereas 31.3% agree that management does allocate funds for
quality improvement efforts. Mostly 52.4% of the organizations do not have
Knowledge Base Library (KBL) nor do they have configuration management
tool to maintain digital shared repository. 26.9% respondents agree that they
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
95
do have KBL as shared repository and they do apply SCM practices. For
quality assurance and process improvement as indicated in TABLE 13 47.2%
companies do not have dedicated staff only for quality improvement and
29.9% of companies agree that they do have separate staff for QA to do
process tailoring and quality improvement of standard processes. For
assessment of maturity level as shown in TABLE 13 56.8% claim that their
maturity level is high, while 14.1% said that their maturity level with respect to
quality is low.
5.16 QUALITY MODELS PRACTICED IN LOCAL IT INDUSTRY
In order to ascertain the nature of quality practices and vision of
software industry a direct question was put in the survey that what kind of
quality model is being followed at your work space. 42% of respondents
selected ISO option which means that most of the companies are following
ISO Practices. It is interesting to notice as shown in TABLE 14 12% are
following CMM and 7% claimed to follow CMMI. Overall 35% of the
practitioners selected “Other” option which may be interpreted as that most of
them may be following other quality models or indigenous organizational
processes model approach. Only 4% reported using TSP/PSP for quality
management.
TABLE 14 QUALITY MODEL DEMOGRAPHICS
MODEL ISO CMM CMMI TSP/PSP OTHERS
PERCENTAGE 42% 12% 7% 4% 35%
5.17 RESPONDENT PROFILES
The data collection instrument was filled by IT practitioners working in the
local industry who were working at different levels of management like top,
middle and lower. The designation profile of respondents is given in TABLE 15.
The total sample size was 227 out of which 7% were filled by top
management, 39% filled by middle management and 54% questionnaires
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
96
were completed by lower management. Detail of management groups is as
follows;
TABLE 15 RESPONDENT’S PROFILE GROUPS
TITLE PERCENTAGE DESIGNATION
TOP 7% CEO, Chairman
MIDDLE 39% Managers, Assistant (manager ,directors) Program Managers, Line Manager
LOWER 54% Software Engineer, Developers, Sys-Analyst, QA Person and Web developer
5.18 PROBLEMS AND ISSUES RAISED
According to research question 3: What are the problems and issues faced by the local practitioners to implement SPI quality practices?
Many comments received during the survey. A few respondents also filled
the comments section of the questionnaire as feedback. During the personal
visits enlightening discussions were held with IT practitioners.. Following is
the general idea of issues and problems raised regarding Software Quality
and top management in the local SMSHs.
Culture Gap: A fundamental problem was identified regarding culture
gap between software industry culture and manufacturing and service
industry culture. The later practice quality principles rigorously and all
employees are accounted for punctuality and production non
conformances. If the employees sit late they are given extra salary for
overtime. Whereas there is very little consideration for punctuality in
software industry and employees are made to sit late to complete
deliverables and iterations to meat poorly estimated client deadlines.
Software practitioners are not acknowledged and paid for such late
sittings and no over time is given. Local software practitioners should
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
97
develop a quality culture where they should follow their written
processes religiously.
Documentation: The software industry blindly follows quality
processes much of time is wasted for documentation. The
management has not enough domain knowledge or have domain
experts to train in quality or practice quality excellence. Management
should follow a lean process measurement policy to only measure
critical process areas that need high supervision. A culture of
measuring everything does not promise to reveal productive results.
Quality Tools: There is no awareness and implementation of quality
tools among the management of SMSHs. Quality tools are available in
international market but their prices are so high that acquiring highly
expensive quality tools for SMSHs is not feasible due to their low
stream of cash flows. Secondly management considers quality as a
cost. SMSHs should develop separate budget for purchasing quality
tools or start developing indigenous tools for quality management and
start offering it as a product for local SMSHs.
Low Salaries: Majority of the IT practitioners also pointed out the
problem of low salaries which they were being offered in the local
industry. SMSHs fail to retain employees due to their short term
planning and policies. The high turnover rate in IT industry is due to
tough local competition among SMSHs. The salaries for senior
management are less as compared to salaries in manufacturing or
service industry when compared on long term basis. Later gives more
benefits like car and residence and tries to retain the employees for
long-term basis. One of the reason may be that most of the
manufacturing industrial zones are situated in remote locations.
Quality Check at End: The local SMSHs have a culture practice to
check quality of a software product at the end when it is completed.
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
98
Any requirement changes or functional and non-functional non-
conformances lead to high change management costs which lead to
project delays, customer dissatisfaction and budget overruns. Such
projects do not remain profitable for SMSHs. Top management should
develop new quality philosophy and should develop a paradigm to
measure product quality throughout the software development life cycle
and not just at the end.
Rethink Quality: Trainings are not offered for awareness and
implementation of quality. Quality is just offered theoretically with high
load of documentation. Management considers quality as a burden.
Leadership should develop commitment towards quality and start
rethinking quality, culture change and adopt total quality philosophy
and start considering quality as an integral part of organization on long
term basis.
Poor Baseline Knowledge: There is an acute shortage of quality
domain experts at lower or baseline level in local SMSHs which is one
of the reasons for poor implementation of quality. Processes should be
developed to involve lower level employees to learn and develop
domain expertise in quality. Templates, Standard Operating
Procedures (SOP) and easily accessible manuals should be provided
to develop and enforce quality culture.
Change Management: Requirement management and change
management processes are not followed using quality guidelines which
leads to non conformance due to incomplete information and delays in
projects. Management should develop proper processes for change
management and customer requirement gathering which should be
governed by an effective quality control system.
Lack of Planning: The project quality and delivery depends upon
schedule planning through Project Development Plan in industrial
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
99
practices that project plans are only made for the sake of
documentation and are not followed in letter and spirit. The variance in
schedule planning may affect timelines and project cost. There should
be strict vigilance in schedule planning to prevent from rework and
project delays. Project resources should be planned before project start
to avoid inconvenience from available resources.
5.19 PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF QMS IN PAKISTAN’S IT
INDUSTRY
Tight budgets do not allow most of the organizations to invest on QMS
(or related practices) as most of them only adopt it to create a better
market impression rather than improve their system. Most of the SME’s
only adopt QMS when external financial support is involved. PSEB and
Business Support Fund (NGO) are some of the organizations providing
support to SME to implement such practices.
Lack of financial resources leads to few investments on human
resource training and more on technological solutions, untrained staff
leads to unpolished Quality System.
Lack of trainings for most of the staff (usually a selected few are trained
from external sources and are provided with certificates that increases
their academic qualification level and hence motivates them), leads to
lack interest in QMS.
Many QMS activities can be easily recorded and documented with use
of software solutions (or deployment of ERP applications), but financial
constraints force organizations to use manual recording methods which
leads to human errors, missing entries, slower responses, etc.
eventually effecting overall performance of QMS.
Re-work is a major issue as most of the organizations cannot afford to
invest higher on Quality Assurance and focus more on development &
delivering, which leads to problems at customer’s end and reboot of
development process. Quality Assurance is mostly done with support
Chapter 5 Descriptive Results
100
of QA tools that are either free or very old as the new ones with better
features are very expensive.
5.20 SUMMARY In this chapter descriptive results of the survey are reported for each
quality construct. Problems and issues raised by the IT practitioners are also
presented at the end. Problems in implementation of quality management
systems in local IT industry are highlighted. Analysis and findings are
presented in the next chapter.
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
101
CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In this chapter empirical analysis and its findings are presented. The
empirical analysis includes correlation and regression analysis of quality
constructs. Results of Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) are elaborated to
evaluate the evolved LQIM model. IN the end graphical representation of
LQIM model and its conceptual detail is given.
The following section addresses the fourth research question.
Question 4. What can be a proposed SPI paradigm which can best fit to
solve the problems of quality improvement in the local
software houses (SMSHs)?
In order to address this question following two statistical techniques are
used to come up with a reliable and measurably fit optimum model for SPI in
local SMSHs. First section includes output from SPSS ver. 16.0 as proof of
empirical analysis, using linear regression and correlation analysis to depict
the interrelationship between the dependent variable (QualityIMP) and 7
independent constructs as discussed in Chapter 4 (Methodology). Important
components of empirical analysis like reliability, internal validity of constructs
and data collection instrument, and external validity are also discussed. In the
second section in order to propose an optimum SPI Model Structure Equation
Modelling (SEM) analysis is carried out using Analytical Movement of
Structures ( AMOS) to further validate the results obtained through the linear
regression modelling. The objective is to test the stability of the relationships
between the measurement variables and the constructs and measure the
goodness of fit of the proposed SPI Model.
6.1 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Reliability Is one of the main pillars of research methods and techniques meant to endorse and put into practice the authenticity of methodology on longitudinal scale to guarantee similar research outcomes by different researchers (Yin, 2003). The instrument design and data collection procedures have been reported in detail in Chapter-4 (Methodology). The
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
102
instrument was pretested and reviewed by experts in order to filter out all types of misinterpretations and ambiguities for respondents and surveyors. Reliability means that a test, method or an experiment yields the same results on repeated trials (Carmines and Zeller, 1979). In order to ascertain the reliability of data collection instrument and the data collected against each indicator variable, a technique developed by Cronbach, (1951), is used during the data analysis. The SPSS ver.16.0 was used to run the scale reliability Cronbach’s Alpha test. This technique gives a value of Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for measuring reliability. According to Murphy and Balzer, (1989) generally Cronbach’s Coefficients value of greater than 0.70 is considered adequate. In reference to
TABLE 17 the Cronbach’s Alpha for this research is 0.839 based on 47
items of questionnaire and 227 respondents. It is a measurement of the
overall reliability of instrument. The Cronbach’s test was also applied to all
eight constructs individually and as indicated in TABLE 16 the maximum
range of Cronbach’s Alpha for (Structure= 0.77) and the minimum Range of
Cronbach’s Alpha for (Monitoring & Control =0.51 and. Therefore, reliability of
instrument is valid and good as according to Nunnally, (1978) Cronbach’s
Coefficient Alpha value of more than (0.5) is also acceptable. A study was
carried out by Van de Ven and Ferry (1980) suggested that Crobach’s Alpha
value of 0.35 is also an acceptable benchmark. In order to ascertain
construct reliability the Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha for the eight quality
constructs is given in TABLE 16 for reference.
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
103
RELIABILITY TEST SPSS OUTPUT
TABLE 16 RELIABILITY OF CONSTRUCTS
CONSTRUCT ABBREVIATION Cronbach’s Alpha
Organization Size & Structure OSS 0.77 Organization Culture OCL 0.53 Organization Behaviour Towards Quality OBQ 0.67 Requirement Management RQM 0.61 Project Planning PPL 0.62 Project Monitoring & Control PMC 0.51 Measurement & Analysis MAN 0.72 Process Quality Improvement PQI 0.68
TABLE 17 RELIABILITY STATISTICS
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
RELIABILITY /VARIABLES=SIZ TND STA OST RTN OVT SHD LRN COM TM TRA TST ASS RA TR SQI QA TPQ PR EST CS CM OSR CNF UAT PPL RM CSTD AR PM PT PER TW PMR DCS PPR DL KBL RP PI TQM QPL CPI OCM SCM SPI ML /SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL /MODEL=ALPHA.
0.839 47
6.2 INTERNAL VALIDITY CONSTRUCTS
Validity measures the quality of answers provided against the research
questions. Internal validity of the data and data collection instrument includes
the determination of cause and effect relationships introduced by Dilanthi at
al., (2002) in the design of experiment by fitting a theoretical framework
behind each construct for finding out effects on dependent variables.
According to Carmines and Zeller, (1979), validity also means that if the
instrument measures what was intended to measure then that instrument is
simply valid. Development of 47 indicators of quality practices from ISO 9000:
2001 and CMM (CMU/SEI) KPAs provides a solid foundation on which to
build a methodology to assess quality improvement practices in local industry.
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
104
A number of similar studies have used SEM and proposed the same cause
and effect relationship between constructs and have made recommendations.
Among contemporary studies, a recent study by Khung Kok Wei, (2009) uses
the same model. On the basis of literature review, interaction with academic
quality experts and data collection from IT practitioners resulted in creation of
8 quality constructs to measure the quality improvement practices. In general
these constructs resolve the issue of evaluating interrelationships between
large number of items. It is a way of condensing and summarizing the
information into new dimension of composite size called constructs. It is also
called factor analysis (Flynn et al, 1994). The reference list representing
literature review along with detail discussion on research design and research
methodology section gives detailed discussion on engineering of data
collection tool, development of quality constructs and subsequent survey
administration.
