skip to main content
10.1145/2851613.2852006acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

A framework for assisting software process improvement program in global software development: student research abstract

Published:04 April 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Presently, software systems are becoming a vital part of business in the world. Most of the software development organizations is adopting Global Software Development (GSD) and it is incessantly getting faster. The software development orgazations trying to globalize their production worldwide to acquire various benefits. GSD is a complex phenomenon and organizations face different challenges while adopting GSD. It has been noticed that Software Process Improvement (SPI) becomes as one of the major challenges for GSD. The objective of this research is to develop a framework in order to support the implementation of softwrae process improvement program in the context of GSD. The framework will base on an industrial study of SPI practitioners, experiences and understanding of factors that can have a positive or negative impact on SPI implementation initiatives in the domain of GSD.

References

  1. Carmel, E., Dubinsky, Y. and Espinosa, A. "Follow The Sun Software Development: New Perspectives, Conceptual Foundation, and Exploratory Field Study," Proceeding of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences HICSS '09., 2009, pp. 1--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bass, M., Herbsleb, J. D. and Lescher, C. "A Coordination Risk Analysis Method for Multi-site Projects: Experience Report," in Fourth IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering, ICGSE, 2009., pp. 31--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Ågerfalk, P., Fitzgerald, B., Holmström Olsson, H. and Conchúir, E. Ó, "Benefits of Global Software Development: The Known and Unknown," in Making Globally Distributed Software Development a Success Story. vol. 5007, ed: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 1--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Khan, S. U., Niazi, M. and Ahmad, R. "Factors influencing clients in the selection of offshore software outsourcing vendors: An exploratory study using a systematic literature review," Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 84, pp. 686--699, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Hwang I., Kim S., Kim, Y. and Seah, C. E. "A survey of fault detection, isolation, and reconfiguration methods," IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 18, pp. 636--653, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Attarzadeh, I. and Ow, S. H. "Project management practices: the criteria for success or failure," Communications of the IBIMA, vol. 1, pp. 234--241, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Gillies, A. "Software quality: theory and management" Lulu.com, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Niazi, M. "Software process improvement implementation: avoiding critical barriers," CROSSTALK. The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, vol. 22, pp. 24--27, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Butler, K. "Process lessons learned while reaching Level 4," Crosstalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, vol. 10, pp. 4--8, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Niazi, M., Wilson, D. and Zowghi, D. "A maturity model for the implementation of software process improvement: an empirical study," Journal of systems and software, vol. 74, pp. 155--172, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Peixoto, D. C. C., Batista, V. A., Resende, R. F. and Pádua, C. I. P. "A Case Study of Software Process Improvement Implementation," in SEKE, 2010, pp. 716--721.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Kitchenham, B. "Procedures for performing systematic reviews," Keele University UK, vol. 33, p. 2004, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Borrego, M. Douglas, E. P. and Amelink C. T., "Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 98, pp. 53--66, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Creswell, J. W. and Clark, V. L. P. " Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research" SAGE Publications, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori A. "Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences" SAGE Publications Inc., 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Khan, A. A., Basri, S., Dominic, P. D. D., and Amin, E. F. A Survey based study on Factors effecting Communication in GSD. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 7(7): 1309--1317., 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. A framework for assisting software process improvement program in global software development: student research abstract

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SAC '16: Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing
          April 2016
          2360 pages
          ISBN:9781450337397
          DOI:10.1145/2851613

          Copyright © 2016 Owner/Author

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 4 April 2016

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • abstract

          Acceptance Rates

          SAC '16 Paper Acceptance Rate252of1,047submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader