1 / 21

26th International Forum on Systems, Software , and COCOMO Cost Modeling. University of Southern California, Los An

Cultural Mismatches as Predictors for the Successful Adoption of Software Process Improvement Models. 26th International Forum on Systems, Software , and COCOMO Cost Modeling. University of Southern California, Los Angeles , CA, USA . N ovember 2-4 , 2011.

karif
Download Presentation

26th International Forum on Systems, Software , and COCOMO Cost Modeling. University of Southern California, Los An

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cultural Mismatches as Predictors for the Successful Adoption of Software Process Improvement Models 26th International Forum on Systems, Software, and COCOMO Cost Modeling. Universityof Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. November2-4 , 2011 Dr. Jorge Aguilar Cisneros, Universidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de Puebla jorge.aguilar@upaep.mx Dr. Ricardo Valerdi, University of Arizona rvalerdi@arizona.edu

  2. Agenda • Problem • Consequences of failedadoption • MoProSoftExample • Methodologyproposal • Identifyintrinsicculture of process • Identifyorganizational culture (8 mexicanfirms) • Differences & Similarities • Conclusion

  3. Problem • Companies trying to adopt models to support software processes (i.e., CMMI, MoProSoft, ISO 9000-3, MIL STD 498, SCRUM, etc.) face organizational culture challenges. • The main tension is between intrinsic culture of process improvement models which they are attempting to adopt and the culture of their organization

  4. Consequences of FailedAdoptions • Millions of dollars of economic losses • Decreased productivity • Slipped delivery schedules • Lack of process formality

  5. MoProSoft Example • CMMI fared well in the U.S., but what about Mexico? • 92% of Mexican software companies are small/medium-sized (< 100 people) and average process capability level is 0.9 (Oktaba 2006) • Only 3 Mexican companies have achieved level 2; 33 are level 1 • (MoProSoft) A process model for small enterprises. Oktaba, H., “MoProSoft: A Process Model for Small Enterprises,” Proceedings of the 1st International Research Workshop for Process Improvement in Small Settings, CMU/SEI-2006-SR-001, Software Engineering Institute – Carnegie Mellon University, 2006.

  6. Research Methodology

  7. Culture of Technology Cultural Aspect Goals, values, and ethical codes, belief in progress, awareness and creativity Organizational Aspect Economic and industrial activity, professional activity, users and consumers, trade unions Technology Practice General meaning of “technology” Technical Aspect Knowledge, skill, and technique, tools, machines, chemicals, resources, products and wastes Restricted meaning of “technology” Pacey, A., The Culture of Technology, MIT Press, 1983.

  8. IdentifyIntrinsic Culture of Process (1/5) • Twotasks • CompetingValues Framework culturecharacterization: Clan, Hierarchy, Adhocracy, Market • Books NMX-I-059/NYCE characterization(books1,2,3 and 4) • Usingco-ocurrencesmethodology

  9. IdentifyIntrinsicCulture of Process (2/5) Example: Clan characterization. If then, thisword is a co-occurrence that characterizes the clan culture.

  10. IdentifyIntrinsic Culture of Process (3/5) Example: Book 1 characterization. If then, thisword is a co-occurrence that characterizes book 1.

  11. IdentifyIntrinsic Culture of Process (4/5) Algorithm to identifytheintrinsic culture of technology.

  12. IdentifyIntrinsic Culture of Process (5/5) Intrinsic culture of theMexicanstandard NMX-I-059/NYCE-2005 HIERARCHY

  13. Organizational Culture of8 MexicanSoftware Firms (1/2)

  14. Organizational Culture of8 Mexican Software Firms (2/2) • The organizational culture identified in the Mexican companies was clustered into three groups. • The first group included the companies with a dominant culture of CLAN type. • The second group with a dominant culture of MARKETtype. • The third group with a dominant culture of ADHOCRACY type.

  15. Differences & Similarities (1/3) Firm#8 TheHighestmismatch.

  16. Differences & Similarities (2/3) Firm#6 TheLowest mismatch

  17. Differences & Similarities (3/3)

  18. Conclusion (1/2) • The outcomes provide information that can be used to carry out the necessary cultural modifications to improve adoption rates • With these increased adoption rates we would observe a reduction of effort for adopting software process improvement models and increased chances of successful adoption

  19. Conclusions (2/2) • Our methodology could be applied to various situations: • When a company begins adoption activities of a software process improvement model. • When a company faces problems of institutionalizing a software process improvement model. • When the software process improvement model used undergoes an update.

  20. Limitations • These outcomes are valid only for the participating companies in this research and, represent a situation at a specific point in time • Organizational cultures are dynamic just as much as the software process improvement models

  21. Contact • Jorge Aguilar Cisneros jorge.aguilar@upaep.mx • Ricardo Valerdi rvalerdi@arizona.edu Thankyou. Questions?

More Related