• Save
ME2011 presentation by Mirandolle
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

ME2011 presentation by Mirandolle



Incremental Method Engineering Approach for Process Improvement

Incremental Method Engineering Approach for Process Improvement



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

ME2011 presentation by Mirandolle ME2011 presentation by Mirandolle Presentation Transcript

  • Incremental M th d Engineering I t l Method E i i Approach for Process Improvement by Dominique Mirandolle Inge van de Weerd I d W d Sjaak Brinkkemper1
  • Content of this presentation Introduction & related research Research Candidate methods selection Case company p y Mapping candidate methods to case company Implementation Lessons learned Conclusion2
  • Introduction Product software companies are constantly changing Company growth Environmental change Software development Product P d t management t Design new methods or adapt existing ones3 View slide
  • Related research Situated method engineering Incremental method engineering Related work Software Product Management Competence Model & Maturity Matrix (Van de Weerd et al., 2008) Situational Factors (Bekkers, 2008) Process Deliverable Diagrams (Van de Weerd & Brinkkemper, 2008)4 View slide
  • Related research Software Product Management Competence Model & Maturity Matrix (Van de Weerd et al., 2008)5
  • Related research Situational Factors (Bekkers, 2008)6
  • Related research Process Deliverable Diagrams (Van de Weerd & Brinkkemper, 2008)7
  • Research How can incremental method engineering support process improvement in the sofware industry? 1. Select and analyze 8 candidate methods 2. Interview and analyze case company 3. Map methods fragments to case company 4. Implement method fragment8
  • Candidate method selection Requirements prioritization capabilities A. A Internal stakeholder involvement B. Prioritization method C. Customer involvement D. C t D Cost revenue consideration id ti E. Partner involvement9
  • Candidate method selection Eight selected candidate methods: Binary Priority List Win Win requirements negotiation model Integer linear programming approach Requirements T i R i t Triage MOSCOW Cost Value Approach Q li Function D Quality F i l Development Features Prioritization Matrix10
  • Candidate method selection Situational Factors Process Deliverable Diagram Maturity Level11
  • Case company Product software company in the ‘search solutions’ domain search solutions (data mining, automatic sentiment analysis) Method for Requirement prioritization: MOSCOW Maturity Level on Req Prior : D Req. Prior.: Situational Factors12
  • Mapping candidate methods to pp g the case company Maturity level of candidate method > Maturity level case company method Situational Factors need to match13
  • Mapping candidate methods to pp g the case company Key hole: Case company Key hole cylinder represents Situational Factors K h l li d t Sit ti lF t Key: Candidate method14
  • Implementation Three candidate methods with maturity level > case company method (and implementing capability E): Requirements triage (22 SF matches) Integer linear programming (25 SF matches) Features prioritization matrix (30 SF matches)15
  • Implementation Features Prioritization Matrix Multiple stakeholder sheet Process Deliverable Diagram before and after implementation16
  • Lessons learned Situational Factors can be ‘matched’ by analyzing them for the case company, as well as for the candidate methods. Testing the adapted method in case company is necessary to prove practical application. None of the methods matched 31 SFs, a larger method base provides even more accurate match.17
  • Conclusion Theoretical proof of concept of the success of incremental method engineering. Incremental method engineering can support the maturing of a software development method in a product software company. company Changing a small part of the method, by adding a capability, capability can increase the overall maturity level. level18
  • Thank you for your attention19
  • References Weerd, I. van de, Versendaal, J., Brinkkemper, S.: A Product Software Knowledge Infrastructure for Situational Capability Maturation: Vision and Case Studies in Product Management. In: Proceedings of the 12th working conference on requirements engineering: Foundation for software quality. (2006) Weerd, I. van de, Brinkkemper, S., Nieuwenhuis, R., Versendaal, J., & Bijlsma, L. (2006). Towards a reference framework for software product management. Proceedings of the 14th International Requirements Engineering Conference, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, 319-322. Bekkers, W.: Situational Process Improvement in Software Product Management. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Universiteit Utrecht. (2008) Bekkers, W., Weerd, I. v.: SPM Maturity Matrix, Technical report: UU-CS-2010-013. The Netherlands: University , , , y , p y Utrecht. (2010) Weerd, I. van de, Brinkkemper, S.: Meta-modeling for situational analysis and design methods. In: M.R. Syed and S.N. Syed (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Modern Systems Analysis and Design Technologies and Applications (pp. 38-58). Hershey: Idea Group Publishing. (2008) Bebensee, Th., Weerd, I. van de, Brinkkemper, S.: Binary Priority List for Prioritizing Software Requirements. Submitted for publication. (2010) Boehm, B.: A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement. In: Computer, May 1988, 61-72. (1988) Dantzig, B.G.: Linear Programming and Extensions. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. (1963) Davis, A. M.: The art of Requirements Triage. In: Computer, vol. 36, no. 3, 42-49. (2003) Stapleton, J.: DSDM Business Focused Development. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2002) Karlsson, J., Ryan, K.: Prioritizing Requirements Using a Cost-Value Approach. In: 1EEE Software: 67-74. (1997) Mizuno, S., Akao, Y. (Eds.): Quality function deployment: integrating customer requirements into product design. Portland: Productivity Press Inc. (1990) Wiegers, Karl E.: First Things First: Prioritizing Requirements. In: Software Development Magazine Sept. 1999: 24-30. (1999) Bekkers, W. , Van de Weerd, I. , Brinkkemper, S. , Mahieu, A., The Influence of Situational Factors in Software Product Management: An Empirical Study, In: Proceedings of the 2008 Second International Workshop on Software Study Product Management, p.41-48, September 09-09, (2008) Stapleton, J., Dynamic Systems Development Method, In: Proceedings of the Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems, p. 406, June 07-10. (1999)20