6.3 EXTERNAL VALIDITY
External validity investigates whether the research findings in a
particular environment can be generalized for other situations in which a
sample population is investigated. Such a generalized behaviour can be a
critical characteristic of research that further signifies the research’s scope
and make it contributory to multidimensional fields and body of knowledge
(Dilanthi et al, 2002). To further enhance the external validity of the research a
systematic random sampling technique is adopted to select an unbiased
sample size from a list containing Software houses located mainly in four
major cities of Pakistan namely Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad and Rawalpindi.
The data was collected from members of PSEB and PASHA and other
software houses. The methodology to select samples systematically was
followed to get a true probability sample which can be justified statistically. It
is envisaged from the above discussion that this research has fulfilled the
prerequisites, and has good external validity
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
105
6.4 CORRELATION ANALYSIS
The correlation matrix for 8 quality constructs for quality improvement and
quality implementation is given in TABLE 21. where results are reported
along with Pearson Correlation Coefficient Alpha value denoted by “R”,
Level of Significance denoted by “P” and Sample size N. Correlation is
considered significant at level 0.0l if “P” value is near to 0.01, similarly
correlation is considered significant at level 0.05 in case “P” value is near
to 0.05.
TABLE 18 CORRELATION BETWEEN ALL CONSTRUCTS ** Correlation is Significant at the 0.05 level (2‐tailed)
PLANNING REQ_MGT STRUCTURE CULTURE QUALITY CONTROL MEASURE QUALITYIMP
PLANNING
R 1 P N 227
REQ_MGT
R .534** 1 P .000 N 227 227
STRUCTURE
R .204** .356** 1 P .002 .000 N 227 227 227
CULTURE R .384** .517** .283** 1 P .000 .000 .000 N 227 227 227 227
QUALITY
R ‐.236** ‐.372** ‐.488** ‐.460** 1 P .000 .000 .000 .000 N 227 227 227 227 227
CONTROL R .513** .548** .254** .449** ‐.222** 1 P .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 N 227 227 227 227 227 227
MEASURE R .514** .623** .324** .499** ‐.336** .618** 1 P .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 227 227 227 227 227 227 227
QUALITY_IMP R .486** .547** .427** .502** ‐.341** .595** .648** 1 P .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 227
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
106
In TABLE 18, it is obvious that there is a strong correlation between the
dependent variable and all other variables in the table. Hypothetically if the
correlation is high between two variables then it is said that the two variables
have strong interrelationship characteristics. If we try to study the correlation
of dependent variable “QUALITY_IMP” with the all other quality constructs,
the TABLE 18 shows significant correlation with 7 constructs at significance
level 0.05%. The significance value of Planning is 0.486, that of REQ_MGT is
0.547, that of STRUCTURE is 0.427, that of CULTURE is 0.502, that of
QUALITY is 0.341, that of CONTROL is 0.595 and that of MEASURE is
0.648, The subsequent step in the empirical analysis is to find out the impact
in variability of dependent variable outcomes due to the independent
variables. According to Mahour, (2006) regression analysis explains which
variables(s) is significant among other variables in explaining the quantum of
variability on dependent variables. The following section gives
implementation details of the theoretical model to test the approximation of
the model already developed in chapter 4 (Methodology).
6.5 REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Following the theoretical framework for regression analysis given in
Methodology Chapter-4, regression analysis was done using SPSS ver.16.0.
The output results are given in, TABLE 19, TABLE 20, and TABLE 21. Quality
Improvement (QualityIMP) construct was put as dependent variable and all
other 7 constructs namely Structure, Culture, Planning, Control, Quality ,
Req_Management and Measurement were put in the category of independent
variables.
TABLE 19 MODEL SUMMARY
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .744 .553 .539 .52844
a. Predictors: (Constant), MEASURE, QUALITY, Structure, CULTURE, PLANNING, CONTROL, REQ_MGT b. Dependent Variable: QUALITYIMP
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
107
TABLE 20 ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 75.704 7 10.815 38.728 .000aResidual 61.156 219 .279Total 136.859 226
a. Predictors: (Constant), MEASURE, QUALITY, Structure, CULTURE, PLANNING, CONTROL, REQ_MGT, b. Dependent Variable: QUALITYIMP TABLE 21 COEFFICIENTS
Model
Un‐standardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
T Sig. B Std. Error Beta1 (Constant) ‐.308 .428 ‐.720 .472
PLANNING .132 .074 .103 1.797 .074REQ_MGT .051 .074 .045 .686 .493STRUCTURE .225 .059 .204 3.821 .000CULTURE .191 .081 .138 2.366 .019QUALITY .014 .063 .013 .226 .821CONTROL .247 .069 .222 3.588 .000MEASURE .279 .061 .300 4.538 .000
Dependent Variable: QUALITYIMP
According to the output four independent variables are strong
predictors of dependent variable QualityIMP. As indicated in TABLE 19 R-
Square = 0.553 which means that these constructs explain 55.3% variability of
dependent variable QualityIMP. As indicated in TABLE 21 Significant
predictors of QualityIMP are; significance of Structure (OSS) is 0.000, that
of Culture (OCL) is 0.019, that of Control (PMC) is 0.000), that of Measure (MAN) is 0.000 are significant at P value less than 0.05. The value in TABLE
21 also endorse that the relationship between QualityIMP is linear with the 4
predicting independent variables.
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
108
Analysis of variance (ANOVA ) was also performed through SPSS ver.
16 and as indicated in TABLE 20 ANOVA significance (P- Value) is 0.000
which signifies that the model is statically significant at Alpha= 0.05.
It can be deduced from this analysis that in order to make an effective
Quality Improvement Model and guidelines for the local industry the
following 4 critical success factors will play a very important role. Dependency
model for quality improvement is given in FIGURE 6. Implications and
guidelines to implement these constructs shall be discussed in Chapter 7
where the final model is evolved by using SEM.
FIGURE 6 QUALITY IMPROVEMENT DEPENDENCY MODEL
Quality Improvement (QIMP) DepVar Organizational Culture (OCL) IndVar Project Monitoring and Control (PMC) IndVar Organization Size and Structure (OST) IndVar Measurement and Analysis (MAN) IndVar
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
109
At this point it is important to explore the covariance between each of
these constructs and also need to find out the impact of each unique variable
on the respective construct. For this Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
technique is used that is discussed in the next section. It will help to analyze
this model further and help to reduce the set of variables into a lean and more
manageable Model.
6.6 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING
Specialized statistical software called Analytical Movement of
Structures (AMOS) is used to further refine the model to come up with an
optimum SPI paradigm. AMOS has a graphical interface .and is an excellent
tool to use for SEM model fitting Khung Kok Wei, (2009). SEM basically
describes relationship between variables. SEM technique is similar to
regression modelling and factor analysis and is effective in a way for removing
multi-co-linearity in the model. AMOS has a graphical interface and is an
excellent tool to use for SEM model fitting. AMOS is distributed by SPSS Inc.
6.6.1 SEM IMPLEMENTATION
. A second order Critical Factor Analysis (CFA) is carried out using
SEM to further validate the results obtained through the linear regression
modelling in previous section. It tests the stability of the relationships between
the measurement variables and the constructs. At this stage all 8 latent
constructs are retained and the total numbers of measurement variable
indicators remain 47. The SEM completed 4 runs to reach acceptable
goodness of fit indices benchmark level. During the run 4 constructs got
completely deleted. In total 37 indicators were deleted from scale
development process. These deleted indicators were found to be inadequate
to load the model due to poor level of explained variance. List of the deleted
indicators is given in table 26 at the end of this section. The graphical output
of the model is given in FIGURE 7 and the recommended optimum paradigm
standard quality practices are shown in TABLE 25.
C
“G
G
c
M
Im
Im
re
6
T
e
st
w
A
hapter 6
This
GOODNES
Gerbing (19
riterion to d
Degre
Comp
Norm
Goodn
Accor
Mean Squar
FIGUR
mprovemen
mprovemen
esults and a
6.6.2 RATI
TABLE 22
Mode
Defau
Satur
Indep
The
specially if
tatistic whic
which is us
Anderson an
study fal
SS OF FIT”
988), and
determine th
es of freedom
arative fit in
ed fit index (
ness fit index
rding to Hu
re error Ind
RE 7 indic
nt Model (L
nt. The evo
all determin
IO OF CHI-
CMIN CH
el
ult model
rated mode
pendence m
value of c
the sample
ch measure
sed to mea
nd Gerbing
lowed var
of the me
Bentler (1
he model fi
m chi square
dex (CFI),
(NFI),
x (GFI),
u and Bentle
ex (RMSEA
ates the o
QIM) as so
olved mode
nistic goodn
-SQUARE
HI-SQUARE
NP
el
model
chi-square
e size is gr
es the ratio
asure the
, (1988), if
rious crite
asurement
1992) follow
t.
e /df
>0.8
er, (1999) a
A) is accept
optimized
olution and
l indicates
ness of fit in
: D.F
E
PAR CMIN
17 88.2
55 .0
10 370.6
is usually
reater than
of chi-squa
model fit.
the value o
rions for
model. Ac
wing are
< 3
8 to 0 .90, (als
> 0.90
>0.90
and Byrane
table under
evolved p
model fit fo
that CFA s
ndices pass
N DF
286 38
000 0
659 45
y very sen
200. There
are to the d
According
of this ratio
Analy
determinat
ccording to
acceptable
so acceptable
e, (1989) va
r (0.08).
aradigm L
or the Softw
showed goo
sed the mod
P CMI
.000
.000
nsitive to s
e is anothe
degrees of f
to Kline,
is less tha
ysis & Finding
11
tion of th
Anderson
e values fo
e 0.85)
alue for Roo
Lean Qualit
ware Proces
odness of f
del.
N/DF
2.323
8.237
sample siz
er chi-squar
freedom (d.
(1998) an
n 3 then it
gs
10
he
&
or
ot
ty
ss
fit
ze
re
.f)
nd
is
C
a
8
th
m
6
in
th
(I
w
is
th
T
S
6
c
m
a
m
re
hapter 6
good indic
8.286, d.f =
he benchm
model is with
.6.3 COM
Comp
ndex calcula
he null mo
ndicators)
when sampl
s 0.85. Acco
hus should
TABLE 23
SEM MODEL
MO
DefaultDefaultDefault
6.6.3.1 NOR
The N
hi-square v
model. One
ssumes th
measure an
ecommend
cator of mod
=38 and ra
mark fit inde
hin accepta
MPARATIV
parative fit
ates the de
odel with th
have no s
le size is sm
ording to Bo
be accepta
BASELIN
GOOD FIT IN
DEL
Model Model Model
RMED FIT
NFI index
value of the
e of its as
at all meas
nd it is se
ed by Bent
del fit. As in
tio Chi-squ
ex therefor
able range.
VE FIT IND
index was
egree of inte
he assump
ignificant in
mall. The S
ollen (1989
able.
NE COMPA
DICES
INDEX
GFI CFI NFI
INDEX (NF
is meant to
e proposed
ssumptions
sured varia
ensitive to
ler, (1990).
ndicated in
uare /
re the good
EX (CFI)
s first foun
errelationsh
tion that th
nterrelation
SPI Model r
9) a CFI val
ARISONS M
VALU
0.920.80.76
FI)
o determine
d model wit
is critical
ables are u
sample si
The resul
the results
d.f = 2.3
dness of fi
ded by Be
hip between
he latent m
ship. This
resultant va
ue of .85 re
MODEL FIT
UE
26 85 62
e the mode
th the chi-s
that as w
uncorrelate
ze less th
tant value o
Analy
TABLE 22 c
323. The va
t of the pr
entler, (199
n suggeste
measureme
index work
alue in TABL
epresents p
INDICES
el fit by co
square valu
worst case
d. NFI is a
an or arou
of NFI for S
ysis & Finding
11
chi-square
alue is unde
roposed SP
90). The CF
d model an
ent variable
ks well eve
LE 23 of CF
progress an
omparing th
e of the nu
scenario
an importan
und 200 a
SPI Model
gs
11
is
er
PI
FI
nd
es
en
FI
nd
he
ull
it
nt
as
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
112
as shown in TABLE 23 is 0.76 which is less than the benchmark and therefore
it is a mediocre indication of SPI Model fit. One reason for mediocre model fit
may be that sample size is small.
