Master Thesis

Software Engineering
Thesis no:
January 2014

Agile Methodologies and Software Process

Improvement Maturity Models, Current
State of Practice in Small and Medium
Enterprises

Vasileios Koutsoumpos – Iker Marinelarena

Dept. of Software Engineering (DIPT)

Blekinge Institute of Technology
SE-371 79 Karlskrona Sweden
This thesis is submitted to the Dept. of Software Engineering (DIPT) at Blekinge Institute of
Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Software Engineering. The thesis is equivalent to 10 weeks of full time studies.

Contact Information:
Author(s):
Vasileios Koutsoumpos – 870702-7598
Iker Marinelarena – 891124-1290
E-mail:
[email protected]
[email protected]

University advisor:
Stefanie Betz
Dept. of Software Engineering (DIPT)

Dept. of Software Engineering Internet : www.bth.se

Blekinge Institute of Technology Phone : +46 455 38 50 00
SE-371 79 Karlskrona, Sweden Fax : +46 455 38 50 57
 3

Agile Methodologies and Software Process

Improvement Maturity Models, Current State of
Practice in Small and Medium Enterprises
Koutsoumpos Vasileios, Marinelarena Iker

Abstract—Background: Software Process Improvement (SPI) I. INTRODUCTION

S
maturity models have been developed to assist organizations to
mall and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), are the most
enhance software quality. Agile methodologies are used to ensure
productivity and quality of a software product. Amongst others widespread type of enterprises around the different global
they are applied in Small and Medium – sized Enterprises economies [7][8] of this rapidly changing world [9], and they
(SMEs). However, little is known about the combination of Agile can be resembled as foundation and “motor” of the industrial
methodologies and SPI maturity models regarding SMEs and the growth [2][10]. SMEs are the enterprises, in which the number
results that could emerge, as all the current SPI models are of employees is less than 50, for small enterprises, and less
addressed to larger organizations and all these improvement than 250 in the case of the medium – sized ones [12].
models are difficult to be used by Small and Medium – sized A lot of these SMEs are focusing on developing software.
firms. Combinations of these methodologies could lead to All of these enterprises implement Software Engineering
improvement in the quality of the software products, better
practices to a greater or lesser extend in order to develop their
project management methodologies and organized software
development framework. products. Software Engineering practices have achieved a lot
Objectives: The aim of this study is to identify the main Agile of importance, because if they are not applied and performed
methodologies and SPI maturity models applied in SMEs, the adequately, various problems can arise during the software
combinations of these methodologies, and the results that could development [13][14][15].
emerge. Through these combinations, new software development Performing incorrectly the Software Engineering practices
frameworks are proposed. What is more, the results of this study can for example lead to the development of a system that
can be used as a guide with the appropriate combination for each contains properties, which were not requested [13]. The major
SME, as a better project management methodology or as impact is the rework that has to be done; it has been proved
improvement in the current software engineering practices.
that the rework can cost up to 40% of the total project cost
Methods: A Systematic Literature Review was conducted,
resulting in 71 selected relevant papers ranging from 2001 to [14]. If errors are discovered late in a Software Engineering
2013. Besides, a survey has been performed from June 2013 to processes the cost can be 200 times more, than catching them
October 2013, including 49 participants. in the early phases of the development process [14][15].
Results: Seven Agile methodologies and six different SPI As it was mentioned before, this world is changing rapidly;
maturity models were identified and discussed. Furthermore, the the same happens with software projects. In order to be able to
combination of eight different Agile methodologies and Software satisfy the new necessities of the market, Agile methodologies
Process Improvement maturity models is presented, and as well were implemented, providing enterprises with a group of
as their benefits and drawbacks that could emerge in Small and faster, more flexible, with a continue and easy learning and
Medium – sized firms.
responsiveness [2].
Conclusion: The majority of the Agile methodologies and SPI
maturity models are addressed to large or very large enterprises. In addition, applying Agile methodologies is a step forward
Thus, little research has been conducted for SMEs. The in the software development environment, but still there are
combinations of the Agile methodologies and SPI maturity many other aspects that are not fully addressed by
models are usually performed in experimental stages. However, it implementing Agile methodologies, such as quality assurance,
has been observed that such type of combination could present time management, and so forth. Software Process
numerous benefits, which can also be applicable in SMEs as well. Improvement techniques are applied to enterprises in order to
The combinations that are most common are the CMMI and XP, fulfill these needs. Their objective is to manage and improve
CMMI and Scrum, CMMI and Six Sigma, and the PRINCE2 and software processes to satisfy the customer’s requirements
DSDM.
within the time frame at a lower cost, while maintaining the
Index Terms—Agile methodologies, combination, Software
Process Improvement, SMEs, survey, Systematic Literature quality of the software product [16][17][18].
Review. A. Contributions
The aim of this thesis project is to identify the current state
of practice of the Agile methodologies and the SPI maturity
 4

models and as well as their combinations that could be applied

in Small and Medium – sized firms. In order to meet the aim, TABLE I.1
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND THEIR CORRESPONDING METHODS
the following objectives are defined:
• Investigate:
Research Question Methodology
o Search through the literature for the
RQ1 Systematic Literature Review [1]
identification on the most common
RQ2 Systematic Literature Review, Survey
methodologies.
[1][3]
o Identify the benefits, challenges and
drawbacks for each methodology. RQ3 Survey [3]
• Find out the “real situation” in Small and Medium
Enterprises. D. Outline of the thesis
• Compare the Literature and the “real examples”. Section II presents the background of the thesis and
provides descriptions and definitions of the main concepts
B. Research Questions used in the thesis. In addition, it identifies the research gap
that this thesis will cover. Section III describes the most
To achieve the aims and objectives the following research
common Agile methodologies, the most common SPI maturity
questions will be addressed:
models and the most common combinations of Agile
RQ1: What agile methodologies combined with Software
methodologies and SPI maturity models, based on the SLR.
Process Improvement maturity models crafted for
The SLR is used to answer the RQ1 and RQ2, by providing
Small and Medium Enterprises exist?
details regarding the way the combinations could be adopted
RQ2: Under which situations and how could these
by SMEs, and as well as their benefits and drawbacks that
methodologies be applied?
could emerge. Next Section IV presents the results of the
• What are the results – benefits – drawbacks
survey. The survey is used to answer the RQ2 and RQ3, by
that each methodology could provide? describing what is the “real” situation in enterprises, and if
• When should each methodology be applied? these combinations could actually be adopted by SMEs.
• What are the reasons for failure? Section V discusses the threats to validity, concerning this
RQ3: Are these methodologies really applied in SMEs? research study. Finally, Section VI concludes the paper, by
answering briefly all the research questions.
C. Research methodology
Details of the specific research that were used are presented II. BACKGROUND
in Fig. I.1. The overall goal of the thesis was to identify the Various papers have been published the last years focusing
current state of practice of the Agile methodologies and the on the domain of Software Engineering practices and methods
SPI maturity models in Small and Medium sized – firms, for improvement [19][20][21][22][23][24]. Through these
which are described not only in articles and books, but also in studies, it has been proven that the Software Engineering (SE)
real examples, by including practitioners. This goal was practices are performed differently in SMEs, than the way
achieved by the research questions described in Table I.1. larger enterprises perform, or the way textbooks describe [25].
For example, in SMEs, although different roles exist, they are

