Sa

Sa

b

c

a

ARRAA

KSOMLI

1

aiiS1tet(b

i

0d

The Journal of Systems and Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Systems and Software

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / j ss

oftware Process Improvement as organizational change: A metaphoricalnalysis of the literature

une Dueholm Müllera,∗, Lars Mathiassenb, Hans Henrik Balshøjc

Terma A/S, Aarhus, DenmarkGeorgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USASystematic A/S, Aarhus, Denmark

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 30 September 2009eceived in revised form 7 June 2010ccepted 8 June 2010vailable online 16 June 2010

eywords:oftware Process Improvementrganizational changeetaphors

iterature reviewmages of Organization

a b s t r a c t

Software Process Improvement (SPI) typically involves rather complex organizational changes. Acknowl-edging that managers can approach these changes in quite different ways, this paper addresses thefollowing question: what perspectives do the research literature offer on SPI as organizational change andhow is this knowledge presented and published? To answer this question, we analyzed SPI research publi-cations with a main emphasis on organizational change using Gareth Morgan’s organizational metaphors(1996) as analytical lenses. In addition, we characterized each article along the following dimensions:knowledge orientation (normative versus descriptive), theoretical emphasis (high versus low), mainaudience (practitioner versus academic), geographical origin (Scandinavia, the Americas, Europe, or theAsia-Pacific), and publication level (high versus low ranked journal). The review demonstrates that the lit-erature as a whole is firmly grounded in both theory and practice, it appropriately targets both practitionerand academic audiences, and Scandinavian and American researchers are the main contributors.

However, the distribution of articles across Morgan’s metaphors is uneven and reveals knowledge gapsthat present new avenues for research. The current literature offers important insights into organizationalchange in SPI when viewed through machine, organism, flux and transformation, and brain metaphors.

Practitioners may use these articles to guide SPI initiatives. In contrast, the impact of culture, dominance,psychic prison, and politics in SPI has only received scant attention. We argue that these perspectivescould offer important additional insights into the challenges involved in managing SPI. Researchers aretherefore advised to engage in new SPI research based on one or more of these perspectives. Overall,the paper offers research directions and management lessons, and it provides a roadmap to help identify

les re

insights and specific artic

. Introduction

Software Process Improvement (SPI) covers a wide variety ofpproaches and practices aimed at improving quality and reliabil-ty, employee and customer satisfaction, and return on investmentn software development. SPI dates back to the founding of theoftware Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University in984 and the publishing of Watts Humphrey’s book “Managinghe Software Process” (1989). Since then, the industrial and sci-

ntific interest in SPI has been persistently strong as reflected inhe publication of 1012 articles in major journals and conferencessee Section 3.1). This extensive body of knowledge has previouslyeen reviewed (Aaen et al., 2001; Jakobsen et al., 2003; Hansen et

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: sdm@terma.com (S.D. Müller), lmathiassen@gsu.edu (L. Math-

assen), hhb@systematic.com (H.H. Balshøj).

164-1212/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.jss.2010.06.017

lated to SPI as organizational change.© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

al., 2004), but never focusing on those articles with main empha-sis on SPI as organizational change. As the organizational changeprocesses involved in SPI are rather complex and success in SPIheavily depends on how change is perceived and managed (Kautzet al., 2001; Frederiksen and Rose, 2003; Iversen et al., 2004; Kautzand Nielsen, 2004; Hardgrave and Armstrong, 2005; Mathiassenet al., 2005), this paper reviews the insights offered on this sub-ject in the literature. Such insights may inform software managersin their practical efforts and guide researchers in their continuedinvestigation of SPI practices.

Through a systematic process, we identified 71 scientific articleson SPI that deal explicitly and primarily with organizational change.To analyze the different perspectives present within this body of

knowledge, we adopted metaphorical thinking as suggested byGareth Morgan. In his seminal work “Images of Organization”, heemphasizes that “all theories of organization and management arebased on implicit images or metaphors that lead us to see, under-stand, and manage organizations in distinctive yet partial ways”

tems a

(hgnu

seawibs(gatt“av

tdeojwqaatuma

epramcwrdlrraE

arfiascr

2

e“a

S.D. Müller et al. / The Journal of Sys

Morgan, 1996: 4). Following this logic, metaphorical thinking canelp us understand in what directions our current knowledge of SPIuide change management perceptions and practices, and in whatew directions we need to search to arrive at a more comprehensivenderstanding of change management in SPI.

We chose “Images of Organization” as analytical framework foreveral reasons. First, metaphors are powerful heuristic devicesnabling exploration of the complexities of organizations fromlternative perspectives which in turn yields new insights. In theords of Kendall and Kendall, “metaphors are like the magical

ncantations of old. By using words that people understand andelieve in to make linkages with the new and unfamiliar, thepeaker provides the ability to envision the world in a new way”Kendall and Kendall, 1993). Second, using metaphors to distin-uish between different types of contributions to the literature, were not only able to identify differences in perceptions of organiza-ions among SPI researchers, we are also able to draw attentiono the possibilities and limitation of their contributions. Third,Images of Organization” is an internationally acclaimed book andn intuitively comprehensible analytical tool that allows us to sur-ey and categorize the literature in a simple, yet meaningful way.

With Morgan’s metaphors as the overarching lens, we iden-ified each article’s knowledge orientation (normative versusescriptive), emphasis on theory (high versus low), main audi-nce (practitioner versus academic), geographical origin (locationf researchers), and publication level (high versus low rankingournal). Hence, we used metaphorical thinking in combination

ith other key characteristics to address the following researchuestion: what types of insights do the literature offer on SPIs organizational change and how is this knowledge presentednd published? By addressing this question, this article adds tohe literature that applies organizational perspectives to help usnderstand the complexities involved in software engineering andanagement (e.g. Hirschheim and Klein, 1989; Iivari, 1991; Kendall

nd Kendall, 1993; Ngwenyama and Nielsen, 2003).Our analyses have led to a comprehensive overview of the lit-

rature revealing both strengths and weaknesses. Firstly, someerspectives on organizations are well explored; others areesearched more sporadically; and still others are not researchedt all despite their arguable relevance for SPI practices. Secondly, aajor part of the research is descriptive in nature, and most arti-

les have a high emphasis on theory. Thirdly, most articles areritten for an academic audience, but there is also a considerable

epresentation of practitioner oriented contributions. Interestingifferences and similarities exist between academic articles pub-

ished in high ranked journals versus those published in loweranked journals. Finally, the analyses reveal that the major part ofesearch on SPI as organizational change originates in Scandinaviand the Americas, while only minor parts originate in the rest ofurope and the Asia-Pacific.

Our analyses and detailed findings are presented and discusseds follows. First, we present the theoretical background for theeview. Second, we describe the method through which we identi-ed and analyzed the literature. Third, we analyze the 71 identifiedrticles on SPI and describe how they represent different per-pectives on organizational change. Fourth, we synthesize the keyontributions from the literature and discuss implications for bothesearch and practice.

. Theoretical framing

SPI covers a great variety of approaches to improving softwarengineering practices. Definitions of SPI abound. For example, SPIis an applied academic field rooted in the software engineeringnd information systems disciplines. It deals with the professional

nd Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146 2129

management of software firms, and the improvement of their prac-tice, displaying a managerial focus rather than dealing directly withthe techniques that are used to write software” (Hansen et al., 2004:457). Initially, SPI has had an affinity with software engineering, butthe field has been broadened to encompass information systemsdevelopment and management of software firms more broadly. Inthis paper, we adopt this broader view and in line with contem-porary research we consider knowledge on organizational changeas key to successfully manage SPI initiatives (Kautz et al., 2001;Frederiksen and Rose, 2003; Iversen et al., 2004; Kautz and Nielsen,2004; Hardgrave and Armstrong, 2005; Mathiassen et al., 2005).

As noted earlier, a wealth of articles has been published on SPI,and a number of authors have reviewed the literature for differentpurposes. Jakobsen et al. conducted a literature study to uncoverfactors influencing SPI readiness (Jakobsen et al., 2003). Hansenet al. reviewed and categorized the literature into three differenttypes of contributions, namely prescriptive, descriptive, and reflec-tive contributions (Hansen et al., 2004). “Prescriptive contributionsare primarily concerned with informing SPI practitioners how theycan carry out Software Process Improvement initiatives. Descrip-tive contributions are primarily concerned with describing thoseinitiatives. Reflective contributions are primarily concerned withsetting the other contributions in a theoretical context, or develop-ing theory” (Hansen et al., 2004: 458). Finally, Aaen et al. providedan in-depth examination of the SPI literature and identified the fun-damental ideas underlying SPI approaches and practices, i.e. ideasrelated to management of (M), approach to (A), and perspective on(P) SPI. This set of ideas comprises a “MAP” that can be used to eval-uate strengths and weaknesses of SPI initiatives (Aaen et al., 2001;Pourkomeylian, 2001). This paper presents a literature review thatcomplements these contributions by analyzing the SPI literaturefrom an organization change perspective using Morgan’s “Imagesof Organization” (1996) as analytical framework.

Morgan describes eight images or metaphors of organizationsthat represent distinct and different ways to perceive and man-age organizational life (see Table 1). Taken together, these lensesexpress the richness of organizational theory. They can informnew research by supporting alternative thinking and by leading tomore comprehensive insights into organizational practices. Mor-gan’s metaphors invite us to apply a wide and varied range ofperspectives as events play out in organizations. This leads to richerperceptions and a wider set of options for managerial intervention.Each metaphor is a powerful conceptual tool that allows importantinsights to emerge, but it also has limitations as it produces one-sided knowledge by favoring some interpretations while neglectingothers.

Organizations as machines involves thinking about organizationsas a machine made up of interlocking parts with each part playing aclearly defined role in the functioning of the whole. In the thoughtsof Max Weber, the machine metaphor underpins the developmentof bureaucratic organizations through rules and regulations. Thisform of management can at times prove highly effective and pro-ductive, but at other times it can have unfortunate consequences.Routinization, efficiency, reliability, and predictability are desirablecharacteristics of organizations when viewed through this mech-anistic lens. Mechanistic management is an ingrained part of theconventional theorizing about organizations (Morgan, 1996: Chap-ter 2).

Organizations as organisms sees organizations as living systems,focusing on organizational needs and environmental relations. Itis in this view feasible to identify different species of organiza-

tions that are suited for some environments but not for others.The organism metaphor helps us understand how organizations areborn, grow, develop, decline, and die, and how they can adapt tochanging environments, e.g. new social, technological, or politicalcircumstances (Morgan, 1996: Chapter 3).

2130 S.D. Müller et al. / The Journal of Systems a

Table 1Morgan’s metaphors.

Metaphor Key characteristics

MachineOrganizations as machines of interlockingpartsRules and regulations in bureaucraticorganizationsRoutinization, efficiency, reliability, andpredictability

OrganismOrganizations as living systemsEnvironmental adaptationDifferent species of organizations

BrainOrganizations as learning systemsInformation processing in decision-makingand communicationKnowledge management and capacity forlearning

CultureOrganizations as culturesSocial interaction and shared meaning inorganizational behaviorValues, ideas, beliefs, norms, and rituals

Political systemOrganizations as stages for political gamingConflicting interests and the use of power toresolve conflictsPolitical dimensions of structures,technologies, and strategies

Psychic prisonOrganizations as mental prisonsTrapped by conscious and unconsciousthoughts, ideas, and beliefsHabitual thinking and rigid thought patterns

Flux andtransformation

Organizations as self-producing systemsForces shaping organizations in a permanentstate of movementLogics of change shaping social life

Organizations as a state of slavery

attiiWovtdtcc

vmtbsntt

ran

Instrument ofdomination

Hidden agendas and exploitative actionsthrough the use of powerClass-based tensions and oppression

Organizations as brains involves thinking about organizationss learning systems that serve to control and coordinate activi-ies of autonomous subsystems. This metaphor draws attentiono information processing, learning, knowledge management, andntelligence. When looking at organizations as information process-ng brains, the focus is on communication and decision-making.

hen thinking of organizations as learning systems, focus centersn capacities for learning as exemplified by single-loop learningersus double-loop learning.1 The brain metaphor implies a holis-ic systems view with a high degree of connectivity between theifferent parts – each with a high degree of task specializationhat contributes to certain general functions. Control and hierar-hy are undesirable organizing principles when organizations areonsidered as learning systems (Morgan, 1996: Chapter 4).