6.6.3.2 GOODNESS-0F-FIT INDEX (GFI)
The goodness of fit GFI was founded by Joreskog and Sorbom in
1984. Goodness of fit index is an alternative to the chi-square test and its
criterion is to assess the ratio of variance that is accounted for by the
approximation of the SPI Model covariance. Through such estimation it can
be predicted how close the proposed model is able to replicate the covariance
of population matrix (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). It has also been found that
as the value of GFI increases the number of parameters in the model also
increases.
In reference to Error! Reference source not found. the value of GFI =
0.926 which is greater than 0.9 benchmark, therefore it can be confirmed that
SPI model has a very good Model fit.
6.6.4 ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERROR INDEX (RMSEA) 6.6.4 ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERROR INDEX (RMSEA)
TABLE 24 RMSEA
Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE
Default model .077 .056 .097 .020
Independence model.179 .162 .196 .000
The RSMEA index was first developed by Steiger and Lind (1990).
RMSEA has evolved as a good measure for models fit with regard to model’s
economy or parsimony. It chooses the most optimal parameters that would fit
the population covariance matrix (Byrne, 1998). In other words it assesses the
divergence among the proposed and estimated covariance matrices per
degree of freedom. In recent years it has gained importance among
C
re
A
R
fo
b
o
a
hapter 6
esearchers
According to
RMSEA lies
or RMSEA
The r
enchmark t
f SPI mod
ffected by t
FIGUR
due to its
o MacCallu
s between 0
is < 0.8 the
resultant va
thus value
el is a bet
the size of t
RE 7 SEM
sensitivity
um et al, (
0.8 to 1.0 th
en shows a
alue for RM
asserts a g
tter approx
the sample
M STANDAR
to the num
1996) and
hen it is a m
good fit.
SEA in TAB
good model
imation of
e.
RDIZED SOLU
mber of mea
McQuitty,
mediocre m
BLE 24 is 0
l fit. It furthe
the popula
UTION FOR S
ChisquaX /d.fNFI=0.76CFI = 0.8RMSEA =GFI = 0.9
Analy
asurement
(2004), if
model fit and
.077 which
er proves th
ation and it
PI MODEL FI
are=88.29, (d
f = 2.32., P < 06 85 0.077 26
ysis & Finding
11
parameters
the value o
d if the valu
is below th
hat the valu
t will not b
IT.7
d.f)=38
0.001
gs
13
s.
of
ue
he
ue
be
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
114
The detail of the significant quality constructs evolved through the SEM
analysis and quality improvement indicators is given in TABLE 25
TABLE 25 EVOLVED SPI PARADIGM PRACTICES
CONSTRUCTS LQIM VARIABLE INDICATORS
Org. Size & Structure (OSS) TND Technology / Research & Dev. Org. Culture (OCL) COM Communication TRA Training TST Team Structure Org. Behaviour towards Quality (OBQ) TR Turnover Rate SQI Software Quality Improvement QA Quality Assurance TPQ Top Management Quality Approach Measurement & Analysis (MAN) KBL Knowledge Base Library DL Defect log
The item wise deletion of Questionnaire items (indicators) from the
model during Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is given in table 26.
TABLE 26 SEM DELETED ITEMS FROM MODEL
No VAR QUESTIONS
1 RTN Employees are hired on long term basis and organization tries to retain employees
2 SPI The organization has dedicated (quality Assurance) QA group for tailoring And improving standard processes.
3 CPI CPI (Continues Process Improvement) is practiced dedicatedly and documented to improve quality.
4 SCM The organization has established a shared knowledge base library for configuration management, which can accurately reconstructing software items from scratch in development environment.
5 PI After process analysis and measurement, top management is quick at devising corrective actions for process improvement.
6 TQM Top management while investing in quality and process improvement considered it as a cost burden.
7 ASS Personnel performance assessment just documentary and everyone is given same bonus?
8 CS There is some gap between customer understanding and project team’s perception of customer requirement.
9 PM All variations in baseline of project plan implementation due to changes, quality, schedule and delays are well reflected in the updated project plans
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
115
10 CM Customer requirement changes that occur during development are incorporated through Change control Board..
11 OSR Organizational documented subcontract management procedure is available for out Sourcing projects to external firms.
12 CSTD Organization has common coding standards for all projects and all employees are trained.
13 DCS Data Collection System (DCS) has dedicated resources are available and DCS is in use for collecting process measurement data on continuous basis
14 STA Organization has hired data analysis experts like MSc / PhD statistics for organizational and quality performance analysis.
15 PT Project plans are tracked and different versions are maintained due to functionality changes.
16 SIZ Your organization have number of employees from
17 TM Task allocation and time management is strictly followed.
18 SHD Usually tasks are completed within working hours planned for the task: how much you agree?
19 RA Your organization can accept projects even if required resources are insufficient to complete the project.
20 CNF Software errors issues arise frequently after the project completion and handover.
21 AR Management conducts periodic quality audits and reviews for all stages in a project continuously for all projects.
22 TW In case of project delay (failure), Project performance Assessment and responsibility is emphasized on individual basis rather than team based responsibility
23 PMR Organization defined and documented procedure for measuring process performance is practiced?
24 LRN Top management and colleagues willingly sponsor learning to other employees usually.
25 EST A documented procedure is used for project cost, effort and size estimation.
26 ML The maturity level of your organization with respect to quality is somewhere at.
27 QPL Top management establishes plans for quality improvement activities and continuously gives a follow up.
28 OCM The organization has committed funds, staff and other resources for quality process development and process assessment.
29 RP Top management is equally willing to employ dedicated staff for quality control and process Improvement.
30 OST There are more than 3 levels of management hierarchy in the organization
31 PER Cost Performance Index (CPI) or Schedule Performance Index (SPI) or project earned value tracking are periodically calculated.
32 PR A documented review process exists at each stage to transfer project from one stage to another like Sign‐in, requirement , design, coding and to testing .
33 UAT Project test cases are prepared at design stage before implementation of design.
34 PPL Project development plan with resource allocation (PDP) is prepared and strictly followed throughout the SDLC.
35 RM Project risk assessment and mitigation is thoroughly documented and evaluated before start of each project.
36 PPR Process efficiency and effectiveness is measured individually for each process to optimize process performance
37 OVT Organization practices include Overtime hours offered, appreciated and paid for.
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
116
6.7 LEAN QUALITY IMPROVEMENT MODEL CONCEPTUAL DETAIL
The conceptual detail of Lean Quality Improvement Model (LQIM) that evolved
through SEM analysis is given in TABLE 27. This conceptual detail is based on
Deming’s TQM philosophy of Plan. Do. Check, Act, PDCA and Software Process
Improvement (SPI) guidelines from literature review.
TABLE 27 LQIM CONCEPTUAL DETAIL
MODEL VARIABLE INDICATOR DESCRIPTION
PLAN
Organization Size and Structure (OSS)
TND Tech. R n’ D
The research performed on existing and new applications, processes and hardware can result in new product development or up‐gradation of existing LQIM Process.
Organization Culture (OCL)
COM Communication
To make any changes in the culture of the organization, whether for the sake of quality or business development, freedom of speech and communication is to be established. Top Management is required to develop effective and easily available communication systems that can be used by all personnel involved so that they are able to express their opinion and also express their work progress (self‐monitoring) and problems / issues / violations (monitoring of others) through this system. Mode of communication can be email, phone, hand‐written, etc. but all communication is to be logged and recorded to ensure investigation of any problem and to rectify / correct any changes that are not garnering a positive response.
TRA Training
A system for training need assessments and skill development of personnel is to be established to increase the adaption rate of culture changes and personnel capabilities. Culture change refers to changes in processes and normal day‐to‐day tasks due to implementation of LQIM. Culture change is a holistic approach based on long term planning. Short internal awareness sessions can help people increase their confidence while keeping everything under budget.
TST Team Structure
Cross sectional teams based on domain experts from all departments involved in LQIM development and implementation need to be established in order to ensure that all departments are part of the implementation process and are able to comply with LQIM requirements.
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
117
Organization’s Behavior Towards Quality (OBQ)
TPQ
Top Management Quality Approach
Quality requires resources and investment from Top Management. It is the Management’s decision whether they want to provide all resources or limit them based on their budgeting. Timeline provided is also at the hands of Top Management. In the end, it is their decision about “Timeline” and “Resources” that will eventually support in achievement of quality as planned. Limited resources and short timelines may not provide the intended results, but long timelines and unlimited resources are also not the right solution. Top Management’s priority towards quality is the key.
TR Turnover Rate
A high turnover rate (more than 6% person leaving the organization annually) expresses insecurity of employees and can weaken the base of LQIM. Organization needs to motivate their personnel through incentives (bonuses and titles) and trainings that can support them not only in operations but also in their career development.
QA Quality Assurance
Plan must include methods for quality assurance so that products and services are under constant check while they are being processed, therefore leaving little chances for non‐conformities. Cost of Quality Assurance may be high, but through adopting TQM approach with long term benefits and almost no re‐work, makes up to the investment in this category.
DO
Organization Culture (OCL) TRA Training
Perform the trainings based on the requirements of LQIM as well as focused on personnel preferences and on the basis of training need assessment. Develop a learning culture through training and re‐training.
Organization’s Behavior Towards Quality (OBQ)
QA Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance goes side by side with product development processes in IT companies. This system is required to ensure that the required product and services are meeting customer requirements. Management’s approach is to gain customer’s loyalty and long term relationship.
CHECK
Measurement and Analysis (MAN)
KBL Knowledge Base Library
Organization is required to record all the issues and problems faced during a working year, and also record their rectifications and methods to avoid such issues / problems. This knowledge is distributed to all levels of organization so that personnel are able to learn from their past mistakes and avoid any problems that may have occurred previously.
DL Defect Log Defects are recorded separately so that they can be statistically analyzed to identify any trends
Chapter 6 Analysis & Findings
118
6.8 SUMMARY
In this chapter empirical analysis and its findings are presented. The empirical
analysis includes correlation and regression analysis of quality constructs.
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) technique is used to develop an
optimized Lean Quality Improvement Model (LQIM) for standard quality
practices in SMSH. Eight quality constructs were developed to ascertain the
level of current quality practices and evolve a LQIM. In correlation analysis all
seven independent constructs were found significant towards the dependent
variable Quality Improvement. Regression analysis revealed that only four of
these independent quality constructs contributed significantly towards the
dependant variable Quality Improvement. Through Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM) the LQIM was evolved. This model presented four quality
constructs and ten of their respective quality practices as significant. At the
end the conceptual understanding of the LQIM model is presented for
implementation in SMSH using Deming’s TQM Philosophy of PDCA. The next
chapter provides recommendations for implementing quality practices.
or determine alternates to avoid / eradicate the issues.
ACT
Organization’s Behaviour Towards Quality (OBQ)
SQI Software Quality Improvement
The findings based on Quality Assurance Activities, Logs, reviews, internal audits and statistical analysis (using various tools), need to be corrected with most appropriate corrective measure. This can also help in determining better solutions to enhance system performance.
Chapter 7 Recommendations
119
CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter includes the set of recommendations given on the
following basis. Literature review on quality models and SME culture for small
and medium size software houses according to research questions 1 and 2;
Descriptive Analysis findings that gives answer to the problems faced by
SMSHs according to research question 3 and analysis & discussions to
measure the reliability and goodness of fit of the proposed SPI paradigm
according to research question 4.
7.1 QUESTION 1: HOW TO CHANGE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IN SMSH
Many companies are not in favour of the cultural change. They resist
change as they had a fear of failure. They feel easy to the old environment.
They are unaware of the real meaning of implementing the quality in a
company. Only relying on training and certifications does not mean the
organization has achieved the quality level. According to Crouch (1998), “I do
wish I had more knowledge in areas such as identifying key business drivers
and processes as well as developing performance goals, measures and
standards”. As all you learn from the training and certification does not work
as it is too much academic to go by the book. It should be more flexible and
close to the real life examples.
But before implementing any strategy, standard and approach the
organization should develop clear understanding of processes and standards.
SMSHs shall realize the importance of the quality culture and bring the
change according to their respective business environment. Process
reliability, productivity, quality are usually measured by human perception in a
poor quality environment. Preferably, an effective way to measure process
performance and quality is to first understand the process at micro and macro
levels and then use statistical measurement techniques and automated
software tools for data analysis (Siok and Tian, 2007). Make the practitioners
and leadership believe that yes there is a need of the radical cultural change
Chapter 7 Recommendations
120
in the organization for the improvement of business performance. The local
SMSH still fail to gain the latent benefit of cost of quality concept that it is an
investment and not an over head cost (Deming, 1986). SMSH need to
reengineer their old processes according to the new upgraded technologies
and need to automate their quality management systems. In early 90s a
number of large scale change management projects failed for the reasons
related to technology up gradation as the managers continued to rely on the
old processes (Markus, and Keil, 1994). So there is a need of not only to bring
the change but the essential part is to reengineer their old processes and to
create process alignment with technology and organization culture. As a result
performance efficiency will increase due to SPI and reduction in rework costs.