 
 


not so clear and every employee performs many different
"!
   kinds of tasks. Thus, the work is done in a rather informal
 
#!
 environment heavily relying on collaboration.
The literature that exists regarding improvement models for
SMEs is limited; this is because SMEs present unique
characteristics that originate from their make and ownership
[7][25]. SMEs have got specific challenges, due to their size
and budget under which they operate. In addition, they present

  low maturity levels and fewer resources, in order to consider
 


"!
   quality and process improvements. Only a few SMEs
 
#!


document their software engineering processes. Kamsties et al.
[10] in their study prove that there are not clear ways in SMEs,
to perform the software engineering practices properly.
Simon et al. [26] show that SMEs do not emphasize on
training, as they have pressing deadlines, and the time that is
available for improvement is limited. Instead, SMEs follow a
simplified process lifecycle, where they pay particular
   

 
attention on developing and testing. Even more, they present
lack in control procedures, project management and risk
management skills [26]. Mishra et al. [27] present that SMEs
Figure I. 1 Overview of research cannot measure the benefits and the process progress that can
 5

be derived from such processes. discussed. According to Kitchenham [1][5], an SLR is a

Many Small and Medium Enterprises are willing to improve means of identifying, evaluating and interpreting all available
their software engineering processes, in order to develop research relevant to a particular research question, or topic
successful software systems [7][27]. However, they find it area, or phenomenon of interest. Therefore, it could be useful
difficult to implement these improvement processes, due to the to a systematic understanding of scientific domain is required.
high cost that is demanded to implement them. Furthermore, What is more, an SLR could be used to summarize the
the limited resources and the strict time constraints that the existing evidence concerning a specific domain, to identify
SMEs operate make the adoption of these techniques even possible gaps in current research and to suggest areas of
harder [27]. further research and finally to provide a framework in order to
What is more, the research in software process is motivated appropriately position new research activities.
by the fact that process quality is related with the quality of
the software product [28][29]. The aim of the Software A. Review questions
Process Improvement is not only to increase product quality, The research questions that will be addressed by this study
but also to increase reliability, consistency and predictability are the RQ1 and RQ2 of the thesis. These questions are:
and reduce time to market [28][30]. “What Agile methodologies combined with Software
Although several software process improvement techniques Process Improvement maturity models crafted for Small
have been introduced to be applicable in SMEs such as CMMI and Medium Enterprises exist?” and “Under which
[31], ISO/IEC 15504 [32], PRINCE2 [33], and so forth, the situations and how could these methodologies be applied?,
problem is that usually all these improvement methods are What are the benefits and drawbacks for each
suitable only for large enterprises [16]. Changes have to be methodology?, How could they be applied and what are
done in these methodologies, so that they can fit the SMEs the reasons for failure?”
needs, due to the fact that they operate in strict budget, and
they are highly affected by the customer’s needs [34]. In
addition, as the conditions in which these techniques can be B. Data Sources and Search Strategy
applied are not well defined, the benefits that each method can The process that was used to identify relevant studies and
provide are not well stated [35]. details of the search strategy are presented in Fig. III.1. The
Thus, experienced practitioners came up with another process was as follows. In the beginning relevant keywords
approach for improvement. The approach was labeled as Agile were identified. Keywords were synonyms for the terms used
software development. This method, presents high impact on in the topic of the thesis and the research questions. Next,
how a software product is developed worldwide [36]. search strings were formulated based on the identified
However, although the past years many Agile methodologies keywords. Later, a trial search was performed on the BTH e-
have been developed, little is known about how these methods libraries. If the results were not sufficient, the research
are carried out in practice and what are their effects [36]. For questions or the keywords were modified. The databases that
example, Agile methodologies can affect negatively the were used were the ACM Digital Library, the IEEE Xplore,
project’s main characteristics, such as scope, time, cost and the Science Direct and the Inspec.
quality [37]. In general, the Agile methodologies suffer from In order to narrow the number of results, filters were used
the lack of disciplined planning [38]. to find the appropriate papers in the field of Software
Since, the Software Process Improvement methods are Engineering or Computer Science. Additionally, the papers
shown to be unsuitable for the SMEs, studies suggest that that were collected are from 2001 and later on, due to the
Small and Medium – sized companies can adopt Agile Agile Manifesto [41]. Finally, the duplicities were removed
development methodologies, while following the SPI maturity with the help of Zotero [4]. Literature for further reading was
models [39]. Through this new way of working, SMEs can extracted based on the inclusion / exclusion criteria.
gain a new competitive environment [39]. These
methodologies take advantage of the flexibility and
adaptability of Agile methodologies, and of SPI methods main
value: control [38]. The combination of SPI maturity models
and Agile methods would be beneficial, since the former tell
us what to do, and the latter tell us how to do it [40]. The main
issue is that there are no studies that analyze and compare the
different possible models and combinations. For this reason, it
is not easy for the SMEs to decide which of these models they
could adopt.
In the next section, the structure and the results of the
Systematic Literature Review are analyzed and discussed.

III. SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

The Systematic Literature Review provides answers to the
research questions 1 and 2. In order to answer the questions,
the findings from the Systematic Literature Review will be
 6






discussing the issues, until they reached an agreement.
'
 What is more, papers that were not conference or journal

articles, such as symposium proceedings, section
introductions, book chapters were excluded.


 
 $



!


 D. Data extraction
1) Keywords

 The keywords that were used for search were synonyms of
$

the research topic and the research questions. Specifically, the
keywords are described bellow:
 !
&
#!


• Agile methodologies,
• Software Process Improvement,
• SPI,
"
!
• SMEs,
• Maturity models.
$
!$