Organizations as cultures perceives organizations through thealues, ideas, beliefs, norms, rituals, and other patterns of sharedeaning that guide organizational life. This metaphor brings atten-

ion to the different ways people behave and the reasons for theirehaving in certain ways. Culture develops through processes of

ocial interaction and is not imposed. Successfully managing orga-izations requires dealing with cultures and subcultures withinhe organization. Power can be exerted to influence corporate cul-ure, but it is not necessarily the formal sources of power that

1 Single-loop learning has to do with the ability to detect and correct errors inelation to a given set of operating norms. Double-loop learning depends on beingble to take a look at the situation and question the relevance of such operatingorms and their underlying assumptions (Morgan, 1996: Chapter 4).

nd Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146

impact corporate cultures the most. Opinion leaders, for example,are perceived to be powerful actors that contribute to the shapingof corporate cultures (Morgan, 1996: Chapter 5).

Organizations as political systems focuses on organizations asstages for political gaming. The focus is on interests, conflictinginterests, and the use of power to resolve conflicts. All organiza-tional activity and functioning is interest based which means that,for example, structures, technologies, and strategies have a politicaldimension. Private and organizational interests cause people to actpolitically, and these acts have a disintegrative effect on an orga-nization by pulling it in different directions. The political systemmetaphor is ideally suited for likening organizations to systems ofgovernment by drawing attention to the many factors that shapepolitics in organizational life (Morgan, 1996: Chapter 6).

Organizations as psychic prisons involves thinking about orga-nizations as psychic phenomena. People unconsciously becometrapped by their own thoughts, ideas, and beliefs thereby cre-ating mental prisons that enslave them by making it difficult,if not impossible, to escape habitual thinking and rigid thoughtpatterns. The psychic prison metaphor invites examinations oforganizational life to see if, and in what ways, organizations becometrapped by conscious and unconscious processes of their owndevise (Morgan, 1996: Chapter 7).

Organizations as flux and transformation focuses on the logics ofchange that shape social life. The metaphor is expressed in differ-ent ways grounded in the belief that the universe is in a permanentstate of movement. One view emphasizes organizations as self-producing systems that create and recreate themselves in their ownimage. A second view depicts organizations as complex and chaoticentities shared through different forms of agency. A third view por-trays organizations as the result of circular flows of positive andnegative feedback. And, a fourth view focuses on organizationsas a result of dialectical processes in which every phenomenongenerates its opposite. The flux and transformation metaphor isparticularly useful in understanding and managing change and inappreciating the many forces within society that shape organiza-tions (Morgan, 1996: Chapter 8).

Organizations as instruments of domination brings attention tohow organizations achieve their ends through the use of power.The underlying idea is that organizations as a reflection of societyreplicate the class-based tensions between capitalists and the pro-letariat or between the ‘have and have-nots’. One group uses itspower to exploit the other group and to keep it in a contemporarystate of slavery. The instrument of domination metaphor is use-ful in helping us understand organizations from the perspectiveof exploitation and oppression. Hidden agendas make for differ-ent interpretations of action, so actions that appear rational fromone perspective can prove exploitative from a different viewpoint(Morgan, 1996: Chapter 9).

3. Review methodology

A literature review should be complete and focus on concepts(Webster and Watson, 2002). Two of the key issues are thereforehow to identify the relevant literature and how to structure theanalysis of the included literature.

3.1. Selection of literature

We focused on SPI articles that explicitly and primarily deal

with organizational change, i.e. on what it takes to changeexisting practices through SPI. Articles that mainly exploreother albeit also interesting SPI topics, e.g. assessments, met-rics, models, return on investment, and risks, were excluded.We limited our search to articles in the 125 journals on the

tems and Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146 2131

A(jpCf

tta“atpWwif“ctaoaoesobcadccIlo

3

otat

n(ektfivwma1cdficaaTmN

Table 2Constructs applied to characterize articles.

Construct Definitions

Organizational perspective Metaphor: machine; organism; brain; culture;political system; psychic prison; flux andtransformation; instrument of domination;multi-perspective

Knowledgeorientation

Normative: offers prescriptions,recommendations, normative guidelines, andgeneric strategies to support SPI practicesDescriptive: offers insights from ‘the trenches’that foster greater understanding of SPIpractices

Theoreticalemphasis

High: theory plays an important role asfoundation, analytical framework, orcontributionLow: lack of substantial elements of theory asfoundation, analytical framework, orcontribution

Mainaudience

Practitioner: the journal’s mission and contentis mainly targeting a practitioner audienceAcademic: the journal’s mission and content ismainly targeting an academic audience

Geographicalorigin

Scandinavia: the primary authors were locatedand the investigations were conducted inScandinaviaEurope: the primary authors were located andthe investigations were conducted in the restof EuropeAmericas: the primary authors were locatedand the investigations were conducted in theAmericasAsia-Pacific: the primary authors were locatedand the investigations were conducted in theAsia-Pacific

Publicationlevel

High ranked: the top 1/5 of the identifiedacademic articles according to the AIS rankinglist of journalsLow ranked: the bottom 4/5 of the identified

S.D. Müller et al. / The Journal of Sys

ssociation of Information Systems’ (AIS) journal ranking listhttp://www.isworld.org/csaunders/rankings.htm), articles in theournal “Software Process: Improvement and Practice” (SPIP), andapers at the two major academic conferences, ICSE (Internationalonference on Software Engineering) and ICIS (International Con-

erence on Information Systems).We applied both quantitative and qualitative methods to iden-

ify relevant articles for this review by systematically searchinghrough journals and conference proceedings. First, we generatedpool of potentially interesting articles by searching for the terms

SPI” or “Software Process Improvement” in either the title, thebstract, the keywords, or the body text. As a result, we iden-ified 1012 potentially interesting SPI articles. Second, from thisool we identified articles that deal with organizational change.e defined keywords to support the selection process. The key-ords were not chosen to define organizational change but to

dentify articles with a primary emphasis on the subject. Thus;or each article we searched for “change”; “change management”;organizational change”; “organizational development”; “processhange” to appear in the title; abstract; keywords; or introduc-ion. This process reduced the number of potentially interestingrticles from 1012 to 207. Third; we filtered out articles with-ut primary focus on organizational change. These articles didddress organizational change issues; but their primary focus wasn other aspects of SPI (like assessments; methods; tools; mod-ls; risks; and return on investment). Compared to the initialcreening; this process was more qualitative based on readingf each article’s abstract and conclusion section. Realizing it cane difficult to make this distinction – especially since many arti-les contain lessons learned and criteria for success in SPI – thessessment was done independently by each of the authors toetermine whether an article explicitly reported on organizationalhange aspects of SPI. In cases of disagreement; the article’s entireontent was scrutinized and discussed before a decision was made.n the end; it was found that 71 of the 1012 articles (7%) pub-ished between 1993 and 2007 address SPI with a primary focusn organizational change.

.2. Analyses of literature

In addition to analyzing the identified articles through the lensf Morgan’s organizational metaphors, we identified other distinc-ions that could help us characterize how the articles are presentednd published. Table 2 provides a summary of the constructs usedo analyze each article.

First, the articles were coded according to the underlying orga-izational metaphor. To that end, we conducted content analysisMiles and Huberman, 1994; Beath and Orlikowski, 1994; Lyytinent al., 1998) of each chapter in “Images of Organization” to identifyeywords that would help identify each article’s primary perspec-ive. In addition, we identified themes that we would expect tond in the SPI literature based on each metaphor. Table 3 pro-ides an overview of these keywords and themes. Each articleas then read independently by the three authors and a primaryetaphor was ascribed based on qualitative content analysis (Miles

nd Huberman, 1994; Beath and Orlikowski, 1994; Lyytinen et al.,998). After this individual coding, results were compared and inase of disagreement the article’s organizational perspective wasiscussed and differences of opinion were reconciled. As a result,ve articles were coded as multi-perspective because they rely onombinations of two or more metaphors. The article by Kautz et

l. (2001) is a case in point. It deals with the four roles of changegents in SPI based on the framework by Burrell and Morgan (1979).he technical expert shares many characteristics with the machineetaphor. The facilitating participant fits the culture metaphor.ot surprisingly, the political agent stems from the political system

academic articles according to the AIS rankinglist of journals

metaphor. Finally, the individual therapist and the psychic prisonmetaphor are closely related.

Second, we coded the primary knowledge orientation of eacharticle as normative or descriptive (see Table 2). Normative articlesfocus on prescriptions, recommendations, guidelines, and genericstrategies for SPI practitioners. An example is Iversen et al. (2004)offering five strategies, specific techniques, and an overall processfor managing SPI team risks. In contrast, descriptive articles presentinsights from ‘the trenches’ that foster a greater understanding ofSPI. An example is the case study by Keeni (2000) offering experi-ence data on how successful changes in quality processes occurredover a 10-year period in an organization. Articles may, of course,contain both descriptive and prescriptive elements, so we deter-mined the primary knowledge orientation, i.e. whether the articlesset out to provide recommendations or to promote an understand-ing of certain aspects of SPI.

Third, we coded the emphasis on theory as high or low (seeTable 2). Few articles are devoid of theoretical background, theo-rizing, or theoretical framing of empirical analyses. However, foran article to be labeled high on theoretical emphasis, theory mustplay an important role in relation to the argument of the articlein terms of (1) input (foundation), (2) analyses (framework), or (3)output (contribution). Articles that were coded as being low lacked

substantial elements of theory in this sense. Articles of this typetypically focus on experiences, events, or lessons from a particularorganizational context (e.g. Börjesson and Mathiassen, 2004).

2132 S.D. Müller et al. / The Journal of Systems and Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146

Table 3Keywords and themes based on content analysis (Morgan, 1996).