Improvement in quality will achieve economies of scale and thus local
software products will be more competitive in global markets. That’s the
reason why SMSH should implement TQM principles along with ISO 9000 or
CMM /CMMI for continuous improvement of the quality.
To bring the change in the culture of our local software industry through
TQM a transition to total quality culture is required and behaviour towards
quality needs to be changed among the local IT practitioners. Top
management should delegate powers to empower employees to take
appropriate actions when the things go wrong or to take preventive action
before they go wrong instead of inspection and fire fighting afterwards. There
should be an open communication between the employees at all levels,
instead of having weak communication pattern based on the grapevine and
secrecy. As advised by Deming, (1986) break communication barriers and
learn from mistakes instead of hiding them or finger pointing on others. He
advised to adopt learning culture through training and retraining to develop
awareness in quality. Promote freedom of speech and open channels of
communication with internal and external customers. It’s top management’s
responsibility to create vision and lead the organization to success with
excellence in quality management (Anderson et al.,1994).
Chapter 7 Recommendations
121
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ON FINDINGS SMSH
All the responses from the IT practitioners were tabulated for
descriptive analysis and results. Based on the feedback, comments from the
respondents and in the light of literature review of quality models, quality and
quality culture in SME following recommendations are proposed.
7.2.1 ORGANIZATION SIZE & STRUCTURE
Employees should be hired on basis of available resources of the
organization. An organization needs to have at least one technology specialist
for each set of process areas and technology based departments because all
rounder cannot perform technical and trivial tasks in making high quality
products. A leader must be qualified, skilled and must have guidance and
leadership abilities in right directions. There should be a separate department
for Research and Development. The central and tall structure is not
appreciated because it can cause delays in decision making during project
development phases and also during quality improvement. There should be
criteria for employee harmony based upon their performance and assessment
and some beneficial services for employees. In this way the employees can
work with motivation and with their heart and soul which is a key point for
quality culture and a good environment. It also reduces turnover rate. SMEs
should make favourable human resource policies to retain employees to
prevent knowledge and brain drain due to high turnover rate.
7.2.2. ORGANIZATION CULTURE
Time management and time scheduling should be arranged according
to the project deadlines. Before committing and signing agreement with
customer regarding project cost and completion deadlines, top management
should consult project technical team leads. Offering overtime hours is not a
good approach as it signifies lack of time planning and time management.
There should be appropriate pay scales for IT professionals and working
overtime hours to be discouraged. Top management should take interest in
time scheduling and time planning as it will increase project success rate.
Chapter 7 Recommendations
122
Freedom of speech is one of Deming’s 14 points and free communication
across organization should be encouraged.
Top management should promote learning culture by encouraging
employees as well as for management to learn on continuous basis. Training
about new and upcoming technologies is necessary for the organization to
compete in local and global markets. A specific budget should be allocated for
such trainings.
The assessment results lead to quality and performance improvement.
An organization should practice 360 degree assessment technique for
employee assessment and should reward people on good performance which
will also motivate remaining employees to work hard and perform better.
7.2.3. ORGANIZATION BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS QUALITY
An organization should take only those projects for which required
technical resources are sufficient and currently available. Resource
optimization and workload management helps to achieve high quality at low
cost. Tests are conducted to remove errors and non conformances of
software product. Quality can never be achieved by increased number of
tests. Top management should adopt preventive approach rather than
corrective approach toward testing and quality improvement. There should be
a separate team or department for quality control and quality assurance with
qualified and trained senior level quality assurance professionals.
7.2.4. REQUIREMENT DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT
Requirement development needs adequate time schedules to avoid
from rework. The accuracy of time planned for requirement analysis and
commitment should be done on realistic timelines and not just estimates that
make the management happy. Implementation of estimation tools and
techniques should be encouraged. The accurate time scheduling for
requirement development and management would also take less effort for
requirement change management and configuration management. It is difficult
to reach total customer satisfaction but if a documented procedure is followed
Chapter 7 Recommendations
123
for change management and software configuration management is practiced
as a tool, then most of the disputes and disagreements with the customer can
be settled.
Top management should be involved in time scheduling. There should
be frequent and close communication with the customer and all changes
should go through change control board. The requirement specification should
be made by the involvement of customer to achieve completeness. The
orientation of the SMEs should be towards total customer satisfaction. There
should be a change management agreement for requirement change to avoid
rework. Companies that are involved in offshore projects should hire legal
firms to develop agreements and policies to subcontract projects..
7.2.5. RECOMMENDATIONS: PROJECT PLANNING
Top management should develop comprehensive quality improvement
approach towards prevention of errors because non conformance after
handing over not only has high change management over heads, rework
costs and warranty claims, but it also maligns the repute of organization. User
Acceptance Tests (UAT) should be developed at design stage as required by
standard quality practices and software engineering models governing SDLC.
A given software development life cycle helps in defining a concrete way of
development and also prevents from rework. Developing test cases during
development lead to poor quality assurance practices. The project quality and
delivery depends upon schedule planning through Project Development Plan
(PDP) and Quality Management System. The variance in schedule planning
may affect timelines and project cost. There should be strict schedule
planning to prevent from rework and variance. Project resources should be
planned before project start to avoid from inconvenience from available
resources. Risk management is an important component of project
management (PMbok.)8 best practices, and risk management monitoring and
8 Project Management Book of Knowledge, Project Management Institute (PMI).
Chapter 7 Recommendations
124
mitigation plans should be made part of SDLC. Top management should
practice proper effort estimation and resource utilization techniques to give
equal importance to all the projects regardless of size or profitability to ensure
uniform quality output. Management should follow a standard policy for
assigning project estimation deadlines in consultation with technical team
leads.
Common coding standards should be established and shared through
knowledge base library. Orientation training should include training on Coding
standards. By implementing coding standards software code becomes more
readable and understandable and it helps the developers during change
management and maintenance.
7.2.6. MONITORING AND CONTROL
The management should put emphasis on project monitoring and
process assessment side by side during project work by using standard
procedures because only functionality reviews and audits do not assure the
quality without appropriate quality control procedures. The management
should have ability to reorganize their effected plans and should allocate
optimal resources to timely accommodate changes without disturbing the
schedule of PDP. The management should introduce a trend of using metrics
at project measurement level for monitoring and tracking to get accurate
figures of process and project performance. Capability Process Index CPI for
all critical processes should be regularly monitored and tracked. It will help to
not only enhance the performance of individual processes but will also
improve the synergy and alignment between the processes. Team culture and
spirit of team work should be promoted among team members. It will create
stronger bonding and more communication among team members.
Chapter 7 Recommendations
125
7.2.7. MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS
It is up to management to inculcate the performance measurement
culture in the organization. Secondly management should involve employees
in setting measurement goals.
The basic system and identifiers for process measurement and
process improvement should be developed for top managers and employees.
Mostly measures are not specified but if measures are specified, then these
measures should be linked with smart goals and objectives. Data collection
and storage procedures are not properly defined. In this undeveloped
environment, process measurement and process improvement is a big
challenge for SMSH. These software organizations need to have highly
qualified managers that are adequate to inculcate the measurement culture in
software houses and who should be able to develop a mechanism for data
collection System (DCS). Process efficiency and effectiveness is an important
measure to calculate process alignment and over all process synergy. As a
guideline top management has to assure that all processes are aligned
together and are working in synergy. Management should develop template
for post-mortem summary which should highlight lessons learned through
failure and should also list down mistakes which should not be repeated
again. Overall performance measurement is very weak area and effort should
be made to improve quality through performance measurement.
7.2.8. PROCESS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
Management should adopt quality culture by initiating programs like
ISO/CMMI certification. IT should develop quality training programs to create
quality awareness among the employees. Management should allocate
separate budget for Quality improvement and should consider it as an
investment (Juran, 1984). Management should also invest in having qualified
QA resources for process tailoring and up-gradation. Processes and
procedures internally developed should be practiced in letter and spirit and
not just left alone in the files and folders. Process improvement is most
important process in order to achieve quality product. If processes are not
Chapter 7 Recommendations
126
improved frequently this means processes are not measured. Recent attitude
shows least concern towards process measurement. No check and control
towards quality because top management is interested towards quantity
rather than quality. If process is not measured, gap analysis cannot be
performed and hence processes improvement is not possible. But as it is
seen through following data organizations rarely improve its processes.
7.3. LQIM (PARADIGM) FOR LOCAL SMSH
In chapter 6, structural equation modelling (SEM) technique was used
to come up with an evolved LQIM to depict quality improvement paradigm and
standards practiced in the local software industry. LQIM is a tailored and
economized paradigm according to the practices and perceptions of the local
IT practitioners. The proposed LQIM is an indigenous model which when
improvised in accordance to the SMSHs cultural recommendations can
establish to be a fit model for SMSHs. The LQIM has already been ratified
according to generally accepted good fit indices in SEM analysis. It has been
established through literature review that to implement ISO 9000 SMSHs
should adopt TQM philosophy, long term planning and measurement culture
as such practices have proven to produce good results in the industry. The
main objective of the research was to propose a Lean Quality Improvement
model suitable for local software industry. This LQIM was derived through
SEM in the previous Chapter.
Implementation of Indigenous LQIM is proposed using the Deming’s
philosophy of “Plan DO Check Act”, PDCA Cycle for continuous process
improvement and is shown In
FIGURE 8 IMPLEMENTATION OF LQIM MODEL
The conceptual detail of the LQIM is given in TABLE 27. The LQIM Deployment plan mapped with PDCA is given in TABLE 28.
Chapter 7 Recommendations
127
TABLE 28
FIGURE 8 IMPLEMENTATION OF LQIM MODEL
7.3.1. LEAN QUALITY IMPROVEMENT MODEL DEPLOYMENT PLAN
The current model provides us with a Lean Quality Improvement Model
(LQIM) for a SMSH. The model does not include planning and monitoring of
projects being performed in an organization. Most of the software companies’
rely on their project management of software development, considering
project planning to be an important part of this activity; In a SME model
Chapter 7 Recommendations
128
development study in Finland Saastamoinen and Tukiainen, (2004) also
emphasized that planning and continual monitoring of quality activities as key
prerequisite for good quality products. The Finland study also covered Quality
practices like Planning, data collection, data validation, process reporting and
process measurement
Planning and Monitoring, its absence effect’s the prime objective of
quality achievement rather negatively. Moreover without any controls for
monitoring deployed, there is far less chance of timely identification of errors /
issues and their timely rectification. The model actually expresses use of
Quality Assurance at some stages for identification of issues, but without
planning various stages of project management and without their monitoring,
Quality Assurance will eventually lack a timely and planned response
therefore leading to rework and waste of resources. According to Allen,
Ramachandran and Abushama, (2003) in PRISMS study mentioned most
important Quality metrics like project tracking, monitoring and defect
detection. PRISMS study as well as literature review on SPI also emphasized
on automation of data collection activities to support planning and timely
decision making.
As indicated in LQIM deployment plan is mapped with Deming’s PDCA
cycle based on the conceptual understanding given in TABLE 27 and
guidelines given in the literature review.
Chapter 7 Recommendations
129
TABLE 28 LQIM DEPLOYMENT PLAN MAPPED WITH PDCA
PHASE I : REVIEW & GAP ANALYSIS (Performed Once Only) Company Wide LQIM Review & Gap AnalysisReview of Existing Processes, Policies and ProceduresIdentification of Gaps based on best management PracticesSubmission of Gap Analysis Report with recommendations and solutions TRAINING A: Introduction and Awareness on LQIMDELIVERABLE : LQIM GAP ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION REPORT PHASE II : SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT / REVISION / IMPROVEMENT Development of Quality Policy & Quality ObjectivesDevelopment of Process Flow Charts , Corporate Organization Chart and Departmental ChartsLQIM Development and Implementation Monitoring TeamDevelopment of Technology Development & Research and Development Department Development of Procedure for Corrective and Preventive Measures Development of HR Policies (to reduce turnover rate)Development of Knowledge base LibraryDevelopment of Procedure for control of non‐conformanceDevelopment of Procedure for Quality AssuranceDevelopment of Procedures for CommunicationDevelopment of Training and Awareness procedures and plans (Systematic Culture Change Acceptance)Development of Procedure for internal system auditing (development of Audit Checklist) TRAINING B: Documentation, Recording and Reporting based on LQIM requirements DELIVERABLE : LQIM POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND TEMPLATES PHASE III : IMPLEMENTATIONImplementation Team AssignmentImplementation of Records as per developed proceduresImplementation of Records & Awareness verification Relating to LQIM Correction of Documentation based on FeedbackImplementation Team AssignmentDELIVERABLES: LQIM MANUAL PHASE IV : AUDITING Selection of Internal AuditorsPlanning the Internal AuditCollection of Defect Logs and updating knowledge base library Company‐wide LQIM Internal AuditCorrective Preventive Actions/Audit Non‐Conformity ClosingPerform Trend Analysis on the basis of previous audit results TRAINING C: Internal Auditing TrainingDELIVERABLES:INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
PLAN
DO
CHECK
ACT
Chapter 7 Recommendations
130
7.3.2. TQM SUGGESTIONS AND GUIDELINES In order to implement LQIM more effectively in the local software industry a set of
TQM implementation guidelines is presented which were developed during literature
review to fulfil the environmental and cultural requirements of proposed model.
