software process improvement
Saastamoinen Ilmari and Markku Tukiainen. 2004. Software Process Improvement in Small and Medium Sized Software Enterprises in Eastern Finland: A State-of-the-Practice Study. T. Dingsøyr (Ed.): EuroSPI (2004), 69–78.
Summary
The article presents the results of a study conducted by the University of Joensuu in collaboration with small and medium-sized software firms. The study intended to evaluate the impacts of software process assessment and improvement to understand how they defined by organizations. The findings revealed that most of the practices and processes are far from being adequately defined and systematically implemented.
Strengths
The paper is systematically arranged, from the introduction to the conclusion. The scholars have used different subtitles to report everything that transpired in the study, leading to inherent conclusions, thus making it concise for the readers.
Weaknesses
The paper fails to provide detailed information about the profiles of the population sample as well as the procedures that were used to collect and analyze data. In a complex subject like software engineering, it would be critical to make such information available to enable the readers to understand what transpired in the study.
Shah Sapan K. 2008. Cost Benefit Analysis for Software Process Improvements. Guildford, UK, 1-104.
Summary
The paper reports the findings of a study that sought to investigate the impact OF SPI on project cost reduction. The outcome revealed that the implementation of SPI in software development significantly reduces costs because it enables companies to recruit fewer inspection technicians.
Strengths
On a positive note, the paper incorporates figures and equations to present various technical concepts associated with software engineering. Through this strategy, the author makes it easy for the readers to comprehend some ideas that may be difficult to grasp through written statements.
Weakness
While the article is associated with many strengths, it presents ideas from many years ago. Since the concept of software engineering changes swiftly, views from 2008, when this article was published, may not reflect the accurate picture of the current times.
Bayona-Oré Sussy, Josselyn Chamilco and Dayvis Perez. Applying CMMI Best Practices to Improve Processes. MATEC Web of Conference, 292. 01065(2019), 1-5.
Summary
The article is about a study that was conducted to examine the impact of SPI implementation in improving customer satisfaction. The results revealed that SPI improves various aspects associated with software development and performance. Similarly, the outcome showed that the eventual better performances of software increase customer satisfaction.
Strengths
Despite reporting highly sophisticated concepts, the paper is simple and clear enough to make it easy for the readers to comprehend. Besides, the authors have clearly defined various ideas in the article to allow readers to grasp some background facts about them. Additionally, the paper incorporates tables and figures to report the findings. This strategy enables readers to capture what was found in the study quickly.
Weaknesses
While the paper reports valid results, it fails to provide a detailed account concerning their correlations and implications to organizational practitioners.
Cuauhtémoc, López-Martín, Ali Bou Nassif and Alain Abran.A training process for improving the quality of software projects developed by a practitioner, 1-20.
Summary
The paper reports the results of the study that sought to investigate the correlation between SPI and organizational performance. The study found that the incorporation of this framework in software processes improves their quality, thus improving the overall productivity of an organization.
Strengths
The paper is detailed enough to give readers better insights into the study. In addition to providing information about the scope of the study, the paper draws deeper insights from other related studies for cross-[examination purposes. Furthermore, the study allows the readers to capture insights into the collected data by including it as an appendix.
Weakness
The paper does not contain full details about the period it was published as well as the timeframes of the study. Without this critical, information, it is significantly difficult to ascertain its validity conclusively.
Suganya Murugesu and Sukirtha K. Alagarsamy. 2016. A Review on Software Process Improvement Methodologies for Small and Medium Enterprises. IJSTE, 2, 8 (February 2016), 284-290.
Summary
The article is about the impact of the SPI on small and medium enterprises. The objective of the study being reported in the study was to examine how SPI affected various aspects of these institutions. The findings showed that the framework leads to better renouncement.
Strengths
The paper uses figures to elaborate on some complex concepts in software development to make it easier for grasping. At the same time, the paper draws content from highly credible sources to lay the background about SPI and its prospective impact on organizational aspects.
Weakness
The introduction section is shallow, thus making it difficult for the readers to fully understand the idea of SPI and the associated principles from the onset. The article also fails to critically digest content the borrowed content to enable the readers to understand its relevance to the topic under investigation.
Niazi Mahmood. 2006. Software Process Improvement: A Road to Success. Product-Focused Software Process Improvement: 7th International Conference, PROFES 2006, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 395-401.
Summary
The paper summarizes the empirical evidence on the cost and other benefits associated with the implementation of SPI. The article provides evidence from various sources that attribute SPI with positive outcomes among organizations.
Strengths
The paper acknowledges the contribution of other scholars by citing their studies appropriately to avoid the issue of plagiarism. The paper also systematically digests and discusses the implications obtained from the reviewed sources, thus setting the stage for future studies.
Weaknesses
The paper fails to provide a few details about the studies it uses to draw conclusions about the impact of SPI on organizations. Besides, the introduction section is not detailed enough to lay the required background into the concept of SPI. Furthermore, the paper was published in 2006, hence failing to capture the realities of the current times.