Metaphor Keywords Themes

Machine

Work/worker(s) Factors that influence SPIPrinciple(s) Routinization, reliability, efficiency, and predictabilityControl Controllable variablesMechanistic/machine(s) Normative models and generic/universal strategies for SPIClassical SPI under conditions of organizational stabilityProduction

Organism

Environment(s) Organizational needs; balance of needsSystem(s) Adaptation to internal and external surroundings/environmentRelations Development, growth, survival, and evolution of organizationsSpecies Environmental changes (e.g. social, technological, and political)Structure(s) Organizational contextNature Organizational relationsNeedsOpenOrganism(s)

Brain

Learning Knowledge; knowledge managementInformation Organizational learning, working iterativelyBrain(s) Information processing in organizationsSystem(s) Groups with specialized knowledge (knowledge centers)Intelligence Knowledge of process areas as key to success in SPIHolographic

Culture

Cultural/culture(s) Group rules, norms, ideas, beliefs, motivation, values, and ritualsValues SPI acceptancePeople Job/employee satisfaction and work environmentLife Intraorganizational behavior and climateRealitySocial

Politicalsystem

Power Interests and conflicts between different (interest) groupsControl Power relationsPolitical/politics Patterns of influenceInterestsWorkInfluenceRelationsConflict(s)

Psychicprison

Unconscious Freezing/locking of organization by existing patternsLife Organizational members unconsciously trapped by their own minds, thoughts, ideas, and beliefsChangeControlRealityGroup(s)Human(s)Understanding

Flux andtransformation

Change(s) Logics of change shaping social lifeSystem(s) Internal and external dynamicsEnvironment(s) Uncontrollable or chaotic organizational changePattern(s)ContextChaos

Domination Exploitative and negative aspects of corporate lifeLabor Obtaining goals by use of power and domination

initia

tenAafa

n

Instrument ofdomination

Work/workers Forced SPIPowerInterestsControl

Fourth, we coded the main audience for each article as prac-itioner or academic (see Table 2). This was done by closelyxamining the mission, content, and target audience of each jour-al. The journal homepages were instrumental in this process.

rticles published in a particular journal would then be codedccording to that journal’s main audience. Articles published in,or example, MISQ were considered academic, while IEEE Softwarerticles were considered practitioner.2

2 The academic journals are MISQ, ISR, IEEETrans (IEEE Transactions on Engi-eering Management), IEEETSE, ISJ, DATABASE, IT&P, ACMSIG (both ACM SIGSOFT

tive

Fifth, we coded geographical origin based on where the primaryauthors were located and the investigations were conducted (seeTable 2). The codes were, in this case, developed based on the actualdistribution of geographical origin of the 71 articles. As a result,

we grouped the articles into four distinct regions: Scandinavia, theAmericas, the rest of Europe, and the Asia-Pacific.

Finally, we coded the publication level of the articles as high orlow (see Table 2). This coding only applied to articles in academic

Software Engineering Notes and ACM SIGICE Bulletin), JS&S, IJIM, IST, and SJIS,whereas the practitioner journals are CACM, IEEESw, IEEEComp, and QP.

S.D. Müller et al. / The Journal of Systems and Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146 2133

Fig. 1. Distribution of articles across metaphors.

Fig. 2. Distribution of metaphors in academic (left) and practitioner (right) journals.

Fig. 3. Distribution of metaphors in high (left) and low (right) ranking academic journals.

Fig. 4. Geographical distribution of articles in academic (left) and practitioner (right) journals.

2134 S.D. Müller et al. / The Journal of Systems and Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146

Fig. 5. Geographical distribution of very theoretical (left) and less theoretical (right) articles.

s met

jclhfh

4

1SborrActwgiA

eb7odd

iv

I

Fig. 6. Distribution of articles acros

ournals. The journals containing the top 1/5 of the academic arti-les were labeled high ranking whereas the journals containing theower 4/5 were labeled low ranking. While this partitioning couldave been done in a number of ways, its purpose was solely to allow

or analyses of general patterns and trends of articles published inighly versus lower ranked journals.

. Analyzing the literature

While SPI as a field of practice dates back to the end of the980s, it was not until 8–10 years later that research focusing onPI as organizational change was first published in journals. Theulk of articles in the sample appear in journals from 1997 andnward which indicates a time lag from the advent of SPI projects ineal-world organizations until researchers reported on challengeselated to organizational change. Only 26 of the 125 journals on theIS journal ranking list contain articles that focus on organizationalhange aspects of SPI, and only 10 of these 26 journals feature morehan 1 article.3 Several articles were found in both SPIP and ICSE,hereas no ICIS articles were identified. Concerning the articles’

eographic distribution, 34% (24) of the articles are Scandinaviann origin, 32% (23) are from the Americas, 17% (12) are from thesia-Pacific, and 17% (12) are from the rest of Europe.

The most prevalent perspectives on organizations in the lit-rature are the organism, machine, flux and transformation, andrain metaphors. In fact, these perspectives cover 83% (59) of the1 articles. The metaphors viewing organizations through the lensf political systems, psychic prisons, cultures, and instruments ofomination are either absent (instrument of domination) or non-

ominant (see Fig. 1).

The research on SPI as organizational change is deeply rootedn both theory and practice. Thus, 56% (40) of the 71 articles areery theoretical in nature, while only 44% (31) are less theoretical.

3 ACMSIG (ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes), CACM, DATABASE,EEEComp, IEEESw, IEEETSE, IST, ISJ, JS&S, and SJIS.

aphors based on geographic origin.

Moreover, 76% (54) of the articles are mainly descriptive, while only24% (17) are mainly prescriptive.

Considering the distribution pattern across journal types, thereis a healthy balance between academic and practitioner articles.72% (51) of the articles are published in academic journals, while28% (20) are published in practitioner journals which suggeststhat SPI researchers are committed to reporting key findings to apractitioner audience. The distribution of descriptive (3/4) versusprescriptive (1/4) articles is similar in academic and practitionerjournals. Also, the theoretical emphasis of articles in academic jour-nals is noteworthy with 75% (38) categorized as very theoreticaland only 25% (13) as less theoretical. The theoretical emphasis isconsiderably smaller in practitioner journals with only 10% (2) ofthe articles categorized as very theoretical and 90% (18) categorizedas less theoretical. Finally, we found strong variation in metaphorsin both academic and practitioner journals. Fig. 2 reveals that thebrain and organism metaphors account for approximately the sameshare of articles in both academic and practitioner journals (12% (6)and 25% (13) versus 15% (3) and 30% (6)). The most notable differ-ence is that 30% (6) of the articles in practitioner journals fit theperspective on organizations as flux and transformation, whereasan almost equal share (33% (17)) of the academic articles adoptsthe machine metaphor.

Focusing on academic articles published in high versus lowranking journals, a number of observations deserve mentioning(see Fig. 3). For articles published in high ranking journals, the brainand organism metaphors are dominant (respectively 30% and 30%(3)), and several of the eight metaphors are absent (political sys-tem, psychic prison, flux and transformation, and instrument ofdomination). While there are only a limited number of metaphorsand noticeably only one article espousing the machine metaphorin high ranking journals, articles in low ranking journals are more

versatile in terms of the number of metaphors found, and as manyas 39% (16) of these articles are based on the machine metaphor.

Focusing on geographical origin, the major portion of articlespublished in academic journals are from Scandinavia (39% (20)),while the major part of articles published in practitioner journals

tems a

aawifm6m

5

la

abtrbaatamwmoe2O1Tgc2aia1

rafaifiKimltmmtsooiAreSt

mental) way of working (Conradi and Dybå, 2001). Finally, smallorganizations and organizations in unstable environments maybenefit from focusing on improving their knowledge managementcapability instead of focusing on traditional process areas that per-

S.D. Müller et al. / The Journal of Sys

re from the Americas (65% (13)) (see Fig. 4). Also, the major part ofrticles with high theoretical emphasis are Scandinavian (52% (21)),hile the major part of less theoretical articles are from the Amer-

cas (61% (19)) (see Fig. 5). Finally, as illustrated in Fig. 6, articlesrom the rest of the world exhibit less variation in the underlying

etaphors than articles from Scandinavia and the Americas. In fact,3% (15) of these articles are based on the organization as machineetaphor.

. Synthesizing the literature

We present a synthesis of the contributions provided by theiterature on SPI as organizational change in Table 4, structuredccording to the metaphors espoused by each article.

The organization as machine metaphor has drawn researchers’ttention towards universal motivators, critical success factors,arriers, and other factors that impact SPI initiatives. Motiva-ors and de-motivators, including process ownership, availableesources, resistance to change, and commercial pressure, haveeen found to differ across staff groups involved in SPI (Baddoond Hall, 2003). A number of other factors have also been found toffect SPI initiatives in general, e.g. unambiguous goals and expecta-ions, executive support, management involvement, SPI awareness,llocation of resources, staff involvement and experience, staffotivation, internal communication, metrics, well-defined soft-are procedures, reviews and inspections of existing practices,entoring, training, structured planning, having a SPI method-

logy and implementation organization, and the use of processxperts (Dybå, 2005; Rainer and Hall, 2003; Rainer and Hall,002; Van Loon, 2000; Pitterman, 2000; Niazi et al., 2006;gasawara et al., 2006; Hall et al., 2002; O’Hara, 2000; Moitra,998; Stelzer and Mellis, 1998; Herbsleb and Goldenson, 1996;anaka et al., 1995; Johnson, 1994). In addition, these articles offereneric models and methods for SPI focusing on organizationalhange, including SPI implementation strategies (Baddoo and Hall,002), an SPI implementation framework (Niazi et al., 2005a,b),self-evaluation framework for assessing SPI readiness and for

dentifying weaknesses that may hamper SPI efforts (Wilson etl., 2001), as well as a method for personal SPI (Saiedian and Carr,997).

The organization as organism metaphor has directedesearchers’ attention to the internal and external environmentsnd their effects on SPI initiatives. A number of environmentalactors (including external financial support, interorganizationalnd interpersonal networks, process related training, developers’nvolvement, maintaining momentum, group focus, champions,requency of assessments, and SPI process visibility) have beendentified as influencing SPI efforts (Guerrero and Eterovic, 2004;autz, 1998), and some of these factors have led companies to

gnore software development best practice and process improve-ent models (Coleman and O’Connor, 2007). This part of the SPI

iterature has also identified different types or species of organiza-ions (e.g. small and large organizations) with different needs that

ust be attended to through tailored approaches to SPI. Processesust reflect the needs and goals of the organization and continue

o develop as the organization evolves (Kautz, 1999). Also, a key touccess in SPI is the ability not only to demonstrate a positive effectn quality and productivity, but also to provide benefits for devel-pers and project managers (Green et al., 2005). When doing SPI, its necessary to think in terms of improving the whole organization.

n organization is only as strong as its weakest link, so effective SPIequires coherent improvement throughout a company (Cattaneot al., 2001). For this purpose, an all-encompassing approach toPI that includes issues of assessment, training, measurement,echnology, consulting, and communication may prove useful

nd Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146 2135

(Wohlwend and Rosenbaum, 1994). Even though some peoplemay consider SPI primarily applicable to large organizations(Staples et al., 2007), small organizations can implement SPI in abeneficial and cost-efficient manner as well. This requires takinginto account the organization’s business goals, business models,business characteristics, resource limitations, roles and respon-sibilities, context dependency, and small organizations’ relativestrengths in relation to employee participation and opportunitiesfor exploring new knowledge (Gresse von Wangenheim et al.,2006; Ward et al., 2001; Dybå, 2003; Ogasawara et al., 2006; Kautzet al., 2000). Keeping this in mind, SPI can be used in organizationscharacterized by cutting-edge technologies, fast-track projects,rapid development, and constant business pressure, thoughthese organizations are typically quite unstable (Wiegers, 1999).Small organizations are considered relatively agile, but normativemethods and maturity models like the CMMs impose structure.This creates a potential conflict. Meanwhile, agile principles canhave a positive impact on SPI initiatives when applied to theimprovement process itself (Börjesson and Mathiassen, 2005).Agile SPI practices are flexible, and different tactics facilitate eitheradaptive or efficient process development and diffusion (Aaen etal., 2007). In pursuing these ideas further, an effort has been madeto combine the CMM with the Personal Software Process (PSP)to minimize the number of process areas and to ensure a betterfit with small and agile organizations (Saiedian and Carr, 1997).Lastly, to support the evaluation of fit between SPI initiatives andthe organizational context in which they unfold, a framework4

has been developed that incorporates characteristic features ofSPI initiatives, the benefits and risks related to such initiatives,and the possible approaches that can be adopted to SPI (Aaenet al., 2001). This framework has been used to assess and guideSPI practices in a large pharmaceutical firm (Pourkomeylian,2001).

The organization as brain metaphor has led researchers to focuson the role of knowledge in SPI. People in organizations must haveadequate knowledge about the process areas in question to acceptSPI initiatives (Pressman, 1996). If the knowledge needed to per-form SPI initiatives does not exist within the organizations, it isnecessary to draw upon the expertise of external consultants andassessors (Cater-Steel et al., 2006). A strategy for educating peo-ple should be an integral part of any SPI project, including havinga plan, assigning personal education budgets, providing meaning-ful incentives, and insisting on people being able to demonstratetheir competencies (Iversen and Ngwenyama, 2006). Assessmentsand measurements are considered important means by which valu-able knowledge about the organization and the SPI initiative isacquired (Fayad and Laitinen, 1997). In this light, a method foreliciting problems in software organizations that fosters mutualunderstanding as a prerequisite for establishing consensus on whatneeds to be improved has been presented (Iversen et al., 1999).For similar reasons, process engineers and practitioners should beinvolved in all SPI phases to ensure learning as a prerequisite forsuccess (Börjesson and Mathiassen, 2004). The question of howorganizations may increase their chance of success has also beeninvestigated from a knowledge transfer perspective (Slaughter andKirsch, 2006), suggesting that it is important to strike a balancebetween a disciplined (or rational) and a creative (or experi-

4 The MAP – Management (organization, plan, and feedback), Approach (evolu-tion, norm, and commitment), and Perspective (process, competence, and context)– framework (Aaen et al., 2001).

2136 S.D. Müller et al. / The Journal of Systems and Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146

Table 4Organizational perspectives on SPI.

Metaphor Contributions References

Machine Universal motivators, de-motivators, and factors affecting SPIinitiativesGeneric SPI models and assessment methods focusing onorganizational change

Baddoo and Hall (2002), Baddoo and Hall (2003), Dybå (2005),Hall et al. (2002), Herbsleb and Goldenson (1996), Johnson(1994), Moitra (1998), Niazi et al. (2005a,b), Niazi et al. (2006),O’Hara (2000), Ogasawara et al. (2006), Pitterman (2000),Rainer and Hall (2002), Rainer and Hall (2003), Saiedian andCarr (1997), Stelzer and Mellis (1998), Tanaka et al. (1995), VanLoon (2000), and Wilson et al. (2001)

Organism Environmental conditions for SPI – both internal and externalto organizationsSpecies of organizations with different needs coping with SPIAgile SPI practices ensuring organizational fitFactors influencing process evolution and SPI resistance

Aaen et al. (2001), Aaen et al. (2007), Börjesson and Mathiassen(2005), Cattaneo et al. (2001), Coleman and O’Connor (2007),Dybå (2003), Green et al. (2005), Gresse von Wangenheim etal. (2006), Guerrero and Eterovic (2004), Iversen et al. (2004),Kautz (1998, 1999), Kautz et al. (2000), Oktaba et al. (2007),Pourkomeylian (2001), Staples et al. (2007), Ward et al. (2001),Wiegers (1999), and Wohlwend and Rosenbaum (1994)

Brain Knowledge creation, management, and dissemination in SPIOrganizational and individual knowledge as success factors inSPIAssessments and measurements as vehicles for collecting anddistributing knowledge in SPI

Baskerville and Pries-Heje (1999), Börjesson and Mathiassen(2004), Cater-Steel et al. (2006), Conradi and Dybå (2001),Fayad and Laitinen (1997), Iversen and Ngwenyama (2006),Iversen et al. (1999), Pressman (1996), and Slaughter andKirsch (2006)

Culture Impact of national cultures on SPICultural inconsistencies in maturity modelsImportance of job motivation and satisfaction in SPI

Boehm (2000), Ngwenyama and Nielsen (2003), Phongpaibuland Boehm (2005), and Yamamura (1999)

Political system Politics and interests in SPI as means to uncover and removeobstacles

Nielsen and Nørbjerg (2001)

Psychic prison Existing practices reinforced through SPICountering resistance through models that take adoptionissues into account

Frederiksen and Rose (2003) and Umarji and Seaman (2005)

Flux and transformation Longitudinal process perspective on SPIUse of tactics and monitoring to achieve lasting changethrough SPIUnfreezing existing behavior and focusing on continuousimprovement and change in SPIThe influence of change processes, context, and people on SPIoutcomesConvergence between interests and expected outcomes asmotivator for changePerception of freedom fundamental to process deploymentCommitment as an ongoing process

Abrahamsson (2001), Allison and Merali (2007), Ferreira et al.(2007), Hardgrave and Armstrong (2005), Herbsleb et al.(1997), Hollenbach et al. (1997), Keeni (2000), Laporte andTrudel (1998), Mathiassen et al. (2005), Qin (2007), andWohlwend and Rosenbaum (1993)

ange

m1

aohmeaioeaattctsHcsa

r

Multi-perspective Multiple perspectives on SPI in organizationsDifferent SPI agent roles and the prospects for ch

eate maturity models like the CMM (Baskerville and Pries-Heje,999).

The organization as culture metaphor has drawn researchers’ttention to the impact of employee satisfaction and motivationn success in SPI (Yamamura, 1999). People that are well trained,ave the right skills, and in other ways fit their job profiles areotivated – also in relation to SPI. Management can promote

mployee satisfaction on a project level through careful planning,disciplined development environment, growth opportunities,

nteresting assignments, and mentoring. Also, management focusn process improvements helps clarify expectations of employ-es and contributes to job satisfaction. Organizations that works an integrated unit with a common set of norms, beliefs, ideas,nd values are in a more favorable position to do SPI comparedo organizations that are more heterogeneous (Boehm, 2000). Inerms of national cultures, to effectively improve software pro-esses in Thailand researchers and practitioners must understandhe cultural differences and tailor western style processes to Thaioftware development practices (Phongpaibul and Boehm, 2005).owever, cultural tensions exist not only on the level of national

ultures. Cultural inconsistencies have also been identified withinome maturity models (People CMM and SW-CMM) (Ngwenyamand Nielsen, 2003).

The organization as political system metaphor drawsesearchers’ attention to power and interests in order to under-

Iversen and Mathiassen (2003), Johansen and Pries-Heje(2007), Kautz et al. (2001), Kautz and Nielsen (2004), andRainer and Hall (2001)

stand the reasons behind seemingly irrational behavior in SPIchange processes. Appraisals and strategies based on maturitymodels are means to evaluate and transform software engineeringcapabilities based on rational, means-end behavior perspectives.The political system metaphor provides an alternative lens thatmay help managers uncover, understand, and possibly removeorganizational obstacles to SPI that rationalistic approaches failto recognize. SPI potentially shifts the balance of power in orga-nizations which in some instances may account for resistanceto change. Planning and successfully executing SPI initiativestherefore require us to acknowledge the different interests at stakein SPI (Nielsen and Nørbjerg, 2001).

The organization as psychic prison metaphor helps researchersfocus on how and why SPI initiatives sometimes reinforce exist-ing practices rather than lead to new and improved ones.New software technologies are sometimes chosen and imple-mented in a way that is consistent with the social constructionof current software operations thereby reinforcing rather thanaltering existing practices. Consequently, existing patterns ofthought and values are easily reproduced both in the selec-

tion of the technology and in shaping the social practicesinvolved in using new technologies (Frederiksen and Rose,2003). Constructs in models like TAM and TPB are suggestedas means that may help managers understand and counterresistance to SPI and more effectively assimilate process improve-

tems a

m2

rioaraa2iteiaci1aopehBi(aastir

rtfst(pspi(Sm(eIrszsuOn

6

ocamq

S.D. Müller et al. / The Journal of Sys

ents into a software engineering culture (Umarji and Seaman,005).

The organization as flux and transformation metaphor drawsesearchers’ attention to the capacity for change over time in SPInitiatives (Keeni, 2000). In this perspective, it is important to focusn change in relation to processes, structures, people, and man-gement to obtain lasting effects of SPI. SPI is seen as an emergentather than a deterministic activity in which the change processnd context are intertwined and shaped by both the environmentnd individuals influencing or resisting changes (Allison and Merali,007). Appropriate tactics must be adopted to manage SPI change,

ncluding establishing a link between process and business objec-ives, communicating to alleviate anxiety, training in groups toffect cultural change and to ensure process diffusion, establishingncentives to facilitate adoption of changes, allocating resources tovoid frustration, developing an action plan to avoid false starts,reating a vision, managing commitments, staying agile, and mon-toring improvements (Mathiassen et al., 2005; Hollenbach et al.,997; Herbsleb et al., 1997; Laporte and Trudel, 1998; Wohlwendnd Rosenbaum, 1993). Commitment is something that devel-ps during an SPI initiative. Therefore, it is important gettingeople to volunteer for SPI activities, creating an environmentnabling commitment to develop, and committing critical stake-olders (champions) to the SPI initiative (Abrahamsson, 2001).esides commitment, emphasis must also be placed on continuous

mprovements and unfreezing current behavior to effect changeHardgrave and Armstrong, 2005). Alignment between customernd employee interests, on the one hand, and expected qualitativend quantitative results of SPI, on the other, is important to ensureuccess (Ferreira et al., 2007). Furthermore, SPI success requireshat process changes are deployed and supported by software toolsn a way that leaves users with a sense of freedom in making choicesather than being told to follow explicit instructions (Qin, 2007).

Adoption of multi-perspective approaches empowersesearchers to investigate the complexities involved in SPI initia-ives and to understand the different and sometimes contradictoryorces that shape such efforts. One multi-perspective framework isuggested for planning and reflecting upon SPI initiatives throughhree complementary perspectives on organizational innovationthe individualist, the structuralist, and the interactive processerspectives) (Kautz and Nielsen, 2004). In a similar vein, it isuggested that a combination of an engineering and a cultivationerspective provides managers with a comprehensive understand-

ng of SPI initiatives and more likely lead them towards successIversen and Mathiassen, 2003). Another framework presents thePI change agent in four different roles each with accompanyingethods and techniques that accommodate different situations

Kautz et al., 2001). People with different SPI roles focus on differ-nt things, face different problems, and prefer different solutions.t is suggested that enacting one role while taking the problemselated to other roles into consideration increases the chance ofuccess (Johansen and Pries-Heje, 2007). Besides roles, organi-ational stability and organizational culture are important to SPIuccess. Reducing intraorganizational staff movement strengthensnderstanding of processes and roles which, in turn, supports SPI.rganizational culture can support process expertise and fosterew work habits (Rainer and Hall, 2001).

. Discussion

The goal of this literature review has been to establish an

verview of state-of-the-art knowledge on SPI as organizationalhange. We identified 71 articles published within this area andnalyzed the articles guided by the conceptual framework sum-arized in Table 2 in order to answer the following research

uestion: What types of insights do the literature offer on SPI as

nd Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146 2137

organizational change and how is this knowledge presented andpublished? While there is a delay of 8–10 years from the initiationof SPI initiatives in the 1980s until researchers started investigatingthese practices from an organizational change perspective, the 71identified articles constitute a significant portion (7%) of the 1012identified SPI articles. As a result, there is today a comprehensivebody of knowledge focusing on SPI as organizational change andreviewing this literature suggests a number of directions for futureresearch.