Top management should assure total commitment towards optimum
resource allocation, training and CPI.
Planning should be made important part of all organizational and
project management activities continually on long and short term basis
Achievement of organizational goals through customer relationship
management (CRM ) and customer orientations.
Management to rethink quality as a way of doing business, and
resources spent on quality improvement should not be considered as a
cost but it is an investment which reaps higher profits in the long run.
Learning culture through training development programs to enhance
human resource performance skills, capabilities and quality awareness.
It will help to inculcate positive culture and work ethics.
Open Communication Channels across the organization for employees
to freely express ideas and share information and develop a sense of
team work within organization. (one man show to be discouraged). This
will help SMEs to capitalize on employee’s talent and innovativeness.
Selecting right people for the right job based on their academic
qualifications and skills; and selects the best cross-functional teams for
LQIM Development and Implementation Monitoring Team. Do not re-engineer on large scale, bring the change through small baby
steps ( wins), by forming a result oriented strategy and preventive
approach.
Management needs to provide enough resources for monitoring,
mitigation and management of assessed organizational risks.
Business process redesign should be carried out across the
organization to resolve the problems of resource contention which is
the biggest problem in SME. Business process redesign will reduce the
Chapter 7 Recommendations
131
synchronization delays in processes and hence improve overall
effectiveness and profitability of SME.
Performance incentives and rewards should be separate from regular
increments based on annual assessment in order to create value
driven employees.
To create Involvement and ownership, Top Management should share
development of annual quality objectives in consultation with
employees.
Improve the work environment and culture through benchmarking with
industrial leading best practices and develop opportunities through
innovation, change management and feedback from all stakeholders.
SPI activities should be linked with customer satisfaction and
organizational goals, and top management should prioritize to improve
key process areas accordingly.
All activities like process measurement, data collection and process
rating should be automated by SME as human perception is poor and
inefficient as compared to automated process measurement tools.
7.3.3. LIMITATIONS OF PROPOSED LQIM PARADIGM
As LQIM is Culture changing process, normally the level of acceptance
expressed by human resource is very low in the beginning.
Not all personnel can be part of Skill Development & Training
Programs due to limitation of resources
Lack of Consistency by Management in long term planning for system
improvement.
Customers may prefer (and enforce in some cases) their own process
improvement policies over LQIM Policies.
Departments get resources according to their priority in LQIM,
therefore some departments are ignored intentionally in the beginning
Based on observations from local IT industry culture, employee
empowerment to take decisions is discouraged by higher management
Chapter 7 Recommendations
132
Lack of proper inflation adjustment to annual increments which
eventually leads to higher turnover rate.
. All processes should be spiritually followed so that organization is
able to deliver quality software products.
. TQM culture is not found in these models therefore TQM should be
made part of SPI activities to reduce schedule delays, cost over runs,
and rework costs..
7.3.4. SUMMARY This chapter provides a set of recommendations based on literature
review and the empirical analysis of the research conducted. It also presents
an implementation and deployment model of the proposed LQIM. In the end
TQM guidelines are proposed for deploying LQIM based on Deming’s PDCA
cycle. The next chapter concludes the thesis.
Chapter 8 Conclusion
133
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
The main rationale behind this reading is to develop an optimum Lean
Quality Improvement Model (LQIM) and a set of recommendations as
guidelines to Implement total quality culture and standard quality practices in
the local software industry. Indigenized LQIM is destined to give innovative
and flexible directions for SMSH to change their culture and improve their
processes economically by following TQM philosophy.
As a first step the study exposed the local IT industry’s behaviour
towards quality and its notion of quality through studying previous and
contemporary quality improvement practices in local SMSH. An exploratory
research effort in the domain of total quality management (TQM) and
Software Process Improvement (SPI) was conducted with the help of an
extensive literature review of major quality standards and models being
implemented in the local industry. The behaviour of international quality
standards was deliberated towards quality improvement culture and SMSH
practices. It’s cited in literature that Quality Culture plays an important role in
developing maturity, learning and improvement in the business performance
of an organization. Organizational quality culture groups people together with
an orientation to work towards achieving their common goals by being united.
The idea is to align all efforts towards achieving organizational set
performance goals by creating process synergy through TQM philosophy. The
literature review about quality, TQM, SMSH culture and quality improvement
is implicated to achieve a set of implementation guidelines for an indigenous
LQIM model. The results of the survey are analyzed and are reported to high
light the SMSH cultural and quality problems being faced to implement quality.
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) technique was used to optimize
the theoretical structural framework and evolved an indigenized LQIM to
implement quality improvement paradigm and standard quality practices in the
local software industry. LQIM is a tailored and realistic paradigm according to
the needs and perceptions of the local IT practitioners.
Chapter 8 Conclusion
134
The proposed LQIM is an indigenous model which when improvised in
accordance to SMSH cultural and quality improvement recommendations, is
established to be a fit model for SMSH in the local industry. On Similar
footings implementation of Indigenous LQIM is recommended using the
Deming’s philosophy of PDCA Cycle for continuous process improvement. A
set of guidelines based on questionnaire results and literature review are also
proposed in order to improve the quality and culture of local SMSH.
LQIM and a set of quality improvement guidelines and practices
achieved as a paradigm through this research, is an economized and proven
(Good-Fit ) paradigm for implementation of true quality culture in local SMSH.
It is a first step towards rethinking of quality implementation based on TQM
philosophy and long term planning and measurement culture. Such practices
have proven to transform to quality culture and bring improvement in quality
processes and software quality culture, and above all produce optimal
business performance results in the industry.
In future this research can be extended to explore additional quality
dimensions which are recommended by Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PMBoK) and other quality models. This research can further be
replicated in other developing countries like Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka
to develop Lean Quality Improvement Model (LQIM) to cater the needs and
cultural requirements of SME in a respective developing country.
References
135
BIBLIOGRAPHY Addison-Wesley. (1995). Maturity Model for Software.
Ahire, S., Golhar, D., & Waller, M. (1996). Development and Validation of TQM Implementation Constructs. Decision Sciences , 27 (1), 23-56.
Akao, Y., & Hoshin, K. (1991). Policy Development for Successful TQM.
Allen, P., A., R., & Abushama, H. (2003). PRISMS: An Aprroach to Software Process Improvement for Small to Medium Enterprises. Third International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC"03). IEEE, Computer Society.
American Society for Quality. (2000). Quality MAnagement Systems, Fundamentals and Vocabulary ANSI/ISO/ASQ Q9000:2000. Milwaukee: ASQ.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin , 103 (3), pp. 411-423.
Anderson, J. C., Rungtusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R. G. (1994). A Theory of Quality Management Underlying the Deming Management Method. Academy of Management Review , 19 (3), pp. 472-509.
Arent, J., Iversen, J. H., Andersen, C. V., & Bang, S. (2000). Project Assessments: Supporting Commitment, Participation, and Learning in Software Process Improvement. 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii.
Arthor. (1991). Does Investment in IT Pay off. Computer World Magazine .
Ashrafi. (2003). The Impact of Software Process Improvement on Quality: In Theory and Practice. Information & Management , 40 (7), 677-690.
Bacon, L. D. (1997). Using AMOS for structural equation modeling in market research. Lynd Bacon & Associates, Ltd. And SPSS Inc.
Bacon, L. D. (1997). Using AMOS for Structural Equation Modeling in Market Research. Lynd Bacon & Associates, Ltd. And SPSS Inc.
Baskerville, R., & Heje, J. P. (1999). Knowledge Capability and Maturity in Software Management.
Basu, R. A., & Wright, N. (2003). Quality Beyond Six Sigma. Elsvier Ltd., LinacreHouse, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative Fit Index in Structural Models. Psychological Bulletin , 107 (2), 238-246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. C. (1992). Significance Tests and Goodness of FIT in the Analysis of Covariance Structure. Psychological Bulletin , 88 (3), 588-606.
Beth, M. C., Konrad, M., Shrum, S., Smith, K., & Wemyss, G. (2004). Software Engineering Process Management. Interpretive Guidance Project: What We Learned. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon.
Biberoglu, E. a. (2002). A Survey of Industrial Experiences with CMM and the Teaching of CMM Practices. Southeastern Conference Proceedings, CCSC. Vol. 18, no.2.
Biberoglu, E., & Haddad, H. (2002). A Survey of Industrial Experiences with CMM and the Teaching of CMM Practices. Conference Proceedings JCSC, 18.
Black, S., & Porter, L. (1996). Identification of Critical factors of TQM,Decision Sciences. , 27 (1), 1-21.
References
136
Boldyreff, C., Newman, J., & Taramaa, J. (1996). Managing process improvement in virtual software corporations. Enabling technologies: Infrastructure for collaborative enterprises. proceedings of the 5th workshop on, (p. 142).
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. In Bollen, Structural equations with latent variables. NewYork: Wiley.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent variables. In Structural Equations with Latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Bradford, K. C. (1997). The Effects of Software Process Maturity on Software Development Effort, PhD Dissertation. Computer Science Department. University of Southern California.
Brodman, J. G., & Johnson, G. L. (1994). What small business and small organizations say about the CMM. 16th international conference on Software engineering (pp. 331 - 340 ). Italy: IEEE Computer Society Press .
Byrne, B. M. (1989). A Primer of LISREL: Basic Applications and Programming for Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts and Applications in Programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverley Hills: Sage Publications.
Cattaneo, F., Fuggetta, A., & Lavazza, L. (1995). An Experience in process Assessment. ACM.
CAVE, M., HANNEY, S., KOGAN, M., & TREVETT, G. (1988). The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Charles, A. S. (2004). Classification and Taxonomy of TEISMEs.
Claude, Y., Alain, A., & Renault, A. (2006). Applying ISO/IEC Software Engineering Standards in Small Settings: Historical Perspectives and Initial Achievements. SPICE 2006. Luxembourg.
CMM. (1999). CMM Integration Project, Systems Software Engineering, CMMI – SE/ SW Staged Representation. Carnegie Mellon University.
CMMI-Team. (2006). CMMI ® for Development, Improving Processes for better products. (1.2), 4.
CMU/SEI. (2006). Retrieved from www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi
CMU-SEI, (2010). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. (n.d.). Retrieved 07 10, 2010, from www.smu.sei.edu: www.smu.sei.edu
Cohen, I. M., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5 ed.). London and New York.
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Test, Psychometrica. 16 no.3, 297-300.
Crosby, P. (1989). Let’s Talk Quality: 96 Questions You. Always Wanted To Ask . McGraw-Hill.
Crosby, P. (1979). Quality if Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain. MC Graw-Hill. New York.
Crouch, J. (1998). Essential Tools for Quality Managers.
Damij, N., Damij, T., Grad, J., & Jelenc, F. (2008). A methodology for business process improvement and IS development. Information and Software Technology . 50 (11), 1127-1141 .
Davis, N., & Mullaney, J. (2003). The Team Software Process (TSPSM) in Practice: A Summary of Recent Results.
References
137
Deming, W. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study: Cambridge, M.A.
Demiriirs, E., & et.al. (1998). Process Improvement Towards ISO 9001 Certification in Small Software Organizations. Proceeding of 20th International Conference on Software Engineering. Washington, DC., USA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Dilanthi, A., David, B., Narjan, S., & Rita, N. (2002). Quantitative and Qualitative Research in the Built Environment: Application of Mixed Research Approach, Work Study. 51 (1), 17-31.
ELPHINSTONE, L. (1990). The development of the Course Experience Questionnaire.
