Humphrey, Watt S., Snyder, Terry R. and Willis, Ronald R. Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software, July 1991.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....plan. An example of writing and using explicit project plans, although not using exactly those notations developed in the MVP Project, 9 Project plan Products tool Software evolution HCI Computer Figure 4: Level 2, Explicit, off line project plan and measurement plan 10 is discussed in [28]. Next we describe two real world examples of having used the MVP technology off line. NASA s Software Engineering Laboratory used project plans off line to understand a maintenance process [6, 9] A first attempt to collect data on maintenance processes in this environment failed because the ....

Watts S. Humphrey, Terry R. Snyder, and Ronald R. Willis. Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software, pages 11--23, July 1991.

....empirical or analytical evidence that these underlying assumptions are valid. The available case study and survey data seem to suggest that although organizations involved in maturity model based improvements have, indeed, made significant improvements, the data is rather anecdotal and diverse [6,9,12,21,23]. Firm empirical data is not yet available on the validity of these models. Furthermore, it is even less clear whether a maturity model based improvement approach yields optimal results. In addition to maturity model based approaches, a process improvement approach with a different philosophy has ....

W. S. Humphrey, T. R. Snyder, and R. R. Willis, Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft, IEEE Software, vol. 8, pp. 11-23, 1991.

....or development practices. It may not be correct to assume a relation exists between Maturity Level and Productivity. Much has been written discussing the short term and long term benefits of increasing maturity levels [Broadman and Johnson 1995, Butler 1995, Dion 1993, Herbsleb et al. 1997, Humphrey et al. 1991, McGibbon 1996, Springsteen et al. 1992, Wohlwend and Rosenbaum 1994] It requires a large amount of dollar investment by an organization to change the software development process within the organization and to realize an increased level of maturity. The effects of increasing process maturity ....

....have been improved . Many firms were just starting data collection on the effects of process improvement 3.1. 2 Hughes Ground Systems Group The Software Engineering Division at Hughes Aircraft in Fullerton, Ca, spent 400,000 and 2 years improving their Process Maturity from Level 2 to Level 3 [Humphrey et al. 1991]. Several observations are made in this paper. It takes management commitment to survive the investment, risk, time, and pain of cultural change that occurred during the transition period. Achievements feed on themselves and when the whole organization buys into the improvement process, it gains a ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

. W.S. Humphrey, T.R. Snyder, and RR. Willis, "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft," IEEE Software, August 1991, pp. 11-23.

....indicates their administration (processes and techniques administration, etc. Diagnose the organization cultural health conditions . Improve the organizational health . Communication techniques .SE and KE analysis techniques .Diagnosis techniques . Organizational maturity techniques [6]. III. Conceptualization The objective of the software process model is defined (descriptive, prescriptive, guide, etc. 17] The process features are preliminary determined based on the Organizational Process Model elements (processes, subprocesses, activities, actors, tools, etc. and their ....

W. S. Humphrey, T. R. Snyder and R. R. Willis, "Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft", IEEE Software 8, 4 (July 1991) 11-23.

....in Zubrow et al. 95] A summary of differences between Version 1.0 and Version 1. 1 is provided in [72] For more background and related work that led to the development of CMM, see Humphrey and his colleagues [27 29] Applications and case studies of CMM were reported in Humphrey et al. [31], Kitson and Masters [64] and Saiedian and Kuzara [77] For looking at relationships of CMM with other process models, see Paulk et al. 74] Kitson [65] Wang et al. 86, 88 94] Criticism on CMM may be referred to Bollinger and McGowan [11] Brodman and Johnson [13] and Fayad and Laitinen ....

Humphrey, W.S., Snyder, T.R. and Willis, R.R. (1991), Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft, IEEE Software, July, pp.11-23.

....to get a picture of the current status of SE in the company, get feedback in comparison to industry, and to see opportunities for improvement with management commitment. Assessment brings good and bad to light to set goals, get evidence, and bring the feedback cycle to life. The case study [Hump91b] reports improved working conditions, employee morale, schedule and cost performance as consequence of an assessment. Figure 2 shows an overview on major software assessment models in the US and Europe and influences between these models over time. CMM in US and ISO 900x in Europe started the ....