6.1. Research directions

6.1.1. Context and values mattersThe literature provides strong evidence that effective manage-

ment of change during SPI requires serious consideration of contextand underpinning values. Against this backdrop, it is interesting toconsider the geographical distribution of the articles with as manyas 34% (24) originating in Scandinavia, 32% (23) originating in theAmericas, and only 34% (24) originating in the rest of the world.SPI was initiated in the U.S., and U.S. institutions like the Depart-ment of Defence and the Software Engineering Institute continueto play major roles in promoting SPI as a way to move the softwareindustry forward. Thus, it is not surprising that a major part of theliterature originates in the Americas. It is, however, striking that34% (24) of the articles originate in Scandinavia. One explanationmay be that the long-standing Scandinavian tradition for industry-related software research has led to a number of research initiativesto critically investigate the applicability of SPI to software practices.While it is understandable that the interest in SPI as organizationalchange is still limited in the Asia-Pacific (17% (12)) because the soft-ware industry there has started to grow only recently, it is less clearwhy only 17% (12) of the articles originate in Europe (not countingScandinavia). SPI research has been heavily sponsored by the EUand there have been strong European initiatives to build alterna-tive SPI models, e.g. Bootstrap (Kuvaja and Bicego, 1994), and onewould therefore expect more contributions from the rest of Europe.Overall, there is a need to develop more research that focuses on theold and diverse national cultures in Europe (outside Scandinavia) aswell as the emerging strongholds for software development withinAsia’s fast growing economies. Specifically, it is interesting to knowmore about how different national cultures cope with SPI mod-els that are based on western management ideals. The Thai caseis presently the only example of such research (Phongpaibul andBoehm, 2005). Lean is a good example of a more general processmanagement philosophy that has grown out of Asian experiencesbased on Toyota’s production system (Womack et al., 1990). It isrooted in cultural values that are different from those underpinningwestern approaches to process improvement. In the future it wouldbe highly relevant to pursue research on managing SPI in organi-zational contexts with alternative values underpinning the changeefforts. Such research could eventually lead to new principles andmodels for SPI assessment and implementation.

6.1.2. Adopt alternative perspectivesWe found a rather broad representation of organizational per-

spectives in the literature (see Fig. 1). However, 83% (59) of thearticles view organizations as either organisms, machines, fluxand transformation, or brains. Other metaphors are more scarcelyrepresented (political system, psychic prison, and culture) or notrepresented at all (instrument of domination). As much of thecontroversy in the literature relates to the feasibility of SPI as

an approach to improve software practices and to the adverseimpact SPI might have on creativity and innovation, there is aneed to expand our knowledge by further exploring SPI issuesfrom less mainstream organizational perspectives. Organizationalculture is a subject that has received only scant attention. Even

2 tems a

te(ierbaSnifNrote

tr(pbemrtbaaIapmcribt

6

nosuencoawcptntzaeUU

b

138 S.D. Müller et al. / The Journal of Sys

hough the cultural assumptions underlying some maturity mod-ls (People CMM and SW-CMM) have been the subject of studyNgwenyama and Nielsen, 2003), the impact of workplace culture,.e. organizational culture, on SPI efforts has not been thoroughlyxamined. Also, interesting questions related to investigating theole of power and politics in SPI remains unexplored. Politics haseen investigated in relation to assessing process maturity (Nielsennd Nørbjerg, 2001), but the more broad influence of politics onPI practices and outcomes has not yet been studied. Finally, weeed to know more about SPI approaches as instruments of dom-

nation. This perspective is especially interesting considering theact that many SPI projects end in dismal failure (see for examplegwenyama and Nielsen, 2003). Are these failures attributable to

einforcement of existing practices through the social constructionf SPI? In what ways and to what extent does SPI create barrierso innovation by exploiting groups of employees and reinforcingxisting practices and power structures?

It is also interesting to note that organizational perspectives dis-ribute differently across types of articles. Articles published in highanking journals view SPI from brains (30% (3)), organisms (30%3)), cultures (10% (1)), machines (10% (1)), or a combination oferspectives (20% (2)). Only one of the high ranking articles areased on the more simplistic view of organizations as machines. Allxcept one of the 28% (20) of the articles that view organizations asachines are either published in practitioner journals (3) or in low

anking academic journals (16). Furthermore, a broad representa-ion of most perspectives on organizational change is evident inoth the Scandinavian and American articles (see Fig. 6). In contrast,mong the articles originating in other parts of the world, as manys 63% (15) are based on the organizations as machines metaphor.f SPI researchers want to publish in high ranking journals, theyre advised to investigate SPI as organizational change drawing onerspectives different from that of the organizations as machinesetaphor. Instead of considering organizations as machines that

an be tuned and oiled to serve the needs of management, suchesearch can help us further understand the complexities and risksnvolved in SPI and provide directions for SPI management that goeseyond traditional approaches to changing organizational prac-ices.

.1.3. Ground research in theoryAs many as 76% (54) of the articles were mainly descriptive in

ature, suggesting that there is a major emphasis in the literaturen presenting insights from the trenches to foster a better under-tanding of SPI as organizational change. Still, most researchersse and develop theory to drive their empirical investigations asvidenced by 56% (40) of the articles being very theoretical inature. Adding to this picture, 52% (21) of the articles that areharacterized as very theoretical are from Scandinavia whereasnly 10% (4) are from the Americas. Correspondingly, as manys 61% (19) of the less theoretical articles are from the Americas,hile only 10% (3) originate in Scandinavia. Accordingly, Ameri-

an research on SPI as organizational change is mainly published inractitioner journals and is weakly grounded in theory. In contrast,he Scandinavian articles are mainly published in academic jour-als and more strongly grounded in theory. In fact, the Americanheoretical contributions to our understanding of SPI as organi-ational change are rare (Umarji and Seaman, 2005; Slaughter

nd Kirsch, 2006; Green et al., 2005; Gresse von Wangenheimt al., 2006). This is surprising given that SPI originated in the.S. and still today is mainly driven by U.S. institutions and the.S. software industry.5 Along the same lines, it is worth not-

5 Hansen et al. emphasize that the SEI is the source of many of the major contri-utions to SPI (Hansen et al., 2004).

nd Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146

ing that 42% (13) of the articles characterized as less theoreticalwere published in academic journals and one of these articles waseven published in a high ranking academic journal (Wohlwendand Rosenbaum, 1994). While one would expect high rankingacademic journals to require theoretical emphasis, one possibleexplanation is that this particular article was published in IEEETransactions on Software Engineering – a prestigious engineeringjournal with strong ties to practice. Overall, SPI researchers areadvised to ground their investigations in theory. Such an approachfacilitates rigorous investigation and deep understanding, and itinforms SPI theory and practice with insights from other organiza-tions and management disciplines. As discussed above, there areseveral options available for adding to the literature by adoptingtheoretical lenses rooted in the political system, psychic prison,and culture metaphors. Entirely new metaphors, e.g. viewing theorganization as a family or an orchester, may also be worth explor-ing.

6.1.4. Practice engaged scholarshipWhile 72% (51) of the articles were published in academic jour-

nals, there is a considerable representation of articles (28% (20))in practitioner journals indicating a strong commitment to pub-lish results in a form useful for practice. With Scandinavia andthe Americas as the major contributors, it is interesting to note aremarkable difference between articles from these two parts of theworld. As many as 39% (20) of the articles in academic journals arefrom Scandinavia and only 20% (10) from the Americas. In contrast,a total of 65% (13) of the articles in practitioner journals are from theAmericas, while only 20% (4) originate in Scandinavia. SPI is, indeed,an important industrial practice and there is a need for researchersto actively engage in close collaboration with engineers and man-agers. Such interaction helps identify contemporary problems ofinterest, it informs theoretical development, and it leverages theo-retical developments into improved practices (Van de Ven, 2007).The overall balance between publications for academic and practi-tioner audiences seems appropriate, but there is a need to criticallyconsider the mix within each of the four identified geographicalregions.

6.2. Management implications

The literature also has important implications for managingchange during SPI. While each individual article provides specificadvice, our review of the literature suggests a number of generallessons.

6.2.1. Consider critical success factorsAcross the reviewed articles, there is agreement about a num-

ber of critical success factors for managing change during SPI.These success factors include alignment with business goals, com-municating clear SPI goals and managing expectations amongstemployees, ensuring that senior management is committed andallocates the resources needed for SPI, making sure that employeesfeel well equipped for SPI participation (i.e. they have been wellinformed, adequately trained, and are motivated to participate),getting all levels of the organization engaged in SPI through par-ticipation, having well-defined process descriptions of what to do(i.e. the improved processes) and plans for how to do it (i.e. theimplementation of the improved processes), measuring progresstowards the SPI goals, and enlisting support from within and out-side the organization (Dybå, 2005; Rainer and Hall, 2003; Rainer

and Hall, 2002; Van Loon, 2000; Pitterman, 2000; Niazi et al., 2006;Ogasawara et al., 2006; Hall et al., 2002; O’Hara, 2000; Moitra, 1998;Stelzer and Mellis, 1998; Herbsleb and Goldenson, 1996; Tanaka etal., 1995; Johnson, 1994). Overall, there is considerable researchinto critical success factors that provides managers with a firm

tems a

bt

6

ocpttiaSaauvScaVauopa

6

iicaha(abi1othtMocasaeaf(ptoote

6

caa

S.D. Müller et al. / The Journal of Sys

asis for determining whether the prerequisites for doing SPI inheir organizations are present.

.2.2. Apply multiple perspectivesOrganizations differ in much the same way humans do, and a

ne-size-fits-all approach to SPI runs the risk of ignoring uniqueharacteristics that condition SPI behavior and outcomes. Multi-erspective approaches acknowledge the complexity of SPI andhe contradictory forces impacting change efforts. An example ofhis complexity relates to assessments and measurements of SPImpact. SPI impact can be evaluated from both an engineering andcultivation perspective. Whereas an engineering perspective on

PI impact focuses on metrics, e.g. on ROI and process maturity,cultivation perspective focuses on changes in attitudes, beliefs,

nd practices. To avoid simplistic evaluations of success and fail-re, managers are advised to adopt multiple interpretations of SPIalue (Iversen and Mathiassen, 2003). Another example relates toPI roles. SPI change agents play different roles, under different cir-umstances, and in different organizations. For example, a changegent may play the dual roles of technical expert and political agent.iewing an SPI project from the perspectives of different changegent roles not only helps managers understand different SPI sit-ations and the interests at play. It also helps them establish anverview of the playing field, including constraints and options inursuing different avenues of action (Kautz et al., 2001; Johansennd Pries-Heje, 2007).

.2.3. Anticipate organizational issuesThe literature reveals that organizational culture, pursuit of

nterests and political game playing, and human idiosyncrasiesnfluence SPI initiatives. However, a homogeneous organizationalontext (i.e. with common beliefs and values) is in a more favor-ble position for doing SPI; such a context is characterized by aigh degree of employee satisfaction and motivation and by havingtradition of following documented procedures and instructions

Yamamura, 1999; Boehm, 2000; Rainer and Hall, 2001). Suchn organizational context can be nurtured, among other things,y offering group training that fosters a common understand-

ng and encourages process diffusion (Wohlwend and Rosenbaum,993). Feelings of anxiety, frustration, and being out of control ofne’s own situation may in turn lead to resistance to change. It isherefore important to continually secure commitment from stake-olders and to ensure that employees feel a freedom of choice inheir everyday work practices (Abrahamsson, 2001; Allison and

erali, 2007; Qin, 2007). Organizational politics either impedesr promotes SPI. Depending on stakeholders’ perception of howhanges to existing practices impact their interests and the bal-nce of power within the organization, they will – consciously orubconsciously – support or work against the SPI initiative (Nielsennd Nørbjerg, 2001). Managerial analyses of SPI impact on culture,motions, interests, and power within the organization can helpnticipate conflicts before they arise. Such analyses can take dif-erent forms. For example, an analysis of SPI impact on interestsand vice versa) can help in establishing a stakeholder involvementlan detailing the interests of different stakeholders, their abilitieso affect the outcome of the SPI project, and their involvement inrder to secure cooperation and support. An analysis of SPI impactn culture may entail establishing a culture profile of the organiza-ion to ascertain its compatibility with the envisioned changes toxisting practices.