Emam, K. E., & Jung, H. (2001). An Empirical Study of ISO/IEC 15504 Assessment Model. 23-41.
Feigenbaum, A. V. (1991). Total Quality Control. (T. Edition, Ed.) McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Fenghueih, H., Ching, H., & Cleve, C. (1999). A Study of ISO 9000 Process, Motivation and Performance. 10 (7), 1009-1025.
Ferguson, P., & Kitson, J. (1997). CMM-Based Process Improvement Supplemented by the Personal Software Process in a Small Company Environment. Proceedings of the Software Engineering Process Group Conference, (pp. 17-20). San Jose, CA.
Ferreira, A., Santos, G., Cerqueira, R., Montoni, M., Barreto, A., Barreto, A. O., et al. (2006). Improving Processes in Small Settings.
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1994). Framework for Quality Management Research and Associated Measurement Instrument. Journal of Operations Management , 11, 339-336.
Garcia, S. (2003). Case Studies and Presentation. Retrieved from Software Engineering Institute: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/casestudies/presentations/
Garcia, S., & Greattinger, C. (2006). Proceedings of the First International Research Workshop for Process Improvement in Small Settings.
Grasso, M. The Personal Software Process (PSP), A Software Engineering Seminar.
Grasso, M. (2005). The Personal Software Process. University of Maryland, Baltimore County, U.S.A.
Grunbacher, P. (1997). A Software Assessment Process for Small Software Enterprises. Proceedings of EUROMICRO 97.IEEE Computer Society Press. Budapest, Hungary.
Gulbro, R., Shonesy, L., & Dreyfus, P. (2000). Are Small Manufacturers Failing the Quality Test, Industrial Management and Data Systems. (2), 76-80.
Habra, Naji, & Alexandre, S. (2007). Initiating Software Process Improvement in Very Small Enterprises.
Hanna, O. A Software Process Model for Small Enterprises. Proceedings of First MoProSoft, (p. 93).
Hayes, W., & Over, J. W. (1997). An Empirical Study of the Impact of PSP on Individual Engineers. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
Herbsleb, J., Zubrow, D., Goldenson, D., Hayes, W., & Paulk, M. (1997). Software Quality and the Capability Maturity Model, Communications of the ACM. 40 (6), 30-40.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences:Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling. 6 (1), 1-55.
References
138
Huarng, F., & Chen, Y. (2002). Relationship of TQM Philosophy, Methods and Performance: A Survey in Taiwan. Industrial Management and Data Systems. 4, 226-234.
Humphrey, W. S. (2000). Retrieved from SEI: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/00tr023.pdf
Humphrey, W. S. (1989). Managing the Software Process. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Huq, Z. (2005). Managing Change: A Barrier to TQM Implementation in Service Industries, Managing Service Quality. 15 (5), 452-469.
Hyde, K., & Wilson, D. (2004). Intangible Benefits of CMM-based Software Process Improvement. Software Process Improvement and Practice , 9 (4), 217-228.
Ince, D. (1994). An Introduction to Software Quality Assurance and its Implementation. McGraw-Hill.
Introduction and Support Package: Guidance on the Documentation Requirements of Document: ISO/TC 176/SC 2/N525R2. International Organization for Standardization ISO .
Irigoyen A., F. F. (2007). Applying ISO 9001:2000, MPS.BR and CMMI to Achieve Software Process Maturity. 29 International Conference in Software Engineering. Minneapolis, MN, USA.
ISO 9001-2008 (E). (n.d.). Retrieved 05 25, 2010, from International Organization for standardization: www.iso.org
ISO/IEC 15504. (1996). Information Technology - Software Process Assessment -Part 5: An assessment Model and Indicator guidance. Geneva: ISO Press.
(2000). IT Policy and Action Plan. IT & Telecommunication Division. Ministry of Science and Technology.
Iwan, A. (1998). Sample Size and Sample Design for Nutritional Research. Department of Biostatisticss, School of Public Health, University of Indonesia, , Kampus FKM-UI, Depok 16424, Indonesia.
Jalote, P. (1999). CMM in Practice: Processes for Executing Software Projects at Infosys;The SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley.
Jansen, S., & Brinkkemper, S. Evaluating the Release, Delivery, and Deployment Processes of Eight Large Product Software Vendors applying the Customer Configuration Update Model. International Conference on Software Engineering Proceedings of the International Workshop on Workshop on Interdisciplinary Software Engineering Research, (pp. 65-68). NY, USA.
Jansma, P. (2005). When management gets serious about managing software.
Jung, H. (2005). Evaluating the Ordering of the SPICE Capability Levels. An Empirical Study. Information and Software Technology , 47 (3), 141-149.
Juran, J. (1993). A Renaissance in Quality. USA: Harvard Business.
Juran, J. M. (2004). Architect of Quality: The Autobiography of Dr. Joseph M. Juran. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran on Planning for Quality. New York: The Free Press.
Juran, J. M. (1988). Managing for Quality. The Journal of Quality and Participation (11), 8-12.
Juran, J., & Gryna, F. (1988). Quality Control Handbook (4 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
K.K., W. (2009). Service Quality Index; A study on Malsian Banks. Contemporary Management Research , 5 (2).
Kanji, G. K. (1998). Measurement of Business Excellence. Total Quality Management , 9 (7), 633-643.
References
139
Kelly, G. Barriers to Adoption of the CMMI Process Model in Small Settings. First International Workshop on Process Improvement, (p. 18).
Kishore, S., & Naik, R. (2003). ISO 9001:2000 for Software Organizations. New Dehli: McGrawHill.
Krasner, H. (1994). The Payoff for SPI: What it is and How to Get it. (1) , 1-6. IEEE Computer Society.
Lakha, S. (1994). The new International Devision of Labour and the Indian Software Industry. Modern Asian Studie , 28 (2), 381-408.
Laporte, C. Y., & April, A. (2006). Applying Software Engineering Standards in Small Settings: Recent Historical Perspectives and Initial Achievements. First International Workshop on Process Improvement, (p. 39).
Lawlis, P. K., Flowe, R. M., & Thordahl, J. B. (1996). A Correlational Study of the CMM and Software Development Performance. Journal of Defense Software Engineering , 8 (9), 21-25.
Lee, H., & Ahn, S. (2008). Assessment of process improvement from organizational change. Information & Management , 45 (5), 270-280.
Lee, M. C. (2006). Applying TQM, CMM and ISO 9001 in Knowledge Management for Software Development Process Improvement. Int. J. Services and Standards , 2 (1).
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
Liu, X., & Sun, Y. (2005). QFD Application in Software Process Management and Improvement Based on CMM. International Conference on Software Engineering. NY, USA.
Lwanga, S. K., & Manual, L. (1991). Sample Size Determination in Health Studies.
MacCallum R. C., B. M. (1996). Power Analysis and Determination of Sample Size for Covariance Structure Modeling. Psychological Methods , 1 (2), 130-149.
Mahour, M. (2006). The Effect of Quality Management Practices on Operational and Business Results in the Petroleum Industry in Iran. USA: PhD Research Report, University of Nebraska.
Mark C. Paulk, B. C. (1993). Capability Maturity Model for Software. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh.
Markus, M. L. (1994). If We Build, They Will Come. Designing Information Systems That Users Want to Use, Sloan Management Review.
McAndrews, D. R. (2000). The Team Software Process (TSP): An Overview and Preliminary Results of Using Disciplined Practices. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
McGuire, E. G., & McKeown, K. A. (2001). 5 Critical Steps for Adopting CMM in an IS0 Environment. PICMET '01 InternationalConference, 1, pp. 430-431. Poland, OR, USA.
McHale, J. &. (2005). Software Engineering Institue. Carnege Melton University.
McHale, J. C. (2008). Accelerating CMMI Adoption with PSP/TSP. Carnegie Mellon University.
McKeown, K. A. Critical Steps for Adopting CMM in an IS0 Environment. New York: 'American University, Washington, D.C. 'Keane, Inc.
McQuitty, S. (2004). Statistical Power and Structural Equation Models in Business Research. Journal of Business Research , 57 (2), 175-183.
Mikel, H. (1988). The Nature of six sigma quality. Motorola University Press.
References
140
Miluk, G. (2006). Results of a Field Study of CMMI for Small Settings Using Rapid Applied Ethnography., (p. 27).
Mitra, A. (2005). Introduction Quality Control and the Total Quality System. In Fundamentals of Quality Control and Improvement (2 ed.).
Mondragon, O. (2006). Addressing Infrastructure Issues in Very Small Settings., (p. 5).
Mondragon, O. (2006). Addressing Infrastructure Issues in Very Small Settings., (p. 5).
Montazemi, A. (2006). How They Manage IT. SMES in Canada and the U.S.
MoST, (2000). IT Policy and Action Plan. IT & Telecommunication Division, Ministry of Science & Technology, government of Pakistan, Islamabad. . (n.d.). Retrieved 08 18, 2000
Murphy, K. a. (1989). Rate Error and Rating Accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology , 71 (4), 619-624.
(2000). National IT Policy. Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.: Ministry of Science & Technology (MOS&T). .
NCEAC, (2010). National Computing Education Accreditation Council. (n.d.). Retrieved 07 25, 2010, from www.nceac.org: www.nceac.org
Nie, N. B. (1975). SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGrawHill.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. London: Mc Graw-Hill.
Oktaba, G. F. (2007). Software Process Improvement: The Competisoft Project, Computer. 40 (10), 21-28.
Oktaba, H. (2006). A Software Process Model for Small Enterprises. MoProSoft®, (p. 93).
Osama, A. (2005). Pakistan’s Software Industry Best Practices & Strategy Challenges. an Exploratory Analysis. Ministry of Information Technology Government of Pakistan. Islamabad.
PASHA, (2010). Pakistan Software House Association. . (n.d.). Retrieved 05 20, 2010, from www.pasha.org.pk: www.pasha.org.pk
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3 ed.). California: Sage Publications.
Paulk, M. C. (1994). A Comparison of ISO 9001 and the Capability Maturity Model for Software. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Paulk, M. C. (1995). How ISO 9001 Compares with the CMM. Feature. IEEE Computer Software Society.
Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., & Chrissis, M. B. (1991). Capability Maturity Model for Software. Software Engineering Institute.
Paulk, M. (1998). Using the Software CMM in Small Organizations.
Paulk, M., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M., & Weber, C. (1993). Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1. Software Engineering Institute, Car-negie Mellon University, Pitsburgh PA.
PCST, (2010). Pakistan Commission of Science and Technology. (n.d.). Retrieved 06 20, 2010, from www.pcst.org.pk : www.pcst.org.pk
Pedreira, O., Piattini, M., & et, a. (2007). A Systematic Review of Software Process Tailoring. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes , 32 (3).
References
141
Pennington, R. G. (2003). Change Performance to Change the Culture, Industrial and Commercial Training. 35 (6), 251-255.
Philips, M. (2001). CMMI Overview V1.1. CMMI Technology Conference. Pittsburgh: Software Enineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
PITB, (2010). Pakistan Information Technology Board. (n.d.). Retrieved 06 20, 2010, from www.pitb.gov.pk: www.pitb.gov.pk
PNAC. (2010). Pakistan National Accreditation Council. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from www.pnac.org.pk
Pomeroy-Huff, M., Cannon, R., Chick, T. A., Mullane, J., & Nichols, W. (2009). The Personal Software Process SM. SEI.
Pomeroy-Huff, M., Mullaney, J., & et, a. (2005). The Personal Software Process (PSPSM) Body of Knowledge (Vol. 1.0).
Porter, L. J., & Parker, A. J. (1993). TQM- The Critical Success Factors. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. , 4 (1), 13-22.
Pracchia, L. (2004, Jan). The AV-8B Team Learns Synergy of EVM and TSP Accelerates Software Process Improvement. pp. 20-22.
Praxiom Research Group, L. (2010). Retrieved from www.praxiom.com.
PSEB. (2005). Setting up Call Centers. Pakistan.
PSEB, (2010). Pakistan Software Export Board. (n.d.). Retrieved 05 27, 2010, from www.pseb.org.pk : www.pseb.org.pk
PTB. (2010). Pakistan Technology Board. Retrieved Machr 15, 2010, from Pakistan Technology Board Ministry of Science and Technology: www.ptbMoST.gov.pk
Quality Management and Quality Assurance Standard-part 3. International Organization for Standardization ISO , Geneva.
(2008). Quality Management Systems-Requirements. . International Standard Organisation ISO , Geneva.
Quazi H.A. & R. Padibjo Quazi, S. (1998). A journey toward total quality management through ISO 9000 certification. International Journal of Quality &Reliability , 15, 489-508.