2) Search strings
$
!
#
Pilot searches have proved that the keywords listed above
#!
can provide too broad searching results. Therefore, search
Figure III. 1 Search strategy to identify the relevant literature queries were built from the identified keywords and their
modifications (e.g. plural form) and Boolean operators such as
C. Study Selection the “AND” and the “OR”. The search strings were applied
During the research process, various criteria have been only for the Titles and Abstracts.
used. They determined which studies should be included or The authors decided initially to search literature for the
excluded. main Agile methodologies and the main Software Process
Improvement maturity models. For this reason, they used the
1) Inclusion / Exclusion Criteria first two search strings that are listed bellow. Next, they
proceed to the combination, by using the third search string
The choice of studies was based on the inclusion / and to identify the most common models that are referred to
Exclusion criteria listed bellow. the combinations. After identifying the most common
• Papers published from 2001 and later on due to the methodologies, they proceed to specific literature search, by
Agile Manifesto [41]. using the last three search strings. Specifically, the search
• Filters in the databases to limit the results in the field queries are described bellow:
of Software Engineering and Computer Science • (Agile method*) AND SMEs
domains. • ((SPI OR software process improvement) AND
• Papers that were not written in English were method*) AND SMEs
removed. • ((Agile method*) AND ((SPI OR software process
• Duplicates were removed with the help of Zotero. improvement) AND method*)) AND
SMEs
• Peer reviewed articles were only included in the • (XP OR Extreme Programming OR Scrum OR ASD
study.
OR adaptive software development
OR Lean
• The abstract and keywords in a big number of papers
development OR Dynamic systems development
was read.
methodology OR Crystal
methods) AND SMEs
• The number of citations that each article had was
taken into consideration as a supporting method. • (CMM OR CMMI OR SPICE OR ISO 15504 OR
• In case of disagreement between the authors, a study P3M3 OR OPM3 OR PRINCE2) AND SMEs
of the articles was performed and then a discussion • (XP OR Extreme programming OR Scrum OR ASD
was carried out. OR adaptive software development
OR Lean
development OR Dynamic systems development
2) Quality Assessment methodology OR Crystal methods) AND (CMM OR
Once the selected articles for the research were gathered, CMMI OR SPICE OR ISO 15504 OR P3M3 OR
quality assessment had to be performed, based on specific OPM3 OR PRINCE2) AND SMEs
questions that are presented in Appendix A. Additionally, the
questions were scored as follows: Y (Yes), P (Partially) and N 3) Search results
(No). The scoring procedure was Y=1, P=0,5 and N=0, or After applying the search queries in the BTH e-libraries, the
unknown (i.e. the information is not specified). The articles number of papers that were found, is presented in the
that were scored bellow 5 were excluded from the Literature following table.
Review. Both the authors performed the scoring procedure
individually and when there was a disagreement, they were
 7

TABLE III. 1 Development (FDD), Pragmatic Programming, and others

RELEVANT ARTICLES FOR THE SLR
sympathetic to the need for an alternative to documentation
driven, heavyweight software development processes
Sources Discovered Criteria Relevant
convened. What emerged from this meeting was the Agile
application studies
Manifesto, which core ideas are the following [41]:
IEEE 64 60 35
• “Individuals and interaction over process and tools,
ACM 272 126 26
• Working software over comprehensive
Science 818 150 43
documentation,
Direct
• Customer collaboration over contract negotiation,
Inspec 354 221 59
• Responding to change over following a plan”.

Due to the fact that many of the relevant studies were found From these core ideas many definitions [45][46] of the
in more than one database, duplicated findings had to be meaning of being Agile have been given, but definitely
removed. The total number of studies that were obtained by according to these definitions the key attributes of an Agile
the authors for the needs of the thesis was 71. organization are: speed, flexibility, learning and
responsiveness [2]. Still, practitioners agree that being Agile
4) Data collection form involves more than simply following the methodology that
makes a project Agile. Being Agile is more than a collection
The authors, in order to assist the data collection process, of practices; it’s a way of thinking. As is said by Andrea
created a form that was applied to all the relevant studies. Branca, “many processes may look Agile, but they will not feel
According to Kitchenham et. al. [1], the use of data collection Agile” [11, p.2].
forms is proposed, in order to remove bias in the data Through the Systematic Literature Review, the main Agile
collection process. methodologies that were identified are the following:
The collection form contained the following data: • Lean Software Development,
• Article’s title, • Scrum,
• The research methodology that was used in the • Extreme Programming (XP),
article,
• Crystal Methodologies,
• The database that was retrieved,
• Dynamic System Development Method (DSDM),
• The type of the article (e.g. conference, journal),
• Feature Driven Development (FDD),
• Publication year,
• Adaptive Software Development (ASD).
• Link to the database, In the following subsection the results of applying Agile
• Comments, methodologies on SMEs are analyzed.
• Quality score.
a) Agile on SMEs
E. Results presentation The new environment is forcing enterprises in adopting
This section summarizes the results from the Systematic Agile methodologies. This can be clearly seen on a 2005
Literature Review. The articles that were used for the purpose survey of the US and Europe, which revealed that 14 percent
of the SLR are presented in Appendix B. The authors of companies were using Agile methods, and 49 percent of the
identified articles for the three parts of the thesis, first Agile companies aware of Agile methods were interested in
methodologies, second SPI maturity models and third the adopting them [60].
combination of Agile and SPI. The results of the study are Many studies have proved the validity of the main
presented in the subsections bellow. methodologies. When they are discussing about Agile in
general, the main remarked benefits are: the improved
1) Agile methodologies communication and coordination [61], greater teamwork and
effectiveness in the rapid production of software that meets
In the beginning of the 1990s, many developers found the
customers’ requirements [62].
traditional methodologies frustrating and sometimes
It seems that the Agile methodologies are an approach to
impossible to apply on the day - to - day more dynamic
perfection. But this is not the reality, some practitioners claim
environment [9]. The industry and the technology move too
that the studies investigate XP almost exclusively and that
fast, requirements “change at rates that swamp traditional
there is an increasing need for bigger variety (Scrum, Lean,
methods” [42]. In order to satisfy the necessities of this new
etc.) and better research to determine the validity of these
environment, a group of methodologies that would address the
methodologies [63][64]. For others, the fact that “there is a
challenge of an unpredictable world by relying on “people and
lack of literature describing projects where Agile failed to
their creativity rather than on processes” [17][43][44] was
produce good results” [40] attracts their attention. In order to
created, the alternative to heavyweight processes: Agile
try to make an approach to the reality, some studies state that
methodologies [41].
several research studies have been published on Agile
On February 11-13, 2001, in Utah, USA, seventeen
adoption by large enterprises, but the adoption of Agile in
representatives from Extreme Programming, SCRUM,
regulated environments has not been yet addressed [65] and
Dynamic System Development (DSDM), Adaptive Software
therefore Agile methods and regulated environments are often
Development (ASD), Crystal Methodologies, Feature-Driven
seen as incompatible [63].
 8