.2.4. Organize adaptive initiativesSPI is a complex undertaking involving major organizational

hanges with uncertain outcomes (Mathiassen et al., 2005). Man-gers should not expect SPI to proceed according to plan. Managersre, therefore, confronted by the choice of reacting when imple-

nd Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146 2139

mentation falls short of expectations or proactively planningtowards contingencies. Acknowledging the complexity of SPIpoints towards contingency management of the related organi-zational change efforts. This is well illustrated by Iversen et al.’ssuggestions for managing risks in SPI teams (Iversen et al., 2004).The suggested approach analyzes situational factors in terms ofthe risks faced by an SPI team, it takes a considerable portfo-lio of managerial tactics into account, and it provides heuristicsfor how managers can select and implement a portfolio of tacticssuited to resolving the specific risks they face. Another option isto adopt agile SPI practices to ensure organizational fit by contin-uously adapting to the changing circumstances surrounding theSPI project. Organizations are not static entities. They constantlychange with shifting management priorities, new business oppor-tunities, and numerous other developments. SPI projects mustadapt accordingly if they are to maintain their relevance and sup-port (Aaen et al., 2001; Pourkomeylian, 2001; Kautz et al., 2000).Such adaptive capability can be achieved by skillfully combining“supertanker” and “motorboat” tactics (Aaen et al., 2007).

6.2.5. Consider national culturesThe software supply chain is increasingly global in nature.

Outsourcing and transnational companies’ global presence makedistributed software development common. Consequently, SPIoften involves changing practices of employees situated at differ-ent locations around the world making SPI an even more dauntingtask by adding variations in national culture to the mix. Man-agers are, therefore, advised to understand the cultural differencesunderlying software development practices and adapt SPI initia-tives accordingly (Phongpaibul and Boehm, 2005). This is especiallyrelevant when dealing with transnational organizations in whichSPI involves employees from several different countries. It is alsorelevant for organizations engaged in outsourcing, since SPI mayimpact processes of suppliers either directly or indirectly. Hofstedeet al. (1990) provide examples of differences in national culture thatmay be used as a starting point when considering the impact on SPI.

6.3. Study limitations

Even though we adopted a rigorous approach, our study hasimportant limitations. First, we selected articles from journals onthe AIS journal ranking list, the SPIP journal, and the ICSE and ICISconferences. We have not covered articles published in other jour-nals and conferences or research reported in books. Our reasonfor primarily relying on the AIS list is that it is inclusive basedon eight other ranking lists of software engineering and informa-tion systems journals (Rainer and Miller, 2005; Lowry et al., 2004;Katerattanakul et al., 2003; Peffers and Tang, 2003; Mylonopoulosand Theoharakis, 2001; Whitman et al., 1999; Hardgrave andWalstrom, 1997; Walstrom et al., 1995). We further complementedthe basis for selection by including the SPIP journal and the twomajor conferences on software engineering and information sys-tems. Our focus on journals and conferences known for their qualitypublications (due to peer reviews and similar measures) strength-ens the validity of the analyses. However, by excluding books,journals not on the AIS list (except for SPIP), and numerous confer-ences, most notably EuroSPI, there is a risk of overlooking importantcontributions to our knowledge on SPI as organizational changepublished in other media.

Second, out of the 1012 potentially interesting SPI articles weonly included articles with a primary focus on the organizational

change aspect of SPI. As a consequence, articles focusing primarilyon other aspects of SPI, like assessments, methods, tools, models,risks, and return on investment, were excluded despite any sec-ondary contribution to SPI as organizational change. An exampleof an article that was excluded based on this criteria is Habra et

2 tems a

aPoiwto

uodt1btzcvafiaaM

oqod

140 S.D. Müller et al. / The Journal of Sys

l. (2008). The article presents a methodology to initiate Softwarerocess Improvement in very small enterprises. The consequencef not including such articles is, on the one hand, a potential loss ofnsights. On the other hand, by following rigorous selection criteria

e have strengthened the reliability of the analyses. In addition, thehreat of loosing important insights is limited because the relevancef each article was determined independently by each author.

Third, our analyses of the identified articles are limited by ourse of Morgan’s eight metaphors as alternative perspectives onrganizational change (see Table 1). Related research has employedifferent sets of metaphors as bases for analyses, though not in rela-ion to SPI (e.g. Elkind, 1998; Aupperle, 1996; Kendall and Kendall,993; Keys, 1991). Also, Morgan’s use of metaphorical thinking haseen debated. McCourt (1997) argues, for example, that metaphorichinking as practiced by Morgan is located within the organi-ational development school and differentiates itself from moreonstructivist approaches. Hence, while Morgan’s framework pro-ides a rich portfolio of perspectives on organizations, there arelternative frameworks available and these would have led to dif-erent insights into the SPI literature on organizational change. Asllustration, Morgan’s framework leaves out distinctions that arerguably important for SPI, for example the distinction betweengility and discipline (Boehm and Turner, 2003; Börjesson andathiassen, 2005).

Fourth, the primary emphasis in our analyses is on identification

f knowledge gaps without offering value judgments. As a conse-uence, we leave unanswered whether state-of-the-art knowledgen SPI as organizational change is good (i.e. helpful) or bad (i.e.eficient) and whether the literature offers guidance on when and

nd Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146

where not to engage in SPI. Despite these limitations, our analysessuggest interesting insights for both research and practice by sum-marizing key contributions to our knowledge about managing SPIinitiated change (Table 4).

7. Conclusions

SPI involves complex organizational change of engineering andmanagement practices in software firms. There is therefore a grow-ing interest in the literature on how managers can address changeduring SPI. This paper has reviewed state-of-the-art knowledgeand found that the current literature offers important insightsinto organizational change in SPI based on the machine, organ-ism, flux and transformation, and brain metaphors. In contrast, theimpact of culture, dominance, emprisonment (the psychic prisonmetaphor), and politics in SPI has only received scant attention.We argue that these perspectives offer important insights into thechallenges involved in managing change in SPI. Researchers aretherefore advised to engage in new SPI research based on one ormore of these perspectives. Overall, the paper offers research direc-tions and management lessons, and it provides a roadmap to helpidentify insights and specific articles related to SPI as organizationalchange.

Appendix A.

The table below contains a list of the articles that are part of theliterature review.

S.D.M

ülleret

al./TheJournalofSystem

sand

Software

83 (2010) 2128–21462141

Author(s) Title Journal Year Metaphor

Aaen, I., Arent, J., Mathiassen, L., andNgwenyama, O.

A conceptual MAP of software processimprovement

Scandinavian Journal of InformationSystems

2001 Organism

Aaen, I., Börjesson, A., and Mathiassen,L.

SPI agility: how to navigateimprovement projects

Software Process: Improvement andPractice

2007 Organism

Abrahamsson, P. Commitment development in softwareprocess improvement: criticalmisconceptions

International Conference on SoftwareEngineering

2001 Flux andtransformation

Allison, I. and Merali, Y. Software process improvement asemergent change: a structurationalanalysis

Information and Software Technology 2007 Organism

Baddoo, N. and Hall, T. De-motivators for software processimprovement: an analysis ofpractitioners’ views

The Journal of Systems and Software 2003 Machine

Baddoo, N. and Hall, T. Motivators of software processimprovement: an analysis ofpractitioners’ views

The Journal of Systems and Software 2002 Machine

Baskerville, R. and Pries-Heje, J. Knowledge capability and maturity insoftware management

The DATA BASE for Advances inInformation Systems

1999 Brain

Boehm, B. Unifying software engineering andsystems engineering

IEEE Computer 2000 Culture

Börjesson, A. and Mathiassen, L. Improving software organizations:agility challenges and implications

Information Technology and People 2005 Organism

Börjesson, A. and Mathiassen, L. Successful process implementation IEEE Software 2004 BrainCater-Steel, A., Toleman, M., and Rout,T.

Process improvement for small firms:an evaluation of the RAPIDassessment-based method

Information and Software Technology 2006 Brain

Cattaneo, F., Fuggetta, A., and Sciut, D. Pursuing coherence in softwareprocess assessment and improvement

Software Process: Improvement andPractice

2001 Organism

Coleman, G. and O’Connor, R. Using grounded theory to understandsoftware process improvement: astudy of Irish software productcompanies

Information and Software Technology 2007 Organism

Conradi, R. and Dybå, T. An empirical study on the utility offormal routines to transfer knowledgeand experience

ACM SIGSOFT Software EngineeringNotes

2001 Brain

Dybå, T. An empirical investigation of the keyfactors for success in software processimprovement

IEEE Transactions on SoftwareEngineering

2005 Machine

Dybå, T. Factors of software processimprovement success in small andlarge organizations: an empirical studyin the Scandinavian context

ACM SIGSOFT Software EngineeringNotes

2003 Organism

Fayad, M. and Laitinen, M. Process assessment consideredwasteful

Communications of the ACM 1997 Brain

Ferreira, A., Santos, G., Cerqueira,Montoni, M., Barreto, A., Barreto, A.,and Rocha, R.

Applying ISO 9001:2000, MPS.BR andCMMI to achieve software processmaturity: BL Informatica’s pathway

International Conference on SoftwareEngineering

2007 Flux andtransformation

Frederiksen, H. and Rose, J. The social construction of the softwareoperation

Scandinavian Journal of InformationSystems

2003 Psychic prison

Green, G., Hevner, A., and Collins, R. The impacts of quality and productivityperceptions on the use of softwareprocess improvement innovations

Information and Software Technology 2005 Organism

Gresse von Wangenheim, C., Weber, S.,Hauck, J., and Trentin, G.

Experiences on establishing softwareprocesses in small companies

Information and Software Technology 2006 Organism

Guerrero, F. and Eterovic, Y. Adopting the SW-CMM in a small ITorganization

IEEE Software 2004 Organism

Hall, T., Rainer, A., and Baddoo, N. Implementing software processimprovement: an empirical study

Software Process: Improvement andPractice

2002 Machine

2142S.D

.Müller

etal./The

JournalofSystems

andSoftw

are83 (2010) 2128–2146

Author(s) Title Journal Year Metaphor

Hardgrave, B. and Armstrong, D. Software process improvement: it’s ajourney, not a destination

Communications of the ACM 2005 Organism

Herbsleb, J. and Goldenson, D. A systematic survey of CMMexperience and results

International Conference on SoftwareEngineering

1996 Machine

Herbsleb, J., Zubrow, D., Goldenson, D.,Hayes, W., and Paulk, M.

Software quality and the capabilitymaturity model

Communications of the ACM 1997 Flux andtransformation

Hollenbach, C., Young, R., Pflugrad, A.,and Smith, D.

Combining quality and softwareimprovement

Communications of the ACM 1997 Flux andtransformation

Iversen, J. and Mathiassen, L. Cultivation and engineering of asoftware metrics program

Information Systems Journal 2003 Multi

Iversen, J., Mathiassen, L., and Nielsen,P.

Managing risk in software processimprovement: an action researchapproach

MIS Quarterly 2004 Organism

Iversen, J. and Ngwenyama, O. Problems in measuring effectiveness insoftware process improvement: alongitudinal study of organizationalchange at Danske data

International Journal of InformationManagement

2006 Brain

Iversen, J., Nielsen, P., and Nørbjerg, J. Situated assessment of problems insoftware development

The DATA BASE for Advances inInformation Systems

1999 Brain

Johansen, J. and Pries-Heje, J. Success with improvement – requiresthe right roles to be enacted – insymbiosis

Software Process: Improvement andPractice

2007 Multi

Johnson, A. Software process improvementexperience in the DP/MIS function.Experience report

International Conference on SoftwareEngineering

1994 Flux andtransformation

Kautz, K. Making sense of measurement forsmall organizations

IEEE Software 1999 Organism

Kautz, K. Software process improvement in verysmall enterprises: does It pay off?

Software Process: Improvement andPractice

1998 Organism

Kautz, K., Hansen, H., and Thaysen, K. Applying and adjusting a softwareprocess improvement model inpractice: the use of the IDEAL model ina small software enterprise

International Conference on SoftwareEngineering

2000 Organism

Kautz, K., Hansen, H., and Thaysen, K. Understanding and changing softwareorganisations: an exploration of fourperspectives on software processimprovement

Scandinavian Journal of InformationSystems

2001 Multi

Kautz, K. and Nielsen, P. Understanding the implementation ofsoftware process improvementinnovations in software organizations

Information Systems Journal 2004 Multi

Keeni, G. The evolution of quality processes atTata Consultancy Services

IEEE Software 2000 Flux andtransformation

Laporte, C. and Trudel, S. Addressing the people issues ofprocess improvement activities atOerlikon Aerospace

Software Process: Improvement andPractice

1998 Flux andtransformation

Mathiassen, L., Ngwenyama, O., andAaen, I.

Managing change in software processimprovement

IEEE Software 2005 Flux andtransformation

Moitra, D. Managing change for software processimprovement initiatives: a practicalexperience-based approach

Software Process: Improvement andPractice

1998 Machine

Ngwenyama, O. and Nielsen, P. Competing values in software processimprovement: an assumption analysisof CMM from an organizational cultureperspective

IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement

2003 Culture

Niazi, M., Wilson, D., and Zowghi, D. A framework for assisting the design ofeffective software processimprovement implementationstrategies

The Journal of Systems and Software 2005 Machine

S.D.M

ülleret

al./TheJournalofSystem

sand

Software

83 (2010) 2128–21462143

Author(s) Title Journal Year Metaphor

Niazi, M., Wilson, D., and Zowghi, D. A maturity model for theimplementation of software processimprovement: an empirical study

The Journal of Systems and Software 2005 Machine

Niazi, M., Wilson, D., and Zowghi, D. Critical success factors for softwareprocess improvementimplementation: an empirical study

Software Process: Improvement andPractice

2006 Machine

Nielsen, P. and Nørbjerg, J. Assessing software processes. Lowmaturity or sensible practice

Scandinavian Journal of InformationSystems

2001 Pol

O’Hara, F. European experiences with softwareprocess improvement

International Conference on SoftwareEngineering

2000 Machine

Ogasawara, H., Ishikawa, T., andMoriya, T.

Practical approach to development ofSPI activities in a large organization.Toshiba’s SPI history since 2000

International Conference on SoftwareEngineering

2006 Machine

Oktaba, H., García, F., Piattini, M., Ruiz,F., Pino, F., and Alquicira, C.

Software process improvement: theCompetisoft project

IEEE Computer 2007 Flux andtransformation

Phongpaibul, M. and Boehm, B. Improving quality through softwareprocess improvement in Thailand:initial analysis

ACM SIGSOFT Software EngineeringNotes

2005 Culture

Pitterman, B. Telcordia technologies: the journey tohigh maturity

IEEE Software 2000 Machine

Pourkomeylian, P. Analyzing an SPI project with the MAPframework

Scandinavian Journal of InformationSystems

2001 Organism

Pressman, R. Software process impediment IEEE Software 1996 BrainQin, S. Managing process change in software

organizations: experience andreflection

Software Process: Improvement andPractice

2007 Flux andtransformation

Rainer, A. and Hall, T. A quantitative and qualitative analysisof factors affecting software processes

The Journal of Systems and Software 2003 Machine

Rainer, A. and Hall, T. An analysis of some ‘core studies’ ofsoftware process improvement

Software Process: Improvement andPractice

2001 Multi

Rainer, A. and Hall, T. Key success factors for implementingsoftware process improvement: amaturity-based analysis

The Journal of Systems and Software 2002 Machine

Saiedian, H. and Carr, N. Characterizing a software processmaturity model for small organizations

ACM SIGICE Bulletin 1997 Machine

Slaughter, S. and Kirsch, L. The effectiveness of knowledgetransfer portfolios in software processimprovement: a field study

Information Systems Research 2006 Brain

Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R.,Abrahams, A., Byatt, P., and Murphy, R.

An exploratory study of whyorganizations do not adopt CMMI

Journal of Systems and Software 2007 Organism

Stelzer, D. and Mellis, W. Success factors of organizationalchange in software processimprovement

Software Process: Improvement andPractice

1998 Machine

2144S.D

.Müller

etal./The

JournalofSystems

andSoftw

are83 (2010) 2128–2146

Author(s) Title Journal Year Metaphor

Tanaka, T., Sakamoto, K., Kusumoto, S.,Matsumoto, K., and Kikuno, T.

Improvement of software process byprocess description and benefitestimation

International Conference on SoftwareEngineering

1995 Machine

Umarji, M. and Seaman, C. Predicting acceptance of softwareprocess improvement

ACM SIGSOFT Software EngineeringNotes

2005 Psychic prison

Van Loon, H. An early SPICE experience Quality Progress 2000 MachineWard, R., Fayad, M., and Laitinen, M. Software process improvement in the

smallCommunications of the ACM 2001 Machine

Wiegers, K. Software process improvement in webtime

IEEE Software 1999 Organism

Wilson, D., Hall, T., and Baddoo, N. A framework for evaluation andprediction of software processimprovement success

The Journal of Systems and Software 2001 Machine

Wohlwend, H. and Rosenbaum, S. Schlumberger’s software improvementprogram

IEEE Transactions on SoftwareEngineering

1994 Organism

Wohlwend, H. and Rosenbaum, S. Software improvements in aninternational company

International Conference on SoftwareEngineering

1993 Flux andtransformation

Yamamura, G. Process improvement satisfiesemployees

IEEE Software 1999 Culture

tems a

R

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

D

D

E

F

F

F

G

G

G

H

H

H

H

H

H

S.D. Müller et al. / The Journal of Sys

eferences

aen, I., Arent, J., Mathiassen, L., Ngwenyama, O., 2001. A conceptual MAP of soft-ware process improvement. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 13,81–101.

aen, I., Börjesson, A., Mathiassen, L., 2007. SPI agility: how to navigate improvementprojects. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 12 (2), 267–281.

brahamsson, P., 2001. Commitment development in software process improve-ment: critical misconceptions. In: Proceedings of the 23rd InternationalConference on Software Engineering.

llison, I., Merali, Y., 2007. Software process improvement as emergent change: astructurational analysis. Information and Software Technology 49 (6), 668–681.

upperle, K., 1996. Spontaneous organizational reconfiguration: a historical exam-ple based on Xenophon’s anabasis. Organization Science 7 (4), 445–460.

addoo, N., Hall, T., 2003. De-motivators for software process improvement: ananalysis of practitioners’ views. The Journal of Systems and Software 66 (1),22–33.

addoo, N., Hall, T., 2002. Motivators of software process improvement: an analysisof practitioners’ views. The Journal of Systems and Software 62 (2), 85–96.

askerville, R., Pries-Heje, J., 1999. Knowledge capability and maturity in softwaremanagement. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems 30 (2),26–43.

eath, C., Orlikowski, W., 1994. The contradictory structure of information sys-tems development methodologies: deconstructing the IS-user relationship ininformation engineering. Information Systems Research 5 (4), 350–377.

oehm, B., 2000. Unifying software engineering and systems engineering. IEEE Com-puter 3 (3), 114–116.

oehm, B., Turner, R., 2003. Balancing Agility and Discipline. A Guide for the Per-plexed. Pearson Education, Massachusetts.

örjesson, A., Mathiassen, L., 2005. Improving software organizations: agility chal-lenges and implications. Information Technology and People 18 (4), 359–382.

örjesson, A., Mathiassen, L., 2004. Successful process implementation. IEEE Soft-ware 21 (4), 36–44.

urrell, G., Morgan, G., 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis.Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life, Ashgate, England.

ater-Steel, A., Toleman, M., Rout, T., 2006. Process improvement for small firms: anevaluation of the RAPID assessment-based method. Information and SoftwareTechnology 48 (5), 323–334.

attaneo, F., Fuggetta, A., Sciut, D., 2001. Pursuing coherence in software processassessment and improvement. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 6(1), 3–22.

oleman, G., O’Connor, R., 2007. Using grounded theory to understand softwareprocess improvement: a study of Irish software product companies. Informationand Software Technology 49 (6), 654–667.

onradi, R., Dybå, T., 2001. An empirical study on the utility of formal routines totransfer knowledge and experience. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes,268–276.

ybå, T., 2005. An empirical investigation of the key factors for success in soft-ware process improvement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31 (5),410–424.

ybå, T., 2003. Factors of software process improvement success in small and largeorganizations: an empirical study in the Scandinavian context. ACM SIGSOFTSoftware Engineering Notes, 148–157.

lkind, A., 1998. Using metaphor to read the organisation of the NHS. Social Scienceand Medicine 47 (11), 1715–1727.

ayad, M., Laitinen, M., 1997. Process assessment considered wasteful. Communi-cations of the ACM 40 (11), 125–128.

erreira, A., Santos, G., Cerqueira, Montoni, M., Barreto, A., Barreto, A., Rocha, R.,2007. Applying ISO 9001:2000, MPS. BR and CMMI to achieve software processmaturity: BL Informatica’s pathway. In: Proceedings of the 29th InternationalConference on Software Engineering.

rederiksen, H., Rose, J., 2003. The social construction of the software operation.Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 15 (1), 23–37.

reen, G., Hevner, A., Collins, R., 2005. The impacts of quality and productivity per-ceptions on the use of software process improvement innovations. Informationand Software Technology 47 (8), 543–553.

resse von Wangenheim, C., Weber, S., Hauck, J., Trentin, G., 2006. Experiences onestablishing software processes in small companies. Information and SoftwareTechnology 48 (9), 890–900.

uerrero, F., Eterovic, Y., 2004. Adopting the SW-CMM in a small IT organization.IEEE Software 21 (4), 29–35.

abra, N., Alexandreb, S., Desharnaisc, J., Laportec, C., Renaultd, A., 2008. Initi-ating software process improvement in very small enterprises: experiencewith a light assessment tool. Information and Software Technology 50 (7-8),763–771.

all, T., Rainer, A., Baddoo, N., 2002. Implementing software process improvement:an empirical study. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 7 (1), 3–15.

ansen, B., Rose, J., Tjørnehøj, G., 2004. Prescription, description, reflection: theshape of the software process improvement field. International Journal of Infor-mation Management 24 (6), 457–472.

ardgrave, B., Armstrong, D., 2005. Software process improvement: it’s a journey,not a destination. Communications of the ACM 48 (11), 93–96.

ardgrave, B., Walstrom, K., 1997. Forums for MIS scholars. Communications of theACM 40 (11), 119–124.

erbsleb, J., Goldenson, D., 1996. A systematic survey of CMM experience and results.In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering.

nd Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146 2145

Herbsleb, J., Zubrow, D., Goldenson, D., Hayes, W., Paulk, M., 1997. Software qualityand the capability maturity model. Communications of the ACM 40 (6), 30–40.