Rad, A. .. Survey of Total Quality Management in IRAN. Successful Implementation in Health Care Organizations, Leadership in Health Services , 18 (3), 12-34.
Rad, A. M. (2006). The Impact of Organizational Culture on the Successful Implementation of Total Quality Management, The TQM Magazine. 18 (6), 606-625.
Ross, J.E, Total Quality Management: Text and Cases Readings, 2nd Edition (1994).
Rout, T. P., El Emam, K., Fusani, M., Goldenson, D., & Jung, H. (2007). SPICE in Retrospect. Developing a Standard for Process Assessment. Journal of Systems and Software , 80 (9), 1483-1493.
ROZEE. (2010). Retrieved January 15, 2010, from It is one of the biggest local online recruiting agency in the country.: www.rozee.com.pk
Saastamoinen, I., & Tukiainen, M. (2004). Software Process Improvement in Small and Medium Sized Software Enterprizes. (T. Dingsoyr, Ed.) Springer , 69-78.
Sahraoui, & Sofiane. Enabling a TQM Structure Through Information Technology. Competitiveness Review. 29 (3).
References
142
Salant, P. A., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to Conduct Your Own Survey. Wiley New York.
Saleh, A. S., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2006, 04 11). SME development in Malaysia: Domestic and Global Challenges. University of Wollongong Economics Working Paper Series 2006. [Online] Available, . Retrieved from http://www.uow.edu.au/commerce/econ/wpapers.html.
Salim. Software Exports and its Challenges.
Samat, N., Ramayah, T., & Yusoff, Y. M. (2008). Do ISO Certified SME's have Higher Quality Practices? Empirical Insights from the Northern Region of Malaysia, International Journal of Business and Management. , 3 (3), 66.
Sambrook, S., Greeetshuis, S., & Cheseldine, D. (2001). Developing a Quality Assurance System for Computer-Based Learning. Problems and Issues. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 26 (5), 417-426.
Saraph, J., Benson, P., & Schroeder, R. (1989). An instruement for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision Science , 20 (4), 810-829.
SEI. (n.d.). Retrieved July 4, 2010, from Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, CMMI®, : www.sei.cmu.edu/tsp
SEI. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2010, from Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, CMMI®: www.sei.cmu.edu/
SEI. (n.d.). Retrieved 12 10, 2009, from www.sei.cmu.edu/tsp/tsp.html: www.sei.cmu.edu/tsp/tsp.html
Serrano, M., Oca, C. M., & al, e. (2006). Proceedings of First International Workshop on Process Improvement. An Experience on Implementing the CMMI in a Small Organization Using the Team Software Process , 81.
Shahmoradi, S. (2005). Study of Organizational Structure and Culture in Order to Implement TQM.
Sheard, S. A. (2001). Evolution of the Frameworks Quagmire, SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT. In B. B. [email protected] (Ed.), Software Productivity Consortium.. Computer, (p. 96).
Shen, B; Ruan, Tong, A case study of software process improvement in a chinese small company. Computer science and software engineering, 2008 international conference on, 609 (2008).
Sheraz, M. (2010). Technologiz. Retrieved 2010, from Questionaire Hosting Site: www.technologiz.com/quality
Shoniregun, C. (2004). Classification and Taxonomy of TEISMEs 5. (Richard Baskerville, Jan Pries Heje, 1999) Knowledge Capability and Maturity in Software Management.
Shull F, S. C., Zelkowltz, M., & Victor, R. basili's contributions to software quality. Software, IEEE. 23 (1), 16-8.
Sila, I., & Ebrahimpour, M. (2003). An Investigation of the Total Quality Management Survey Based Research Published Between 1989 and 2000. A literature review International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 19 (7), 902-70.
Siok, M. F., & Tian, J. (2007). Empirical study of embedded software quality and productivity. High assurance systems engineering symposium, 2007. HASE '07. 10th IEEE. 313.
Siviy, M. J., & Eileen, C. (2004). Accelerating CM Using Six Sigma: Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon, SEI.
Siviy, M. J., & Forrester, E. C. (2004). Accelerating CMMI Using Six Sigma. Carnegie Mellon, SEI., Pittsburgh.
References
143
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage Handbook of Quality Research (3rd Edition ed.). London: Sage Publications.
STAMBOLLIAN, A., HABRA, N., LAPORTE, C., DESHARNAIS, A., & RENAULT, A. (May 4-5, 2006). OWPL: A Light Model & Methodology for Initiating Software Process Improvement. Proceedings of SPICE Conference. Luxembourg.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural Model Evaluation and Modification. An Interval Estimation Approach, Multivariate Behavioral Research , 25, 173-180.
Stelzer, D., Mellis, W., & Herzwurm, G. (1996). Software process improvement via ISO 9000? In 1. p.-n. results of two surveys among european software houses. System sciences (Ed.)., (p. 703).
Sulkani, M. (2007). Software Technology Park. Monthly Progress Report. Punjab Information Technology Board (PITB) GOP.
Sun, Y., & Liu, X. (2010). Business-oriented software process improvement based on CMMI using QFD. Information and Software Technology. 52 (1), 79-91.
Switzer, J. (2004). Integrating CMMI, TSP, and Change Management Principles to Accelerate Process Improvement. Second Annual Meeting of the TSP User Group. Pittsburgh, PA.
Tabachnic, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Sing Multivariate Statistics . (5, Ed.) New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Tamimi, N., & Gershon, M. (1995). A tool for assessing industry TQM practice versus Deming philosophy. Production and Inventory Management Journal , 36 (1), 27-32.
Tanaka, T., & Aizawa, M. O. (1998). Software quality analysis and measurement service activity in the company. Software engineering, 1998. proceedings of the 1998 international conference on., (p. 426).
Team, C. P. (2000). CMMI SM for Systems Engineering, Software Engineering, Integrated Product and Process Development, and Supplier Sourcing. Pittsburgh: SEI.
Team, CMM. (2006). CMMI ® for Development, Improving Processes for better products CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008. Carnegie Mellon University.
Team, CMM Product. (2006). Improving Processes for Better Products: CMMI ® for Development CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008/ ESC-TR-2006-08. no. 1.2. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon.
Thorn, & Ron. (1999). The Influence of Organizational Structure on the Effectiveness of TQM Programs. Journal of Managerial .
Tick, I. T. (1992). A Guide to Software Quality Management System Construction and Certification Using. EN29001, U.K. Department of Trade and Industry and the British Computer Society. no. 2.
Van de Ven, A., & Ferry, D. (n.d.). Measuring and assessing organizations, Wiley.
Wadrsworth, H. M., Stephens, S., & Godfrey, A. B. (2002). Modern Methods for Quality Control and Improvement. Wiley, U.S.A.
Wall, D., James McHale, J., & M., P.-H. (2005). Accelerating Process Improvement by Integrating the TSP and CMMI. SEI, Pitsburgh, PA. USA.
Wei, K. K. Service Quality Index: A Study on Malsian Banks. Contemporary Management Research. 5 (2), 109-124.
Weltgen, W. (2004). Total Quality Management as a Structuring Task. Presented at the Work Shop of the Schülke & MayrGmbH. 26-27.
References
144
Wheeler, S., & Duggins, S. (1998). Improving Software Quality. Computer Science Department Southern PolytecPhnic State University. ACM.
William, R., Nichols, W. R., & Salazar, R. (2009). Deploying TSP on a National Scale. SEI.
Xiaoguang, Y., Xiaogang, W., Linpin, L., & Zhuoning, C. (2008). Research on organizational-level software process improvement model and its implementation. Computer science and computational technology, 2008. ISCSCT '08. international symposium ., (p. 285).
Yin, R. K. (2003), Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, London.
Yoo, C., Yoon, J., B, L. B., Lee, C., Lee, J., Hyun, S., et al. (2004). An Integrated Model of ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI for ISO Registered Organizations. Apsec, 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC'04)., (pp. 150-157).
Yoo, C., Yoon, J., Lee, B., Lee, C., Lee, J., Hyun, S., et al. (2004). An Integrated Model of ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI for ISO Registered Organizations. Proceedings of the 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’04),, (pp. 150-157).
Yusof, S. M. (1999). Development of a Framework for TQM Implementation in Small Business, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham.
APPENDIX COVER LETTER
145
APPENDIX A – COVER LETTER
OPTIMUM SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PARADIGM FOR QUALITY PRACTICES IN SOFTWARE INDUSTRY
This research project is about finding out whether bare minimum
quality practices are understood and implemented in the local software
industry. As a step further in this direction the objective is to map the actual
environment and true culture of Small and Medium Enterprises (SME)
towards quality improvement, process improvement, and CPI. The feedback
from this survey will give us the concrete discrepancies between true SME
culture and enforced culture of international standards like CMM, CMMI, and
ISO etc. After identifying characteristics of a true SME culture, we will provide
a set of guidelines and a process improvement paradigm for SME, which is
the basic purpose of this research. The set of guidelines for SME software
process improvement paradigm will give the innovative and flexible directions
for SMEs to change their culture and improve their processes and quality.
Indeed organizations of all sizes especially of small size can implement it for
the improvement of their product and process quality. The new guidelines to
implement quality will enable small and medium sized software houses to
build optimum quality culture and maintain a bare minimum level of quality
that will lead SMEs to become competitive and as well as quality
organizations through continuous process improvement.
We are therefore writing to you to solicit your help and support in this
matter. The experience of your organization in this field will be extremely
valuable to our research. It is appreciated that this questionnaire may take
some of your valuable time, however this survey should not take more than 10
minutes to complete. The findings of this research “SPI paradigm and
Guidelines”, will be shared on your request. If you need any further
APPENDIX COVER LETTER
146
information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact the key
researcher. I appreciate your kind co-operation in this matter, and look
forward to receiving your input. Identity of the assessor and the name of the
organization is not the part of this research (optional), therefore your privacy
will not be compromised.
With very best wishes,
Faisal Shah, ([email protected])
Student of Phd
Institute of Quality and Technology Management (Punjab University)
APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE
147
APPENDIX B – QUESTIONNAIRE
Questionnaire: Part A
Objectives:
This part gets the information about organization structure, culture, size (number of employees) and ranking in market. The
output from this section will be used to find out the real discrepancies in SME, actual environment, behaviour towards quality
and true culture of local SME. It would be helpful to define a new way for culture change and a flexible model for SME.
Designation: _______________Name Software House: _______________(Optional) City: ________
The type of Quality standards / Model Processes your organization is following: O CMM O CMMI O ISO O TSP O other ____________ (Please Indicate)
1 Organization Size and Structure:
Low High
1.1 Your organization have number of employees from (1) 1 to 50, (2) 51-200, (3)
201-500, (4) 501 to 1000 (5) greater than 1000?
1 2 3 4 5
1.2 Organization has separate department and allocated budget for technology
Research & Development.
1 2 3 4 5
1.3 Organization has hired data analysis experts like MSc / PhD statistics for
organizational and quality performance analysis.
1 2 3 4 5
1.4 There are less than three levels of management hierarchy in the organization 1 2 3 4 5
1.5 Employees are hired on long term basis and organization tries to retain
employees
1 2 3 4 5
2 Organization Culture:
2.1 Organization practices include overtime hours offered, appreciated and paid for. 1 2 3 4 5
2.2 Usually tasks are completed within working hours planned for the task. 1 2 3 4 5
2.3 Top management and colleagues willingly sponsor learning to other employees
usually.
1 2 3 4 5
2.4 Top management and colleagues encourage practice to express views freely in
the organization and with top management without any hindrance (freedom of
speech).
1 2 3 4 5
2.5 Task allocation and time management is strictly followed. 1 2 3 4 5
APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE
148
2.6 Your management encourages training and all employees receive internal and
external training every year?
1 2 3 4 5
2.7 There are separate groups for Requirement Management, S/W Design,
Development and Testing.
1 2 3 4 5
2.8 Personnel performance assessment just documentary and everyone is given
same bonus?
1 2 3 4 5
3 Organization Behaviour towards Quality:
3.1 Your organization doesn’t accept projects when resources are in-sufficient to
complete the project.
1 2 3 4 5
3.2 Annual turnover rate of your company is low. 1 2 3 4 5
3.3 Management believes project quality can be improved through increasing
frequency of testing
1 2 3 4 5
3.4
Your management has launched and supported a complete quality improvement
(certification) program during last 3 years.
1 2 3 4 5
3.5 Top management allocates appropriate deadlines and resources for quality
assurance.