....1990 Time 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 SEI CMM versions ISO 900x future CMM 2.0 Fig. 2: Cross influence of SP assessment models. General steps for a software process assessment. Process assessment is the first step to process improvement by setting a baseline of the current state. [Hump91b] summarizes the following steps. Learn 5 how the organization works and identify major problems. Enroll its opinion leaders in change process. After an initial presentation review responses to assessment questionnaire and conduct interviews with representative project leaders in a ....

Humphrey W.S., Snyder T., Willis R., Software process improvement at Hughes aircraft, IEEE Software, 8 (4):11-23, 1991

....Model (CMM) for Software [Humphrey 88, Paulk 93] and the ISO 9000 [Johnson 93] quality standard(s) have been enthusiastically embraced throughout the industry. There is evidence that this has led to real improvements in both software product quality and organisations profitability [Dion 93, Humphrey 91, Herbsleb 97] However, the experience of our industrial partners in the REAIMS project was that, in their current forms, neither the CMM nor ISO 9000 address requirements processes adequately. This is a serious shortcoming because : The success of any development project is intimately ....

Humphrey, W., Snyder, T., Willis, R. 1991. Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft, IEEE Software, 8 (4). 11-23.

....of a single organisation (or a small number of selected organisations) and the benefits it gained from increasing its process capability. Case studies are most useful for showing that there are organisations that have benefited from increased process capability. Examples of these are reported in [41][38] 17] 18] 92] 2] 57] 8] 54] also see [49] for a recent review) However, in this context, case studies have a methodological disadvantage that makes it difficult to generalise the results from a single case study or even a small number of case studies. Case studies tend to suffer from a ....

W. Humphrey, T. Snyder, and R. Willis: "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft". In IEEE Software, pages 11-23, July 1991.

....are created on line and therefore no secondary data entry into permanent records is necessary. The inspection information is available for metric collection and the use of paper is decreased. Added Structure Automated support adds structure and consistency to the software inspection process. HSW91] says that a consistent and uniform review is a criteria for developing a high quality software process. Enforcing the structure of the inspection process results in repeatable and measurable results. 1.1 Previous work Other projects have explored facets of the distributed meeting problem. ....

W.S. Humphrey, T.R. Snyder, and R.R. Willis. Software process improvement at Hughes aircraft. IEEE Software, 8(4), July 1991.

....assurance. Standardize the review process. Define the software engineering process. Strengthen software quality assurance. The success with which these findings were addressed was apparent in 1990, when a second SEI assisted assessment found the SED to be a strong level 3 organization [Humphrey 91] with many activities in place to take it to levels 4 and 5. The actual cost for SED to go from strong level 2 to strong level 3 in a two year period was 75 person months plus the cost of the SEI assisted assessment, which was 45,000. Improvements included the formation of a process group, key ....

....emergence of a coherent culture. Given their importance, it would be very useful to develop measures of these things. As compared to the past, there are very few crises at SED since process improvement efforts have been implemented. 6 This figure differs somewhat from the published figure [Humphrey 91] In order to make this figure comparable to others in this paper, we also included the cost of an assessment. The result is a figure somewhat lower than the published 5:1 number. 26 CMU SEI 94 TR 13 4.3 Schlumberger 4.3.1 Organization Description Schlumberger is an international company ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Humphrey, Watts S.; Snyder, Terry R.; & Willis, Ronald R. "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft." IEEE Software (July 1991): 11-23.

.... support for the claims made by the SEI [1, 3, 13] Also, the focus of the model on large scale software development caused difficulties for an organization that applied the model to a maintenance only software organization [11] However, empirical support for the CMM is growing, see for example [8, 9, 10, 15, 16]. Empirical results are regularly summarized by the SEI, see [14] for a recent report. 1 Capability Maturity Model, CMM, and IDEAL are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University. 3 Process Capability Key practices Common features Key process areas Maturity Levels Goals Implementation ....

Watts S. Humphrey, Terry R. Snyder, and Ronald R. Willis. Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft. In IEEE Software [17], pages 11--23.