It has usually been said that Agile processes are more small and larger organizations [77]. Furthermore, Cater and
suitable for small and low risk projects [40][66] but the issue Steel [78] in their study proved that the software process
of best practices within SMEs has always been a challenge improvement program was effective in improving the process
[66]. Thus, many practitioners claim that adopting Agile capability of many of the SMEs.
methodologies has a high cost of implementing new ideas Today, software industry is one of the most rapidly growing
[37][67][68] and still many time tools and techniques are sectors and this situation stimulates especially the constant
applied in a wrong way [69]. creation of small companies, which play an important role in
the economy [73]. In the last few years, a great number of
2) SPI maturity models organizations have been interested in the SPI [8][79].
Software Process Improvement is “a systemic procedure for
improving the performance of an existing process system by 3) Combination of Agile methodologies and SPI maturity
changing or updating the process” [17, p.1][70]. models
Unfortunately, there is no specific SPI model for these firms Nowadays software industry represents an important
as all the current SPI models were developed for large firms, economical activity in both developed and underdeveloped
and these improvement models are difficult and in many cases countries [80]. This is the reason why the quality aspect in
not suitable to be used by small software development firms, software development products represents one of the most
due to the fact that they are too complicated and expensive to important activities that has been applied, in order to ensure
be implemented [8]. However, some researchers indicated that the software product quality for some years now [80]. Besides,
SPI could be used as a competitive advancement strategy for organizations implement these activities to increase the quality
both small and large organizations [17][71]. and capability of its processes, products and services [81]. In
Through the SLR that the authors conducted, the most this context, the measurement and analysis process in quality
common SPI maturity models are the following: models and standards such as CMMI Dev 1.2 [82] and
• CMM, ISO/IEC 15504 [83] are highly adopted by the software
• CMMI, industry to provide their software products and services [84].
• ISO / IEC 15504 or else known as SPICE, However, in smaller industries such as the SMEs, the
• PRINCE2, difficulty in adopting them increases, due to the wide of this
• OPM3, models and standards. As a result, SMEs have a greater
• P3M3. interest in adopting agile methodologies, which guarantee
In the following subsection, the results of applying them to deliver software according to the capability [84].
Software Process Improvement maturity models on SMEs are Some possible benefits of a combination between the Agile
discussed. methodologies and the SPI maturity models that could emerge
for a SME, would be the improvement in the quality of the
a) SPI maturity models on SMEs software product, more efficient project management methods,
clear process of the software development and reduce the
The purpose of the several maturity models for software development cost [36][84][85].
process improvement such as the CMM, the CMMI, the Although research has been done regarding the Agile
SPICE, and so forth, is to provide quality patterns and methodologies and the SPI maturity models, little is known
management frameworks that an enterprise could implement about their relationship [86]. It is possible to support that the
to improve its software development process [8]. issues on the “marriage” between agile methods and SPI
Unfortunately, it has been observed that the successful standards have not been investigated in sufficient depth and
implementation of such models is generally not possible breadth [86].
within the context of Small and Medium – sized software Thus, continuous improvement of organizational software
organizations, as they are not capable of bearing the cost of processes is important in enhancing the capabilities of an
implementing these software process improvement programs organization. The traditional approaches for organizational
[17][72][73]. The proper implementation of software SPI, however, need to be altered to enable the co-existence of
engineering techniques is a difficult task for SMEs, since they agile projects and organizational SPI [86]. Currently, there
often operate on limited resources and with strict time seems to be lack of empirical evidence on how the Agile
constraints [73]. Small companies generally need external approaches for SPI integrate to the organizational SPI
assistance in planning and implementing process improvement activities. The existing methods for iterative adaptation and
to keep abreast of state-of-the-art Software Engineering improvement of Agile project teams do not seem to address
research and practice [74]. the organizational learning aspects [86].
Many SMEs have recognized that the need to improve and Through the SLR, the most common combinations of SPI
evaluate their software product alone seems insufficient, since maturity models and Agile methodologies that the authors
it is known that product’s quality is largely dependent on the came up are the following:
process that is used to create it [75]. Many researchers support
that SMEs are characterized by lack of resources, lack of • CMMI and XP,
development and supporting environment, lack of budget and • CMM and XP,
dependency on large organizations [76]. • PRINCE2 and XP,
Dyba et al. [77] and [17] indicated that SPI maturity models • CMMI and Scrum,
can be used as a competitive advancement strategy for both
 9

• CMM and Scrum, However, there are some KPA’s that cannot be addressed
by XP (such as, Organizational Process Performance or
• CMMI and Lean,
Quantitative Project Management) [17][39], so the XP
• CMMI and Six Sigma, methodology must be extended [17].
• PRINCE2 and DSDM.
In the next subsection, the combinations presented above b) CMM and XP
are analyzed, and as well as their adoption on the SMEs is also Studies proved that CMM could be applicable in SMEs and
discussed. Specifically, the authors begin by presenting a benefits improvements in cost, development time, quality and
small overview of the combinations, then they proceed in the customer satisfaction [88][89]. XP pays attention in customer
discussion of their benefits and drawbacks and finally, they focus and their satisfaction. Prefers teamwork and
analyze if these models can be adopted by SMEs. decentralized approach, where all the stakeholders have equal
rank. The team focuses on the problems, and move towards
a) CMMI and XP the solution with mutual understanding in an efficient and
Some people think that XP and CMMI are like oil and water effective manner [90].
[39]. XP, as many of the Agile methodologies needs a It could be easily observed that the features of Agile are
framework in order to improve the software processes embedded in CMM. Research has shown that the combination
[17][39]. Still, the main reason for these two methodologies to of these two methodologies could reduce the cost of training
be combined is the facilities that XP gives for learning, and documentation that enterprises need. In this way, SMEs
applying and adapting it. In addition XP already fulfills the could be able to save valuable resources [90].
CMMI level 2 [17]. In XP the major phases are planning, managing, designing,
To combine the methodologies, two different coding and testing. CMM is consisted of five different levels –
methodologies have been followed: initial, repeatable, defined, managed and optimizing.
• Combine CMMI’s Key Process Activities (KPA) However, some key process activities are common – the
combined with each XP principles to see if the features of Agile are embedded in CMM – for these two
methods are combinable [39][87]. The steps to be models [90]. These activities are: defect prevention,
followed, in order to apply this combination are listed organization process focus, software product engineering,
below: intergroup coordination, software project planning, software
o Define the objective of the CMMI level; quality assurance, and software configuration management.
define which is the level that the enterprise Specifically, an enterprise, in order to apply this
wants to reach. combination has to apply the XP features in the different
o Analyze which are the different problems CMMI levels [90]. In the CMMI level 5 – Optimizing, the
when combining the methodologies. enterprise has to apply the Continuous integration along with
o Check what is the actual state of the the Defect Prevention. In the CMMI level 3 – Defined, the XP
enterprise, both in CMMI and XP. features that have to be applied are team focus along with the
o Finally, start applying the combination organization process focus, simple design, coding standard
solving the conflicts analyzed before, until and rested have to be applied along with the software product
the previous state is reached. engineering key process activity. Moreover, the feature pair
• In order to fulfill as much as possible the CMMI programming has to be applied along with the intergroup
specification, extends the XP method to fit all the coordination of the CMMI. Finally, in the CMMI level 2 –
CMMI KPA’s [17]. In addition, an enterprise has to Repeatable, the XP features small version and pair
follow the steps described below, in order to adopt programming have to be applied with the CMMI key process
this combination. activities software project planning and software quality
o Define the objective of the CMMI level; assurance accordingly.
define which is the level that the enterprise What is more, the good points from these two
wants to reach. methodologies that could be used by SMEs are some of the
o Analyze which are the different problems following [90]:
when combining the methodologies. • Improvements in the development cost and
o Check what is the actual state of the development time, customer satisfaction, increase
enterprise, both in CMMI and XP. in the quality of the software product, and reduce
o Finally, apply the combination by making of the bureaucracy.
the needed changes and extensions on the • Some other benefits that have been noticed are
XP methodology in order to fully fulfill the innovative and productive products.
desired CMMI level on its whole. • Better bonding on the teamwork and pair
Combining the two models provides developers with a programming. Furthermore, CMM claims to be a
comprehensive spectrum of tools and options [17], besides it flexible model that can be tailored and adopted to
were shown that workshops and observation were productive many lifecycles [91][92].
ways for collecting assessment data from the Agile projects On the other hand, drawbacks have been noticed for this
[87]. Finally, by adding CMMI to XP there was a significantly combination, as well.
decrease of risk failures [39]. • CMM seems to be expensive, as it requires training
 10