1 2 3 4 5
Organization Quality & Process Improvement: Objectives:
This part contains questions about organization’s processes, process performance, quality and process improvement, risk
management, process and project assessment etc. The response from this section will give us the requirements and guidelines
to define a software process and quality improvement paradigm for SME.
4 Requirement Development and Management: Low High
4.1 A documented review process exists at each stage to transfer project from one stage
to another like sign-in, requirement , design, coding and testing .
1 2 3 4 5
4.2 A documented procedure is used for project cost, effort and size estimation. 1 2 3 4 5
4.3 There is usually no gap between customer understanding and project team’s
perception of requirement.
1 2 3 4 5
4.4 Customer requirement changes that occur during development are incorporated
through Change Control Board.
1 2 3 4 5
4.5 Organizational documented subcontract management procedure is available for out 1 2 3 4 5
APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE
149
Sourcing projects to external firms.
5 Project Planning:
5.1 Software errors and issues seldom arise after the project completion and handover. 1 2 3 4 5
5.2 Project test cases are prepared at design stage before implementation of design. 1 2 3 4 5
5.3 Project development plan with resource allocation (PDP) is prepared and followed
throughout SDLC.
1 2 3 4 5
5.4 Project risk assessment and mitigation is thoroughly documented & evaluated before
start of project.
1 2 3 4 5
5.5 Organization has common coding standards for all projects and all employees are
trained.
1 2 3 4 5
6 Project Monitoring and Control
6.1 Management conducts periodic quality audits and reviews for all stages in a project
continuously for all projects.
1 2 3 4 5
6.2 All variations in baseline of project plan implementation due to changes, quality,
schedule and delays are well reflected in the updated project plans.
1 2 3 4 5
6.3 Project plans are tracked and different versions are maintained due to functionality
changes.
1 2 3 4 5
6.4
Cost Performance Index (CPI) or Schedule Performance Index (SPI) or project earned
value tracking are periodically calculated.
1 2 3 4 5
6.5 In case of project delay (failure), project performance assessment and responsibility is
emphasized on team rather than laying individuals responsible.
1 2 3 4 5
7 Measurement and Analysis:
7.1 Organization defined and documented procedure for measuring process performance
is practiced?
1 2 3 4 5
7.2 Data Collection System (DCS) has dedicated resources are available and DCS is in
use for collecting process measurement data on continuous basis.
1 2 3 4 5
7.3 Process efficiency and effectiveness is measured individually for each process to
optimize process performance (cost impact).
1 2 3 4 5
7.4 A defect log is maintained and measured to statistically identify trends and causes of
defect occurrence.
1 2 3 4 5
7.5 Organizational measured and analyzed data repository established and lessons
learned are shared with the employees to avoid similar defects.
1 2 3 4 5
APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE
150
Comments :
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
8 Process and Quality Improvement:
8.1 Top management is equally willing to employ dedicated staff for quality control and
process Improvement.
1 2 3 4 5
8.2 After process analysis and measurement, top management is quick at devising
corrective actions for process improvement.
1 2 3 4 5
8.3 Top management while investing in quality and process improvement considered it as
a an investment and not cost burden.
1 2 3 4 5
8.4 Top management establishes plans for quality improvement activities and
continuously follow ups.
1 2 3 4 5
8.5 Continues Process Improvement (CPI) is practiced dedicatedly and is documented to
improve the quality.
1 2 3 4 5
8.6 The organization has committed funds, staff and other resources for quality process
development and process assessment.
1 2 3 4 5
8.7 The organization has established a shared knowledge base library for configuration
management, which can accurately reconstruct software items from scratch in
development environment.
1 2 3 4 5
8.8 The organization has dedicated QA group for tailoring and improving processes. 1 2 3 4 5
8.9 The maturity level of your organization with respect to quality is somewhere at. 1 2 3 4 5
APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE INDICATORS
151
APPENDIX C - QUESTIONNAIRE INDICATORS
Organization Culture:
1.0 Organization Size and Structure: Indicators
1.1 Your organization have number of employees from
(1) 1 to 50, (2) 51-200, (3) 201-500, (4) 501 to 1000
(5) greater than 1000?
Size
1.2 Organization has separate department and
allocated budget for technology Research &
Development.
Technology/R&D
1.3 Organization has hired data analysis experts like
MSc / PhD statistics for organizational and quality
performance analysis.
Statistician
1.4 There are less than three levels of management
hierarchy in the Organization
ORG Structure
1.5 Employees are hired on long term basis and
organization
tries to retain employees
Retention
2.0 Organization Culture: Indicators
2.1 Organization practices include overtime hours
offered,
appreciated and paid for.
Overtime
2.2 Usually tasks are completed within working hours
planned for the task.
Scheduling
2.3 Top management and colleagues willingly sponsor Learning
APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE INDICATORS
152
learning of other employees usually.
2.4 Top management and colleagues encourage
practice to express views freely within organization
and with top management openly (freedom of
speech).
Communication
2.5 Task allocation and time management is strictly
followed.
Time schedule
2.6 Your management encourages training and all
employees receive internal and external training
every year?
Training
2.7 There are separate groups for Requirement
Management,
Software Design, Development and Testing.
Team Structure
2.8 Personnel performance assessment just
documentary and everyone is given same bonus?
Assessment
3.0 Organization Behaviour towards Quality: Indicators
3.1 Your organization doesn’t accept projects when
resources are in-sufficient to complete the project..
Resource
Allocation
3.2 Annual turnover rate of your company is low Turnover
Rate
3.3 Management believes project quality can be
improved through increasing frequency of tests
conducted
Quality
Improvement
3.4 Your management has launched and supported a
complete quality improvement (certification)
program during last 3 years.
Quality
Assurance
APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE INDICATORS
153
3.5 Top management allocates appropriate deadlines
and resources for quality assurance.
Top
Management
4.0 Requirement Development and Management: Indicators
4.1 A documented review process exists at each stage
to transfer project from one stage to another like
sign-in, requirement, design, coding and testing .
Project Review
4.2 A documented procedure is used for project cost,
effort
and size estimation.
Estimation
4.3 There is usually no gap between customer
understanding and project team’s perception of
customer requirement.
Customer
satisfaction
4.4 Customer requirement changes that occur during
development are incorporated through Change
Control Board.
Change
management
4.5 Organizational documented subcontract
management procedure is available for out Sourcing
projects to external firms.
Out sourcing
5.0 Project Planning: Indicators
5.1 Software errors issues seldom arise after the project
completion and handover.
Conformance
5.2 Project test cases are prepared at design stage
before implementation of design.
Acceptance
Testing
5.3 Project development plan with resource allocation
(PDP) is prepared and strictly followed throughout
the SDLC.
Project Planning
5.4 Project risk assessment and mitigation is thoroughly
documented and evaluated before start of each
Risk
APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE INDICATORS
154
project. Management
5.5 Organization has common coding standards for all
projects and all employees are trained.
coding
standards
6.0 Project Monitoring and Control
6.1 Management conducts periodic quality audits and
reviews for all stages in a project continuously for all
projects.
Audits & review
6.2 All variations in baseline of project plan
implementation due to changes, quality, schedule
and delays are well reflected in the updated project
plans.
Project
monitoring
6.3 Project plans are tracked and different versions are
maintained due to functionality changes.
Project tracking
6.4 Cost Performance Index (CPI) or Schedule
Performance Index (SPI) or project earned value
tracking are periodically calculated.
performance
6.5 In case of project delay (failure), project
performance Assessment and responsibility is
emphasized on team rather than laying individuals
responsible.
Team Work
7.0 Measurement and Analysis:
7.1 Organization defined and documented procedure for
measuring process performance is practiced?
Process
Measurement
7.2 Data Collection System (DCS) and dedicated
resources are available and DCS is in use for
collecting process measurement data on continuous
DCS
APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE INDICATORS
155
basis.
7.3 Process efficiency and effectiveness is measured
individually for each process to optimize process
performance (cost impact).
Process
performance
7.4 A defect log is maintained and measured to
statistically identify trends and causes of defect
occurrence.
Defect log
7.5 Organizational measured and analyzed data
repository established and lessons learned are
shared with the employees to avoid similar defects.
Knowledge base
Library
8.0 Process and Quality Improvement:
8.1 Top management is equally willing to employ
dedicated staff for quality control and process
Improvement.
Resource
Planning
8.2 After process analysis and measurement, top
management is quick at devising corrective actions
for process improvement
Process
improvement
8.3 Top management while investing in quality and
process improvement considered it as an
investment and not a cost burden.
TQM
8.4 Top management establishes plans for quality
improvement activities and continuously gives a
follow up.
Quality Planning
8.5 Continues Process Improvement (CPI) is practiced
dedicatedly and documented to improve quality.
CPI
8.6 The organization has committed funds, staff and
other resources for quality process development
and process assessment.
Org
Commitment
APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE INDICATORS
156
8.7 The organization has established a shared
knowledge base library for configuration
management, which can accurately reconstruct
software items from scratch in development
environment.
Configuration
Management
8.8 The organization has dedicated quality Assurance
QA group for tailoring And improving standard
processes.
SPI
8.9 The maturity level of your organization with respect
to quality is somewhere at.
Maturity Level
APPENDIX D INDICATORS & MAPPING ISO 9000
157
APPENDIX D - INDICATORS & MAPPING ISO 9000 ORGANIZATION SIZE & STRUCTURE NO.
VARIABLE (ASQ 2000) ISO 9001 Clauses INDICATORS
1.1 SIZ 0.1 Size 1.2 TND 6.3 Technology/R&D 1.3 STA CMM Statistician (Data Analyst) 1.4 OST 0.1 ORG Structure 1.5 RTN 5.1 e Retention ORGANIZATION CULTURE NO.
VARIABLE ASQ 2000) ISO 9001 Clauses INDICATORS
2.1 OVT 6 Overtime 2.2 SHD 6 Scheduling 2.3 LRN 6.2.2 Learning 2.4 COM 5.5 Communication 2.5 TM 6 Time Management 2.6 TRA 6.2.2 Training 2.7 TST 4 Team Structure 2.8 ASS 6.2.2 / 4.2.4 Assessment ORGANIZATION BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS QUALITY NO.
VARIABLE ASQ 2000) ISO 9001 Clauses INDICATORS
3.1 RA 6.1 Resource Allocation 3.2 TR 5.1 Turnover Rate 3.3 SQI 7.3.7 Software Quality Improvement 3.4 QA 7.3.4 Quality Assurance 3.5 MQA 6.1 Management Approach REQUIREMENT MANAGEMENT NO.
VARIABLE ASQ 2000) ISO 9001 Clauses INDICATORS
4.1 PR 7.1 Project Review 4.2 EST 7.3.4 Quality Assurance 4.3 CS 8.2.1 Customer Satisfaction
4.4 CM 7.3.7 Change management 4.5 OSR CMM Out Sourcing
APPENDIX D INDICATORS & MAPPING ISO 9000
158
PROJECT PLANNING NO.
VARIABLE
(ASQ 2000) ISO 9001 Clauses INDICATORS
5.1 CNF 7.3.6 / 7.5.5 Conformance 5.2 UAT 7.3.5 / 7.3.6 Acceptance Testing 5.3 PPL 7.3.1 Project Planning 5.4 RM 8.5.2 / 8.5.3 Risk Management 5.5 CSTD 8.2.2a coding standards PROJECT MONITORING AND CONTROL
NO. VARIABLE ASQ 2000) ISO 9001 Clauses INDICATORS
6.1 AR 5.6 / 8.2.2 Audits & review 6.2 PM 8.2.3 / 8.2.4 Project monitoring 6.3 PT 8.2.3 / 8.2.4 Project tracking 6.4 PER 8.2.3 Performance 6.5 TW 4 Team Work MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS NO.
VARIABLE ASQ 2000) ISO 9001 Clauses INDICATORS
7.1 PMR 8.2.3 Process Measurement 7.2 DCS 8.4 DCS 7.3 PPR 8.2.3 Process performance 7.4 DL 8.4 Defect log 7.5 KBL 8.4 Knowledge base Library PROCESS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT NO.
VARIABLE ASQ 2000) ISO 9001 Clauses INDICATORS
8.1 RP 6.2 Resource Planning 8.2 CA 8.5.1 PI Corrective Action 8.3 TQM 7.3 TQM 8.4 QPL 5.4.2a Quality Planning 8.5 CPI 8.5.1 CPI 8.6 OCM 5.1 Org Commitment 8.7 SCM CMM 8.8 SPI 6.2.1 Process Improvement 8.9 ML CMM Maturity Level