....aspect of the software development process. As the process becomes more stable, the consumption of resources and the resulting properties of the software becomes more predictable. Empirical evidence shows that such process improvements lead to improved quality and productivity in creating software [16, 23, 24]. At the initial level of the CMM, software processes are generally improvised by practitioners during the course of the project. Even if a software process has been specified, it is not rigorously followed or enforced. Schedules and budgets are routinely exceeded because they 4 are not based on ....

Humphrey W., Snyder T., and Willis R. Software process improvement at hughes aircraft. IEEE Software, 8(4):11, July 1991.

.... et al. 1994) SPICE (Rout 1995) QBA (Arent and Iversen 1996) and progress assessment (Daskalantonakis 1994) The methods have all been used in real software process improvement projects (cf. Culver Lozo and Linnell 1996; Diaz and Sligo 1997; Haase et al. 1994; Haley 1996; Herbsleb et al. 1997; Humphrey, Snyder and Willis 1991; Iversen et al. 1998; Sakamoto, Kishida and Nakakoji 1996) All of these assessment methods are based on an underlying model of good software practice as well as a model of the improvement process itself. The CBA IPI and the QBA are, for example, both based on the CMM s approach to software ....

Humphrey, W. S.; Snyder, T. R.;and Willis, R. R. "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft," IEEE Software (8:4), 1991, pp. 11-23.

.... and case studies from a total of 16 European software companies that had implemented ISO 9000 based quality systems [Stelzer et al. 1996] and an initial survey of case studies describing CMM based improvement initiatives [Billings et al. 1994; Daskalantonakis 1994; Dion 1992; Herbsleb et al. 1994; Humphrey et al. 1991; Wohlwend, Rosenbaum 1994] showed that the factors revealed in the literature survey and the interviews were mentioned in the majority of the reports and case studies but to a differing degree: Management commitment and staff involvement, for example, seemed to be mentioned in more of the reports ....

....Inc. US Johnson 1994 Digital Equipment Corporation, Integrated Office Services Group UK Hellmann, Pilgrim 1997 Eastman Kodak Comp. US Wiegers 1996a; Wiegers 1996b Ericsson Netherlands NL Keustermans 1996 Hewlett Packard Software Engineering Systems Division US Lowe, Cox 1996 Hughes Aircraft US Humphrey et al. 1991; Snyder 1997 IBM Federal Systems Company Space Shuttle Onboard Software project US Billings et al. 1994; Paulk et al. 1995 Lloyds Bank Plc, England UK Larner 1996; Larner 1995; Jackson 1996; Hookham 1997 Motorola s Cellular Infrastructure Group US Daskalantonakis 1994 Motorola s Government ....

Humphrey, W.S.; Snyder, T.R.; Willis, R.R. 1991. Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software, 8, July, 11-23.

....organizational performance. Although SPI is in widespread use, only a limited amount of research on experiences has been published. Most of these studies are case studies where experiences from individual organizations are presented (e.g. Diaz and Sligo 1997; Haley 1996; Hollenbach et al. 1997; Humphrey, Snyder and Willis 1991). Such studies generally report on SPI successes showing dramatic improvements with respect to a number of performance parameters, for example, productivity and cycle time, while studies reporting on SPI failures are rarely found. On the other hand, data is available that indirectly indicate that ....

Humphrey, W. S.; Snyder, T. R.; and Willis, R. R. "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft," IEEE Software (8:4), 1991, pp. 11-23.

....been used. The studies that we summarize below show the costs of SPI using different analytical and benchmarking approaches. The amount of detail that we can present is directly a function of the amount of publicly available information. 3 Ref. Organization SPI Program Costs Benefits [30] . SPI effort at the Software Engineering Devision of Hughes Aircraft . The division had 500 professional employees at the time . The assessment itself cost US 45,000 . Cost of a 2 year SPI program was US 400,000 . Implementation of the action plan to move from ML1 to ML2 was 18 calendar ....

W. Humphrey, T. Snyder, and R. Willis: "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft". In IEEE Software, pages 11-23, July 1991.

....some have described the benefits they obtained. At Hughes Aircraft, for example, a process improvement investment of 400,000 produced an annual savings of 2,000,000. This was the culmination of several years work by some experienced and able professionals, with strong management support [Humphrey 91] Similarly, Raytheon found that the cost benefits of software process improvement work reduced their testing and repair efforts by 19.1 million in about four years [Dion 92] While the detailed results of their improvement efforts have not been published, it is understood that their costs were ....