Hirschheim, R., Klein, H., 1989. Four paradigms of information systems development.Communications of the ACM 32 (10), 1199–1216.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., Sanders, G., 1990. Measuring organizational cul-tures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. AdministrativeScience Quarterly 35 (2), 286–317.

Hollenbach, C., Young, R., Pflugrad, A., Smith, D., 1997. Combining quality and soft-ware improvement. Communications of the ACM 40 (6), 41–45.

Humphrey, W., 1989. Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Mas-sachusetts.

Iivari, J., 1991. A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development.European Journal of Information Systems 1 (4), 249–272.

Iversen, J., Mathiassen, L., 2003. Cultivation and engineering of a software metricsprogram. Information Systems Journal 13 (1), 3–19.

Iversen, J., Mathiassen, L., Nielsen, P., 2004. Managing risk in software pro-cess improvement: an action research approach. MIS Quarterly 28 (3),395–433.

Iversen, J., Ngwenyama, O., 2006. Problems in measuring effectiveness in softwareprocess improvement: a longitudinal study of organizational change at DanskeData. International Journal of Information Management 26 (1), 30–43.

Iversen, J., Nielsen, P., Nørbjerg, J., 1999. Situated assessment of problems in soft-ware development. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems 30 (2),60–81.

Jakobsen, J., Hansen, G., Pries-Heje, J., 2003. Factors contributing to readiness forsoftware process improvement in organizations. In: Proceedings of the 26thInformation Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS 26).

Johansen, J., Pries-Heje, J., 2007. Success with improvement – requires the right rolesto be enacted – in symbiosis. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 12(6), 529–539.

Johnson, A., 1994. Software process improvement experience in the DP/MIS func-tion. Experience report. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference onSoftware Engineering.

Katerattanakul, P., Han, B., Hong, S., 2003. Objective quality ranking of computingjournals. Communications of the ACM 46 (10), 111–114.

Kautz, K., 1999. Making sense of measurement for small organizations. IEEE Software16 (2), 14–20.

Kautz, K., 1998. Software process improvement in very small enterprises:does it pay off? Software Process: Improvement and Practice 4 (4),209–226.

Kautz, K., Hansen, H., Thaysen, K., 2001. Understanding and changing softwareorganisations: an exploration of four perspectives on software process improve-ment. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 13, 7–20.

Kautz, K., Hansen, H., Thaysen, K., 2000. Applying and adjusting a software processimprovement model in practice: the use of the IDEAL model in a small softwareenterprise. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on SoftwareEngineering.

Kautz, K., Nielsen, P., 2004. Understanding the implementation of software pro-cess improvement innovations in software organizations. Information SystemsJournal 14 (1), 3–22.

Keeni, G., 2000. The evolution of quality processes at Tata Consultancy Services. IEEESoftware 17 (4), 79–88.

Kendall, J., Kendall, K., 1993. Metaphors and methodologies: living beyond the sys-tems machine. MIS Quarterly 17 (2), 149–171.

Keys, P., 1991. Operational research in organizations: a metaphorical analysis. TheJournal of the Operational Research Society 42 (6), 435–446.

Kuvaja, P., Bicego, A., 1994. BOOTSTRAP – a European assessment methodology.Software Quality Journal 3 (3), 117–127.

Laporte, C., Trudel, S., 1998. Addressing the people issues of process improvementactivities at Oerlikon Aerospace. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 4(4), 187–198.

Lowry, P., Romans, D., Curtis, A., 2004. Global journal prestige and supporting dis-ciplines: a scientometric study of information systems journals. Journal of theAssociation for Information Systems 5 (2), 29–75.

Lyytinen, K., Mathiassen, L., Ropponen, J., 1998. Attention shaping and software risk:a categorical analysis of four classical approaches. Information Systems Research9 (3), 233–255.

Mathiassen, L., Ngwenyama, O., Aaen, I., 2005. Managing change in software processimprovement. IEEE Software 22 (6), 84–91.

McCourt, W., 1997. Discussion note: using metaphors to understand and to changeorganizations: a critique of Gareth Morgan’s approach. Organization Studies 18(3), 511–522.

Miles, M., Huberman, A., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook.SAGE Publications, California.

Morgan, G., 1996. Images of Organization. SAGE Publications, California.Moitra, D., 1998. Managing change for software process improvement initiatives:

a practical experience-based approach. Software Process: Improvement andPractice 4 (4), 199–207.

Mylonopoulos, N., Theoharakis, V., 2001. On site: global perceptions of IS journals.Communications of the ACM 44 (9), 29–33.

Ngwenyama, O., Nielsen, P., 2003. Competing values in software process improve-

ment: an assumption analysis of CMM from an organizational cultureperspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50 (1), 100–112.

Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D., 2006. Critical success factors for software processimprovement implementation: an empirical study. Software Process: Improve-ment and Practice 11 (2), 193–211.

2 tems a

N

N

N

O

O

O

P

P

P

P

PQ

R

R

R

R

S

S

S

S

T

U

V

VW

W

W

W

Measurement Subject Matter Expert. Since January 2008he has been a part of the SPI team at Systematic. Within theSPI team he is Scrum Master, and he has been responsiblefor the organization’s compliance with the quantitative

146 S.D. Müller et al. / The Journal of Sys

iazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D., 2005a. A framework for assisting the design ofeffective software process improvement implementation strategies. The Journalof Systems and Software 78 (2), 204–222.

iazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D., 2005b. A maturity model for the implementationof software process improvement: an empirical study. The Journal of Systemsand Software 74 (2), 155–172.

ielsen, P., Nørbjerg, J., 2001. Assessing software processes. Low maturity or sensiblepractice. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 13, 23–36.

’Hara, F., 2000. European experiences with software process improvement. In:Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering.

gasawara, H., Ishikawa, T., Moriya, T., 2006. Practical approach to developmentof SPI activities in a large organization. Toshiba’s SPI History since 2000. In:Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering.

ktaba, H., García, F., Piattini, M., Ruiz, F., Pino, F., Alquicira, C., 2007. Software processimprovement: the Competisoft project. IEEE Computer 40 (10), 21–28.

effers, K., Tang, Y., 2003. Identifying and evaluating the universe of outlets forinformation systems research: ranking the journals. The Journal of InformationTechnology Theory and Application 5 (1), 63–84.

hongpaibul, M., Boehm, B., 2005. Improving quality through software processimprovement in Thailand: initial analysis. ACM SIGSOFT Software EngineeringNotes, 1–6.

itterman, B., 2000. Telcordia technologies: the journey to high maturity. IEEE Soft-ware 17 (4), 89–96.

ourkomeylian, P., 2001. Analyzing an SPI project with the MAP framework. Scan-dinavian Journal of Information Systems 13, 103–114.

ressman, R., 1996. Software process impediment. IEEE Software 13 (5), 16–17.in, S., 2007. Managing process change in software organizations: experience and

reflection. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 12 (5), 429–435.ainer, A., Hall, T., 2003. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors affecting

software processes. The Journal of Systems and Software 66 (1), 7–21.ainer, A., Hall, T., 2002. Key success factors for implementing software process

improvement: a maturity-based analysis. The Journal of Systems and Software62 (2), 71–84.

ainer, A., Hall, T., 2001. An analysis of some ‘core studies’ of software processimprovement. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 6 (4), 169–187.

ainer, R., Miller, M., 2005. Examining differences across journal rankings. Commu-nications of the ACM 48 (2), 91–94.

aiedian, H., Carr, N., 1997. Characterizing a software process maturity model forsmall organizations. ACM SIGICE Bulletin 23 (1), 2–11.

laughter, S., Kirsch, L., 2006. The effectiveness of knowledge transfer portfolios insoftware process improvement: a field study. Information Systems Research 17(3), 301–320.

taples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P., Murphy, R., 2007. Anexploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI. Journal of Systemsand Software 80 (6), 883–895.

telzer, D., Mellis, W., 1998. Success factors of organizational change in software pro-cess improvement. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 4 (4), 227–250.

anaka, T., Sakamoto, K., Kusumoto, S., Matsumoto, K., Kikuno, T., 1995. Improve-ment of software process by process description and benefit estimation. In:Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Software Engineering.

marji, M., Seaman, C., 2005. Predicting acceptance of software process improve-ment. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 1–6.

an de Ven, A., 2007. Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and SocialResearch. Oxford University Press, Great Britain.

an Loon, H., 2000. An early SPICE experience. Quality Progress 33 (2), 99–104.alstrom, K., Hardgrave, B., Wilson, R., 1995. Forums for management information

systems scholars. Communications of the ACM 38 (3), 93–107.ard, R., Fayad, M., Laitinen, M., 2001. Software process improvement in the small.

Communications of the ACM 44 (4), 105–107.ebster, J., Watson, R., 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a

literature review. MIS Quarterly 26 (2), 13–23.hitman, M., Hendrickson, A., Townsend, A., 1999. Research commentary. Academic

rewards for teaching, research and service: data and discourse. InformationSystems Research 10 (2), 99–109.

nd Software 83 (2010) 2128–2146

Wiegers, K., 1999. Software process improvement in web time. IEEE Software 16 (4),78–86.

Wilson, D., Hall, T., Baddoo, N., 2001. A framework for evaluation and prediction ofsoftware process improvement success. The Journal of Systems and Software 59(2), 135–142.

Wohlwend, H., Rosenbaum, S., 1994. Schlumberger’s software improvement pro-gram. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20 (11), 833–839.

Wohlwend, H., Rosenbaum, S., 1993. Software improvements in an internationalcompany. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on SoftwareEngineering.

Womack, P., Jones, D., Roos, D., 1990. The Machine That Changed the World: TheStory of Lean Production. Rawson Associates, New York.

Yamamura, G., 1999. Process improvement satisfies employees. IEEE Software 16(5), 83–85.

Sune Dueholm Müller received his PhD in business pro-cess innovation from Aarhus School of Business (AarhusUniversity), Denmark, in 2009, and is currently employedby Terma A/S. Terma develops a wide range of missioncritical off-the-shelf products and customized systems forcivilian and military use. He is employed as the company’sSPI manager. His research interests are within informa-tion systems and software engineering with a particularemphasis on process innovation. His professional interestsare within Software Process Improvement, requirementsmanagement, and measurements.

Lars Mathiassen is a member of IEEE, ACM, and AIS. Hereceived his master’s degree in computer science fromAarhus University, Denmark, in 1975, his PhD in infor-matics from Oslo University, Norway, in 1981, and hisDr. Techn. degree in software engineering from AalborgUniversity, 1998. He is currently GRA Eminent Scholarand professor in department of computer informationsystems and co-founder of Center for Process Innova-tion at Georgia State University. His research interestsare within information systems and software engineeringwith a particular emphasis on process innovation. He hascoauthored Computers in Context (Blackwell, 1993), ObjectOriented Analysis & Design (Marko Publishing, 2000),

and Improving Software Organizations (Addison-Wesley, 2002). He has served assenior editor for MIS Quarterly and his research is published in journals likeInformation Systems Research, MIS Quarterly, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Man-agement, Communications of the ACM, Journal of AIS, Information Systems Journal, andIEEE Software.

Hans Henrik Balshøj received his master’s degree in busi-ness administration and information science from AarhusSchool of Business (Aarhus University), Denmark, in 2007,and is currently employed by Systematic A/S. Systematic isan independent software and systems company focusingon complex and mission critical IT solutions within infor-mation and communication systems. He is employed as a

CMMI process areas contributing to Systematic’s success-ful CMMI level 5 reappraisal in 2009.