and skilled personnel. • PRINCE2 is a project management method and

• It increases the documentation. supports the quality of the product; on the other
• Furthermore, XP is not suitable for large projects hand, XP does not measure or plan the quality
and is more code centric rather than project centric. aspect of the software development. In order to
Despite the drawbacks and other possible challenges, the overcome this, training is required for the
adaption of these practices will reduce the cost of training and development teams [38].
no documentation demanded will exist at early stages of Despite the drawbacks, agility and discipline are not
software development. In this way, Small and Medium – sized mutually exclusive. Rather, they can be complementary.
firms will save more than the expenses. These practices make Agility can contribute to creativeness and improve customer
them to reserve capital and to make more profit [90]. relationship, and discipline will keep the project on track and
within budget, time, and quality constraints. Thus, there is no
c) PRINCE2 and XP wrong answer for which management method to use in XP.
PRINCE2 is a very popular management method known for PRINCE2 can be a complementary method, however it is
its rigidness, strictness and document-centric nature. preferred in unstructured environments [38].
PRINCE2 has been a very useful method in planning and
tracking software process. On the other hand, XP as an Agile d) CMMI and Scrum
method, suffers from lack of disciplined planning [38]. The Through the SLR, the authors found that the CMMI
main objective of this combination is to extract the best out of maturity model and the Agile methodology Scrum can be
XP and PRINCE2. This will lead to a new method that will compatible. CMMI focuses at a high level of abstraction, for
take advantage of the main XP’s principles: flexibility and example on what projects do, and not on what development
adaptability, and of PRINCE2’s main value: control [38]. methodology was used. Instead, Scrum focuses on how
The steps that an enterprise has to follow in order to apply projects develop software products. Therefore, Scrum and
this combination are described bellow [38]. This combination CMMI can co – exist [94][95][96]. Scrum and CMMI together
emphasizes on simple design, because it is easier to schedule, bring a more powerful combination of adaptability and
the budget and to help the communication between the predictability than either one alone, and suggest how
development team and the customers. Moreover, the enterprise enterprises can adopt them [95]. In addition, Scrum provides
should also have to apply an analysis phase, as it will be software development the “how – to”, that is missing from
beneficiary in making more realistic and accurate designs. CMMI. CMMI provides the systems engineering practices that
What is more, the enterprise should apply the XP features, help Scrum on large projects [94]. Furthermore, CMMI
such as continuous integration and testing, in order to reduce provides also the process management and supports practices
the risk probability. In addition, PRINCE2 requires very that could help deploying, sustaining and continuously
controlled procedures for testing and integration. Thus, it is improving the deployment of Scrum in Small and Medium
necessary that all the procedures be properly documented. The Enterprises [94].
enterprises should pay particular attention in the project Besides, this combination can substantially improve the
assurance and the management. These two features should dismal software project statistics, experienced by many
have grater focus on the quality plan in the beginning of the companies [97]. In some cases, it has even also been used to
project and then to verify the production. migrate development staff to Agile development methods
Finally, another major issue is the standardization. The [87].
project managers should concentrate on standard coding Mapping the Scrum practices into CMMI process areas
structure and naming conventions, as in an opposite case it is have been the main way to combine these two methodologies.
very difficult to control the quality. In order to make this mapping effective, few adaptations on
The benefits that could emerge from this combination are Scrum practices have been made. These changes are mainly
described bellow: related to the Agile risk management, issues management and
• PRINCE2 heavily depends on paper work – almost estimates methods [94][98].
every step of PRINCE2 is documented and filed. The main ideas on how to apply this combination are
On the contrary, Agile methodologies and described bellow [94][98]:
especially XP, rely on oral communications rather • CMMI is focusing on the enterprise. It is more
than documents [54][93]. beneficial when it is implemented in the organization
• What is more, in XP there is no hierarchy, while level, so that all the processes of the development are
PRINCE2 depends on a 4 – level hierarchical addressed by the improvement effort. On the other
structure. hand, Scrum does not refer to the level of the
• PRINCE2 is considered to be as less flexible as organization.
any Agile methodology can ever tolerate, due to • Scrum is not able to cover all the project management
the fact that it requires a control method for every process areas. However, it can be tailored to be
step in the lifecycle of the software project. Thus, compliant with the CMMI. Furthermore, the CMMI’s
XP requires the maximum possible flexibility in plan driven processes could be improved, by using
adopting the changes [38]. Scrum practices.
Nevertheless, this combination presents some drawbacks. • As far as the risk management is concerned, Scrum is
• PRINCE2 requires heavy bureaucracy. able to identify the potential risks, but it does not
 11