Humphrey, W. S., Snyder, T. R., and Willis, R. R., "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft," IEEE Software, July 1991.

....innovative ideas and technologies. Process improvement is achieved by a cycle of ffl assessment to determine current capability, ffl development of an action plan to address shortcomings noted during the assessment, and ffl implementation of the action plan. A case study from Hughes Aircraft [23] clearly shows this cycle at work in an organization. The Software Engineering Institute has undertaken 261 assessments of organizations to date [17, p.90] and detailed statistics up to 1991 have been reported [25] A large percentage (75 ) of organizations assessed are at level 1, some 24 of ....

....figures for three cases. The Ground Services Division of Hughes Aircraft invested 400K over a three year period to go from a strong level 2 to a strong level 3 process. The divisionestimates the improved software development process saves 2M per year on cost overruns, giving a 5 times ROI [23]. The Equipment Division of Raytheon invested 1.1M with estimated savings of 9.2M on rework, giving a 8.4 times ROI [9] The Air Logistics Center of Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City invested 462K with estimated savings of 2.9M over 18 areas of operation, giving a 6.4 times ROI [29] A ....

W. S. Humphrey, T. R. Snyder, and R. R. Willis. Software process improvement at hughes aircraft. IEEE Software, 8:11--23, July 1991.

....Process Improvement; CASE Adoption; Process Modeling; Process Measurements; Process Metrics; Cost Control; Risk Reduction. 1 Introduction One of the fundamental reasons for difficulties in building and maintaining software systems is the poor quality of the employed software development processes [14]. A popular approach to process improvement is the insertion of software tools to save time and money and improve the quality of the produced software. Software tools are one key element in virtually every software improvement effort. On the one hand, using software tools to establish a reliable, ....

....are: the Process Cycle [16] the Quality Improvement Paradigm (QIP) 2] and the Experience Factory [1] This rate includes office space, computer time, benefits, vacations, holidays, etc. Software Engineering Process Groups (SEPG) 8] making process improvements along the SEI s CMM [18] [14], 7] and . Total Quality Management (TQM) 9] All these improvement paradigms acknowledge the need for sustaining process improvements by improving the technical environment through inserting software tools. However, the above mentioned paradigms do not provide support as to how software tools ....

W. S. Humphrey, T. Snyder, and R. Willis. Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software, pages 11--23, July 1991.

....the experiences of a single organization (or a small number of selected organizations) and the benefits it gained from increasing its maturity level. Case studies are most useful for showing that there are organizations that have benefited from increased maturity. Examples of these are reported in [HSW91][HC 94] Di92] Di93] WR93] BF95] LB92] Bu95] Leb96] However, in this context, case studies have a methodololgical disadvantage that makes it difficult to generalize the results from a single case study or even a small number of case studies. Case studies tend to suffer from a selection bias ....

W. Humphrey, T. Snyder, and R. Willis: "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft". In IEEE Software, pages 11-23, July 1991.

....of the CMM to be a reasonable way to manage the requirements engineering process. We feel several reasons plead for this assumption. The CMM is carefully developed and subject to continuous research and improvement for many years. Its practical usage is shown and proven by several case studies [24, 20, 30]. Beyond that, the clear structure and exact definition of the CMM key process areas and key practices favors our investigations. 2. Characterizing PSEs The goal of a process supporting environment (PSE) is the support, guidance and (partly) automation of business processes 1 . In order to ....

Humphrey, W. S., Snyder, T. R., Willis, R. R., "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft ", IEEE Software, July 1991, pp. 11-23.

.... plans, although not using exactly those notations developed in the MVP Project, Measurement plans Project plan Products Meas t Meas t tool Software evolution tool Understanding data Human HCI Computer Figure 4: Level 2, Explicit, off line project plan and measurement plan is discussed in [28]. Next we describe two real world examples of having used the MVP technology off line. NASA s Software Engineering Laboratory used project plans off line to understand a maintenance process [6, 9] A first attempt to collect data on maintenance processes in this environment failed because the ....

Watts S. Humphrey, Terry R. Snyder, and Ronald R. Willis. Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software, pages 11--23, July 1991.

.... from level 1 to level 3 in approximately 4 years [Baatz 95] Grumman Data, who reported moving to level 3 in a little over 2 years (ostensibly starting at level 1) Nidiffer 95] Hughes Aircraft: Software Engineering Division, who reported moving from level 2 to level 3 in approximately 3 years [Humphrey 91] 6. Sudlow, 1994. CMU SEI 95 TR 008 19 5.2 Differences Between Level 1 and Level 2 Organizations The most obvious difference between level 1 and level 2 companies with respect to KPArelated weaknesses is seen in Figure 8. The prevalence of Software Project Planning and Software Project ....

Humphrey, Watts, S.; Snyder, Terry, R.; and Willis, Ronald, R. Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software, July 1991.

....a significant industrial impact. Most of the effort in software process improvement has been driven by the SEI s Capability Maturity Model [11] and by the adoption of ISO 9000 process quality standards. Many organisations have modified their processes to reach a certain level of process maturity [12] or to be compliant with ISO 9000. We are not aware of any analysis of the human and organisational problems of making these process changes so we do not feel that we can comment from this perspective on the SEI work. However, we note that Humphrey, the principal architect of the SEI model, has ....

Humphrey, W., T. Snyder, and R. Willis, " Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft". IEEE Software, 1991. 8(4): p. 11-23.

....to improve its software development processes. To continuously improve a software process, it is necessary to introduce frequently innovations [11, 13, 16, 17, 18] This can be obtained if the developers of the organization use a process that is definite, repeatable, manageable, and optimizable [12, 14], in a word, improvable. This can be pursued if the organization adopts one or more predefined software process models among which its developers, opportunely trained, have to choose the ones better suited to their development projects and to accordingly apply them. The post mortem analysis of the ....

W.S. Humphrey, T.R. Snyder and R.R. Willis, Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft, IEEE Software, Vol.8, Issue 4, July 1991, pp.11-23;

No context found.

Watts S. Humphrey, Terry R. Snyder, and Ronald R. Willis, "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft," IEEE Software, (July 1991): 11- 23.

No context found.

Humphrey, Watt S., Snyder, Terry R. and Willis, Ronald R. Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software, July 1991.

No context found.

Humphrey, Watt S., Snyder, Terry R. and Willis, Ronald R. Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software, July 1991.

No context found.

Humphrey, W.; Snyder, T.; & Willis, R. "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft." IEEE Software 8, 4 (July 1991): 11-23.

No context found.

Humphrey, W.S., Snyder, T.R. and Willis, R.R. Software process improvement at Hughes aircraft. IEEE Software 8, 4 (1991), 11--23.

No context found.

Humphrey, W. and W.S. Snyder, and T.R. Willis, "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft", IEEE Software 8 (4), pp 11-23.

No context found.

Humphrey, W. S., Snyder, T. R. and Willis, R. R. (1991) Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software, Vol. 8, No. 4, 11-23.

No context found.

W. S. Humphrey, T. R. Snyder, and R. R. Willis. Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software, 8(4):11--23, July 1991.

No context found.

Humphrey, W., Snyder, T., and Willis, R., "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft," IEEE Software, July 1991.

No context found.

Humphrey, W.S., T.R. Snyder, and R.R. Willis, "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft," IEEE Software, July 1991, pp. 11-23.

No context found.

W Humphrey, T Snyder, R Willlis, Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft, IEEE Software, July 1991.

No context found.

Watts S. Humphrey, Terry R. Snyder, and Ronald R. Willis. Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software, pages 11--23, July 1991.

No context found.

Humphrey, W., et al., "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft," IEEE Software, 8, 4 (July

No context found.

Humphrey91b Watts S. Humphrey, T.R. Snyder, and Ronald R. Willis, "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft," IEEE Software, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 1991, pp. 11-23.

No context found.

Humphrey91 Watts S. Humphrey, Terry R. Snyder, and Ronald R. Willis, "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft," IEEE Software, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 1991, pp. 11-23.

No context found.

Watts S. Humphrey, T.R. Snyder, and Ronald R. Willis, "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft," IEEE Software, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 1991, pp. 11-23.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC