Reidar Conradi
Tore Dybå
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Most quality and software process improvement frameworks emphasize written (i.e. formal) documentation to convey recommended work practices. However, there is considerable skepticism among developers to learn from and adhere to prescribed process models. The latter are often perceived as overly "structured" or implying too much "control". Further, what is relevant knowledge has often been decided by "others"---often the quality manager. The study was carried out in the context of a national software process improvement program in Norway for small- and medium-sized companies to assess the attitude to formalized knowledge and experience sources. The results show that developers are rather skeptical at using written routines, while quality and technical managers are taking this for granted. This is an explosive combination. The conclusion is that formal routines must be supplemented by collaborative, social processes to promote effective dissemination and organizational learning. Trying to force a (well-intended) quality system down the developers' throats is both futile and demoralizing. The wider implications for quality and improvement work is that we must strike a balance between the "disciplined" or "rational" and the "creative" way of working.
- 1 Mark S. Ackerman and Christine A. Halverson, "Reexamining Organizational Memory"', CACM, Vol. 43, No.1 (Jan. 2000), pp. 59-64. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 2 Paul S. Adler and Bryan Borys, "Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 (1996), pp. 61-89.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 3 Klaus-Dieter Althoff, Andreas Birk, Susanne Hartkopf, Wolfgang Muller, Markus Nick, Dagmar Surmann, and Carsten Tautz, "Managing Software Engineering Experience for Comprehensive Reuse", In Proc. 11th Conf. on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE'99), 16-19 June 1999, Kaiserslautern, p. 10-19, Knowledge Systems Institute, Skokie, IL, USA, June 1999.Google Scholar
- 4 Klaus-Dieter Althoff, editor, Proc. 2nd Workshop on Learning Software Organizations (associated to PROFES'2000), Oulu, 20 June 2000, 130 p. Publisher: Fraunhofer IESE, Kaiserslautern.Google Scholar
- 5 Chris Argyris and Donald A. Sch~n, Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1996.Google Scholar
- 6 F. J. Barrett, "Creativity and Improvisation in Jazz and Organization: Implications for Organizational Learning", Organization Science, 1998, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 605-622. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 7 Victor R. Basili, Gianluigi Caldiera, and Hans-Dieter Rombach, "The Experience Factory", In {26}, pp. 469-476, 1994.Google Scholar
- 8 Victor R. Basili, Gianluigi Caldiera, and Hans-Dieter Rombach, "The Goal Question Metric Paradigm", In {26}, pp. 528-532, 1994.Google Scholar
- 9 Frank Bomarius, editor, Proc. 1st Workshop on Learning Software Organizations (associated to SEKE'99), Kaiserslautern, 16 June 1999, 126 p. Publisher: Fraunhofer IESE, Kaiserslautern.Google Scholar
- 10 John S. Brown and Paul Duguid, "Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation", Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Feb. 1991), pp. 40-57.Google ScholarDigital Library
- 11 Jon E. Carlsen and Marius Fornaess, "Unders~kelse om Prosessforbedring" (in Norwegian -- on how quality systems are perceived), IDI, NTNU, Trondheim, 30 April 1999, 72 p., EPOS TR 357 (pre-diploma project thesis).Google Scholar
- 12 Reidar Conradi, "SPIQ: A Revised Agenda for Software Process Support", In Carlo Montangero, editor, Proc. 4th European Workshop on Software Process Technology (EWSPT'96), pp. 36-41, Nancy, France, 9-11 Oct. 1996. Springer Verlag LNCS 1149. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 13 Reidar Conradi, Mikael Lindvall, and Carolyn Seaman, "Success Factors for Software Experience Bases: What We Need to Learn from Other Disciplines", In Janice Singer et al., editors, Proc. ICSE'2000 Workshop on Beg, Borrow or Steal: Using Multidisciplinary Approaches in Empirical Software Engineering Research', Limerick, Ireland, 5 June 2000. 6 p.Google Scholar
- 14 Reidar Conradi and Torgeir Dings~yr, "Software Experience Bases: A Consolidated Evaluation and Status Report", In Frank Bomarius and Markku Oivo, editors, Proc. 2nd International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES'2000), 20-22 June 2000, Oulu, Springer LNCS 1840, pp. 391-406. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 15 W. Edwards Deming, Out of the crisis, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.Google Scholar
- 16 Tore Dyba, editor, SPIQ metodebok for prosessforbedring i programvareutvikling - v3.0 (in Norwegian), SINTEF/ NTNU/UiO, Trondheim and Oslo, Norway, Jan. 2000, ca. 200 p.Google Scholar
- 17 Tore Dyba, "Improvisation in Small Software Organizations", IEEE Software, Vol. 17, No 5, Sept.-Oct. 2000, pp. 82-87. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 18 Tore Dyba, "An Instrument for Measuring the Key Factors of Success in Software Process Improvement", Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 4, Dec. 2000, pp. 357-390. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 19 ESSI project office, "Template for running Software Process Improvement Experiments (PIEs)", ESPRIT office, CEC, Brussels, 1995.Google Scholar