have any practices to identify the source, the the development process.
parameters and to analyze and control the risk The benefits that could emerge from the combination of
management effort. Thus, is does not provide any CMM and Scrum are some of the following [99]:
strategies to mitigate the risks. On the other hand, • The assessment teams can identify the possible
CMMI provides various strategies in order to strengths and weaknesses in the organization.
confront potential risks. Therefore, particular • The evaluation teams can identify the risks such as
attention should be paid on CMMI for the risk deadlines, quality of the product, contracts, and so
management. forth and provide solutions to prevent them.
• Finally, Scrum does not have any specific practices to • Managers and staff can understand the necessary
address the areas of configuration management and activities to plan and implement software process
quality assurance. CMMI however, provides improvement for their organization.
mechanisms to support them. Specifically, it • Cost reduction and cost accuracy in the software
establishes and maintains the integrity of work, by development process.
using configuration control, identification and status. • Increase in the product quality and the productivity.
In addition, in order to assure the product quality, Although the benefits of this combination were analyzed
CMMI provides specific practices to evaluate the before, however there are some drawbacks that should be
software development, the products and the services. taken into consideration. These drawbacks are discussed
The benefits the this combination is able to provide are: below [99]:
• The main benefit is that the best things of the two • CMM does not always specify a particular way of
methodologies are adapted on the methodology, achieving the improvement goals, just because if one
improvements such as better risk, issues and organization follows the rules, set by the CMM, it
estimation assessment due to the CMMI principles does not guarantee that it will be successful, as there
[94][95]. are other factors involved.
• Adopting the CMMI, the combination also gains • CMM says what you need and not how to do it. In
better-documented requirements, which leads to an addition CMM
revers to processes and not to
improvement on the product quality [87][97]. people.
• On the other hand, by applying Scrum, the • With this combination, it is difficult for the project
communication inside the team and with the
manager to
structure, organize and plan a project
customer is improved, by being reflected on the
that lacks a clear definition.
enhancement of the performance [87][97].
The good news is that there are no specific drawbacks for • Frequent changes, frequent product delivery and
this methodology. As happens in all the combinations the uncertainty regarding the precise nature of the
major drawbacks are the time that has to be invested in order finished product make for a
rather intense project
to be able to get the best things from the methodology. life cycle for everyone involved.
Concluding, projects that combine Agile methodologies • Training is required, so that the members of the
with CMMI are more successful in producing higher quality enterprise can learn how to use the CMM and the
software, which meets customers’ needs at a faster pace [95]. Scrum. In an opposite case, if the members are not
well equipped or committed, the project can
even
e) CMM and Scrum fail.
CMM’s purpose is to assure the quality of the software Despite the fact that the drawbacks of this combination are
project. Furthermore, it minimizes the risk, as it is responsible enough, the benefits that could emerge for an enterprise are
to keep track of the development process of the project, and more. First of all, this combination can be used in a Small and
the development has to stick on the plans. Instead, Scrum is Medium – sized organization, with very small adjustments,
responsible to encourage the bold commitments and to provide such as creating smaller artifacts, and making the processes
benefits, such as establishing good communication between that the CMM demands simpler [101]. What is more,
the software company and the clients – commit and deliver. improvements in the quality of the software product and in the
The most important selection criterion for this combination development cost have been noticed. Finally, proper usage of
is the willingness of the consultants to interpret the CMM the development time has been performed [99].
requirements from an Agile point of view. The freedom in this
interpretation exists, since this combination refers to what f) CMMI and Lean
enterprises should do and not how they should do it. Through Both approaches – CMMI and Lean – motivate the thinking
this combination, it is ensured the quality of the project, the in “perfect lean processes” and allow the use of a common
benefits of the communication and the maintaining of the terminology. Through the combination of these two methods,
sustainable pace of the development that the Agile the authors came up with the following results [100][101]:
methodologies can provide [99]. • LEAN allows seeing the “waste”.
What is more, it is advisable for an enterprise in order to • CMMI has built in mechanisms to avoid the “waste”.
adopt this combination, firstly to apply the Scrum • CMMI forms an enhanced toolbox to implement
methodology to resolve in a quick way the different issues. LEAN thinking
in development / service /
Then they could apply the CMM to benchmark and measure acquisition environments.
 12

• CMMI provides a clear roadmap for process improvement or the design of processes that will serve the
orientation both on
project and organizational level. organizational mission and meet the model requirements.
• LEAN is supported by CMMI via the concept of
• Use Six Sigma as the tactical engine for high
institutionalization and organizational learning. capability and high maturity.
• Both methodologies require commitment and pro- As far as the process definition is concerned, there is natural
active leadership on all
management hierarchies. cooperation between the high maturity process areas and the
Six Sigma’s framework. As such, the tactics of Six Sigma can
• If done right, you are never done implementing
be used to directly enrich the defined processes that address
either.
the high maturity process areas.
Both the authors tried to find more information regarding • Apply Six Sigma to improve or optimize an
how to proceed to the combination, what would be the organization’s improvement strategy and processes.
benefits, the drawbacks, potential challenges in the adoption Six Sigma could be used in making decisions about the
and the impact that this combination can present in an adoption of improvement initiatives and in the management
enterprise. However, the literature that exists for this and overhead, associated with the adoption. In addition, using
combination is very limited. They were able to identify only 4 CMMI for guidance and possibly as governance for specific
papers, but the information was insufficient. In addition, they improvements, the organization could then employ Six Sigma
also tried the Google search engine, in order to check if there for each improvement effort and push itself towards “control”
are examples of this combination in white papers, in and “optimization” one project at a time.
presentations or in real enterprises.
• Integrate CMMI, Six Sigma, and all other
From the entire search that has been performed in the 4 improvement initiatives to provide a standard for the
databases, in Google scholar, and finally in the Google search execution of every project throughout its life cycle.
engine, they were not able to find the appropriate information This is an approach for setting an organization’s strategy. It
for this combination. All the studies refer to the CMMI and is a longer term and more visionary. It supports the idea that
Six Sigma, or the combination of Lean and Six Sigma an organization should take control of its destiny and manages
[47][102][103], since these two methodologies present many its initiatives rather than be managed by them. Particularly,
similarities. regardless of the label, the idea remains the same: the
organization establishes a set of standard processes that
g) CMMI and Six Sigma incorporates all the features of the initiatives of choice. This
CMMI is used to create an organizational process idea assumes that conscious decisions have to be made at the
infrastructure by addressing particular domains, such as organizational level to adopt these initiatives. Also it is
software and systems engineering [104][105]. Six Sigma is a assumed that the processes are adaptable with time, and robust
top-down initiative that cuts across the entire enterprise, to the realities of the organization.
including areas such as engineering, sales, marketing, and As far as the benefits are concerned, they are described in
research. Six Sigma is intended to be implemented with a the following bullets.
focus on problems and opportunities, often with narrow • CMMI and Six Sigma together, provide a strong
scopes, that will yield significant business benefits [104][105]. foundation for performance – driven improvement.
It focuses on the performance of processes and practices as • Six Sigma’s focus can help to mitigate the risks of
implemented rather than checking for compliance against a pursuing improvements. In addition, it also provides
definition or model. While these two improvement initiatives improvement frameworks and analytical methods that
are different by design, they are interdependent in their use. In enable the achievement of the CMMI objectives
practice, a back and forth focus is often effective [105][106]. [106].
For instance, Six Sigma could be used to discover the • Six Sigma gives the organization a snapshot of the
processes’ needs to be more repeatable, CMMI could be used enterprise’s current performance, which can be used
to institute processes based on community best practice, and as a roadmap towards future performance and
then Six Sigma could be used to optimize those processes improvement.
[105]. • On the other hand, CMMI’s process infrastructure
CMMI offers institutionalization features that are lacking in offers a foundation for Six Sigma’s efforts.
Six Sigma [107]. Six Sigma reinforces mission focus, and its Furthermore, it helps an enterprise’s engineering
enterprise deployment strategy fosters culture change that is processes relate to its business processes [106][109].
supportive of CMMI implementation [101]. Nevertheless, there are some drawbacks that have to be
There are four different strategies that could be used to taken into consideration.
combine CMMI and Six Sigma. These strategies are described • Both of these models present a tendency to the
below [104][105][108]: minimum – avoid the hard stuff.
• Implement CMMI process areas as Six Sigma • They are designed for larger organizations and
projects. modifications have to be made, so that SMEs can
With this strategy, the objective of the Six Sigma use them [101].
development team is to implement a process area or a group of Determining what is appropriate requires an understanding
process areas. Their task is to define the problem or of the selected initiatives and their differences, synergies, and
opportunity and to use the available data to inform the connections. CMMI and Six Sigma cannot subsume one
 13

another, because they are different types of models. Their joint • Prioritization being clearly defined, and performed
deployment is synergistic. The potential value that is added is early in the
project.
the accelerated achievement of performance goals, accelerated • Quick visibility of the development process and
achievement of CMMI adoption, stronger foundational handling of
potential problems.
measurement and analysis skills to enable better quantification
• The use of both models – PRINCE2 and DSDM is
of results, and all of the corresponding culture change that
for free.
goes along with these improvements [110].
• On-cost and on-time delivery of the software
projects.
h) PRINCE2 and DSDM
• Time boxing to keep the project on track. This
The combination of DSDM with PRINCE2 seems that the simplifies the use of tolerance. The only tolerance
two methodologies are complementary. PRINCE2 can provide used extensively is scope, and this is flexed under the
control and DSDM can provide agility. This combination control of the empowered business representatives.
could be found in concepts like product-based planning, This gives the business what they often need the most
involved partnership of users and developers, and strong – on time and on budget delivery of a product which
emphasis on underlying business case [38]. meets the business objective;
The combination of PRINCE2 and DSDM seems to be a • Delivery of business products during the project, not
safe approach, since these two models have many things in just at the end;
common [38][111].
• Welcomes changing requirements, even late in the
The DSDM with the PRINCE2 Task Group [111] see the
project, using
prioritization and time boxing to
two methodologies as complementary. PRINCE2 can provide
control this within time and budget, to harnesses
control and DSDM can provide agility. Moreover the paper
change for the customer's competitive advantage.
[111] claims that DSDM developers had PRINCE2 in mind.
This could be found in concepts like product-based planning, • Small teams with empowered user representatives as
involved partnership of users and developers, and strong fully resourced and continuous team members.
emphasis on underlying business case. • Facilitated workshops and face-to-face
PRINCE2 is a project management method, intended for all communication, minimizing documentation wherever
types of project, whereas DSDM is a rapid application possible.
development method. For an organization using PRINCE2 for Although the benefits that could come up through such a
IT, ensures commonality between DSDM and other types of combination are enough, however, there are some drawbacks,
projects. such as [38]:
An enterprise in order to apply this combination has to • There is little information about this combination on
follow a series of steps [111]: the industry.
• In the initial phase of the project development, the • Bureaucracy is needed, although DSDM as an Agile
early stages of the PRINCE2 overlap the stages of the technique
uses workshops, and face-to-face
DSDM. In addition, both methodologies have a major communication.
control point in the end of the initiation. In this point, In a world where speed of delivery is often more important
a decision to proceed must be confirmed, and the than having 100% of the functionality and where projects have
option of abandoning the project should be to deliver within the time and budget constraints, to take
considered. advantage of market opportunity or to comply with
• In the running phase of the development, PRINCE2 complicated requirements, DSDM delivers [113].
does not require any management stages to match the Additionally, in an environment where many organizations
technical ones. Furthermore, a management stage are constrained to demonstrate that they are controlling their
could be consisted of a number of DSDM time boxes. projects effectively and that they are giving the best value for
The number of the required stages should be money, PRINCE2 performs [113].
determined by the ratio of the needed management Since both of these needs often run concurrently, the use of
control towards the potential overhead. PRINCE2 for its control and DSDM for its agility is a
• In the end of the project, the PRINCE2 close down powerful combination. What is more, their combination
overlaps with the implementation phase of the produces a result, where the whole is greater than the sum of
DSDM. In addition, the project review is done in the constituent parts [111][113].
every increment of the DSDM and is related to the
End Stage Assessment of PRINCE2, which is the last i) Agile methodologies and SPI maturity models
procedure on the project. on SMEs
Through the combination of PRINCE2 and DSDM, the In the previous section the different parts in the combination
benefits that could emerge are some of the following [112]: of the Agile methodologies and the SPI maturity models were
• Good communication between the project team and analyzed. The authors tried to find information regarding these
other stakeholders. combinations for SMEs, however the results they found were
• Mechanisms to handle with deviations to the project very limited. Although Small and Medium – sized firms
plan. represent a high portion of the enterprises all over the world,
• Flexible decision points. most of the SPI maturity models are designed for large or very
 14

large enterprises [17]. To summarize, the results show that the SPI standards could
The continuous improvement of the software processes is fit with Agile methods, and that it is better if organizations can
important in enhancing the capabilities of an organization. The embrace both, since they benefit each other (by for example
condition for change can be described properly in the establishing better communication in the enterprise, reduce the
following equation [114]: bureaucracy and focus on the communication, avoid the large
projects phases and create smaller artifacts) and bring more
If D*V*F>R customer satisfaction, as well as reducing waste and creating
Then “Change will occur” higher software quality and higher value creation.
Furthermore, although larger organizations and Small and
Where
Medium sized – firms present significant differences, the
D: Dissatisfaction with status quo. authors presented that the combinations with small
V: Vision of a future state. adjustments [8][116] such as reduce the documentation and
F: First steps towards the vision. create smaller artifacts, could be used in SMEs.
In the next section, the structure and the results of the
R: Resistance to change. survey are analyzed.
If the organizations follow this equation, they can improve
their software engineering practices. However, the traditional IV. SURVEY
approaches for the SPI need to be altered, so that the co-
existence of the Agile methodologies and the SPI could be A. Survey study design
enabled [86]. This section aims to answer RQ2: “Under which
What is more, SMEs suffer from the lack of research studies situations and how could these methodologies be applied?
to solve the problem of improving their software development What are the benefits and drawbacks that each
processes [115]. Therefore, from recent studies [17][38][84] methodology could provide? and RQ3: “Are these
the authors found out that currently organizations and methodologies really applied in SMEs?” through a survey.
especially SMEs are increasingly using Agile methodologies – The survey was consisted of two parts; questionnaire and
most common methodologies are XP, Scrum, and DSDM – interviews. Respondents were given the questionnaire in the
and SPI maturity models – most common maturity models are form of a link to the website with the online version [6]. After
CMM, CMMI, and PRINCE2 – in their software projects. the questionnaire responses, the authors performed interviews
However, a large scale and systematic adoption of both Agile either face to face or through Skype. In total, 49 respondents
methodologies and SPI maturity models, is quite difficult, participated in the survey.
since they are mainly focused on project level activities [86].
B. Sample
j) Conclusion The intended audience of the survey was practitioners who
In the Systematic Literature Review the authors tried to are working with Agile methodologies and Software Process
identify the most common Agile methodologies, the most Improvement maturity models. The authors were based on
common SPI maturity models and especially the most their personal contacts and through the Internet (e.g. LinkedIn)
common combinations regarding Agile methodologies and in order to find a suitable sample, including experienced
SPI maturity models that could be applied in SMEs. They practitioners in the field of Software Engineering. They
identified 1508 studies from the e-databases, from which 71 conducted the survey from June 2013 until October 2013.
were relevant for the topic. 49 practitioners answered the questionnaire and from them
From the research that was performed, the authors found 26 were project managers, 20 were software engineers and 3
that the most common Agile methodologies are the Scrum, the were SMEs’ owners. As far as the interviews are concerned,
XP and the DSDM. Additionally, the most common SPI 13 practitioners participated; 10 were project managers and 3
maturity models are the CMM, the CMMI, the ISO / IEC
were software engineers. All of them had more than 10 years
15504 and the PRINCE2. Finally, the most common
experience in the fields of project management and software
combinations of Agile methodologies and SPI maturity
models are the CMMI and XP, the CMMI and Six Sigma, the engineering.
CMMI and Scrum and PRINCE2 and DSDM. What is more, the survey was conducted in four European
What is more, there are various benefits that could emerge countries – Greece, Spain, France and the UK. It could be
from these combinations. All of them plan for the quality claimed that the results of the survey could be representative,
increase, for the minimization of the risk, for the on-cost and because not only the authors gathered results from these
on-time development, for better communication between different countries, but also they included participants with
managers, development team and customers, and for clear different backgrounds and positions in various enterprises.
visibility in the software development. Moreover, these Finally, the majority of the participants (almost 90%) work
models are frameworks, and they provide instructions for the in Small and Medium – sized firms, and more than half of
management and the development. In addition, they provide them work in enterprises that exist for more than 10 years.
mechanisms, such as small artifacts, documentation, control The questions of the questionnaire are presented in
processes and others, in order to avoid possible deviations Appendix C.
from the project plans. An analysis of the questionnaire and interview results is
 15