- 20 Usama Fayyad, Gregory Piatetsky-Shapiro, and Padhr Smyth, Chapter on "From Data Mining to Knowledge Discovery: An overview', In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, AAAI/MIT Press, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 21 Robert L. Glass, Software Creativity, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 22 Davydd J. Greenwood and Morten Levin, Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage, 1998.Google Scholar
- 23 William L. Hays, Statistics, Fifth edition, Harcourt Brace, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
- 24 G. Kunda, Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1992.Google Scholar
- 25 Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 26 John J. Marciniak, editor, Encyclopedia of Software Engineering - 2 Volume Set, John Wiley and Sons, 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 27 Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi, The Knowledge- Creating Company, Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
- 28 Osten Oskarsson and Robert L Glass, An ISO 9000 Approach to Building Quality Software, Prentice Hall, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 29 David L. Parnas and Paul C. Clements, "A Rational Design Process - How and Why to Fake it", IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 251-257, February 1986. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 30 Marc C. Paulk, Charles V. Weber, Bill Curtis, and Mary B. Chrissis, The Capability Maturity Model for Software: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process, SEI Series in Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley, 1995, 640 p. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 31 Dewayne E. Perry, Nancy Staudenmayer, and Lawrence G. Votta, "People, Organizations, and Process Improvement", IEEE Software, Vol. 11, No. 4, July 1994, pp. 36-45. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 32 Shari Lawrence Pfleeger, Norman Fenton, and Stella Page, "Evaluating Software Engineering Standards", IEEE Computer, Sept. 1994, pp. 71-79. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 33 Stan Rifkin, "Discipline of Market Leaders and Other Accelerators to Measurement", Proc. 24th Annual NASA-SEL Software Engineering Workshop (on CD-ROM), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA, 1-2 Dec. 1999, 6 p.Google Scholar
- 34 Edgar H. Schein, "Three Cultures of Management: The Key to Organizational Learning", Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38 (1996), No. 1, Fall, pp. 9-20.Google Scholar
- 35 Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Currency/Doubleday, 1990.Google Scholar
- 36 Helen Sharp, Mark Woodman, and Hugh Robinson, "Using Ethnography and Discourse Analysis to Study Software Engineering Practices", In Janice Singer et al., editors, Proc. ICSE'2000 Workshop on Beg, Borrow or Steal: Using Multidisciplinary Approaches in Empirical Software Engineering Research', Limerick, Ireland, 5 June 2000, pp. 81-87.Google Scholar
- 37 Tor Stalhane and Kari Juul Wedde, "SPI Why isn't it more used", Proc. EuroSPI'99, Pori, Finland, 26-27 October, 1999.Google Scholar
- 38 R.J. Thomas, What Machines Can't Do, Berkeley, California, University of California Press, 1994.Google Scholar
- 39 Max Weber, Makt og byr~krati: Essays om politikk og klasse, samfunnsforskning og verdier (Power and Bureaucracy: Essays about politics, class, social science and values), Third Edition, from "Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft" (1922), "Gesammelte Aufs~tze zur Wissenschaftslehre" (1922) and "Gesammelte politische Schriften" (1921), Gyldendal, Oslo, Norway (in Norwegian), 2000.Google Scholar
- 40 Soshana Zuboff, In the Age of the Smart Machine, Basic Books, New York, 1988. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- An empirical study on the utility of formal routines to transfer knowledge and experience
Recommendations
An empirical study on the utility of formal routines to transfer knowledge and experience
ESEC/FSE-9: Proceedings of the 8th European software engineering conference held jointly with 9th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineeringMost quality and software process improvement frameworks emphasize written (i.e. formal) documentation to convey recommended work practices. However, there is considerable skepticism among developers to learn from and adhere to prescribed process ...
Could removal of project-level knowledge flow obstacles contribute to software process improvement? A study of software engineer perceptions
ContextSoftware process improvement (SPI) is one type of innovation often formulated to address problems such as uncontrollable costs, schedule overruns, and poor end product quality. This study investigates SPI through the application of knowledge ...
Practices supporting knowledge transfer – an analysis of lean product development
Lean Product and Process DevelopmentLean product development is considered by many authors to promote learning and knowledge transfer, but studies that relate lean product development to the understanding drawn from the knowledge management field seem to be lacking. This article ...
Comments