presented in the following subsections.

C. Questionnaire Results
Question 4: The fourth question asked about the most
common Agile methodologies.

Figure IV. 1 Most common Agile methodologies Figure IV. 3 Results of applying Agile methodologies

As presented in Fig. IV.1, the most common Agile In the picture presented above, the results of applying the
methodologies are the Scrum, the XP and the Adaptive most Agile methodologies are analyzed. They present
Software Development. flexibility and better visibility during the software
Question 5: This question refers to the time that the development process, they adopt easily the changes, and
participants have used the Agile methodologies. finally they enhance the communication between the
customers or other stakeholder and the enterprise.
Question 7: This question asked the practitioners about
how familiar they are with the most common SPI maturity
models. In Fig IV.4, the reader can notice that for the
participants the most common SPI maturity models are the
CMMI, the CMM and the ISO / IEC 15504.

Figure IV. 2. Time of applying the most common Agile methodologies

As seen in the figure presented above, the majority of the

participants have never used the Crystal methodologies, the Figure IV. 4. Most common SPI maturity models
Dynamic Systems Development Method and the Feature
Driven Development. Instead, they have used the XP for more Question 8: This question refers to the time that the
than 3 years, the Scrum for more than 5 years and the participants have used the most common SPI maturity models.
Adaptive Software Development for more than 5 years as
well. The reader can easily observe that the most common
Agile methodology to the participants is the Scrum model.
Question 6: This question refers to the results of applying
Agile methodologies.
 16

Figure IV. 7. Most common combinations of Agile methodologies and SPI

Figure IV. 5 Time of applying the most common SPI maturity models maturity models

As seen in Fig. IV.5, almost half of the participants have In Fig. IV. 7, the reader could notice that the most common
never used any of the SPI maturity models. However, around combination according to the participants is the CMMI and
10 participants have used the ISO / IEC 15504, the PRINCE2 Scrum. The combinations that follow are the CMM and
and the CMMI from months to 3 years, while 10 have used the Scrum, the CMMI and XP, the CMMI and Six Sigma and the
CMMI for more than 3 years. As far as the CMM is CMM and XP.
concerned, 18 participants have used is however, for less than Question 11: This question refers to the time that the
3 years time. participants have used the combination of Agile
Special attention has to be paid to the fact that none of the methodologies and SPI maturity models.
participants have ever used the OPM3 and the P3M3. In the following picture Fig IV. 8, it can be easily observed
Question 9: This question refers to the possible results that that the most common combinations are the CMM and Scrum
the SPI maturity models could present. In the following figure, and the CMMI and Scrum. Special attention has to be paid, as
it can be noticed that the participants claimed that the SPI the majority of the survey participants have never used any of
maturity models offer better control and visibility during the the most common combinations.
development process. Additionally, they enhance the quality Nevertheless, around 8 participants have used the
improvement of the software product and the development is combinations of CMMI and Six Sigma, CMM and Scrum,
performed within the time constraints. CMM and XP and CMMI and XP for time less than 3 years,
while 13 have used the CMMI and Scrum from months to 3
years.
Additionally, around 5 participants have used the
combinations of CMMI and Six Sigma, CMM and Scrum and
CMMI and Scrum for time less than 5 years.

Figure IV. 6. Results of the SPI maturity models

Question 10: This question asked the practitioners about

the most common combinations of Agile methodologies and
SPI maturity models.

Figure IV. 8. Time of applying the combination of Agile methodologies and

SPI maturity models
 17

Question 12: This question refers to the possible results D. Interviews

that the combinations of Agile methodologies and SPI The type of the interviews that were conducted was semi-
maturity models could emerge. As presented in Fig. IV.9, the structured, since the authors had already formulated the
participants claimed that the combinations enhance the questions in advance. However, they wanted to offer freedom
communication between the customers, managers and the to the participants to express their ideas and be more sociable.
development team; they increase the quality of the software What is more, the duration of each interview was
product, the development is performed within the time and approximately 30 minutes. Nevertheless, depending to their
cost constraints and there is better visibility, management and free time and the answers they were providing the authors, this
control of the development process. time limit could be adjusted. During the time of the
interviews, the authors were keeping notes, in order not to
miss the key parts of each response. They did not want to
record the interviews, as the interviewees might not feel free
to express themselves and provide wrong responses. After the
interviews, the authors were creating a small document trying
to answer all the questions asked, with details.
As far as the Agile methodologies are concerned, the
authors found out that the participants are familiar with the
most common Agile methodologies such as the Scrum, the
XP, the Adaptive Software Development, the Feature Driven
development and the Dynamic System Development
Methodology. They have used the Scrum, the XP and the ASD
for time between 3 and 5 years in various projects. In addition,
they have used all the other methodologies for at least one
time, however for less than 3 years.
To continue with the main Software Process Improvement
maturity models, the interviewees know the CMM, the CMMI,
the ISO / IEC 15504 and the PRINCE2.
Besides the Agile methodologies, the practitioners have
used these maturity models mentioned above, in various
Figure IV. 9. Results of applying the combinations of Agile methodologies
projects for time less than three years; only a few participants
and SPI maturity models have used the CMMI, the SPICE and the PRINCE2 for more
than 3 years. However, the percentage of usage of the P3M3
Questions 13 and 14: These questions asked the and the OPM3 tends to be zero.
practitioners if they have any other suggestions or proposal for As far as the combination of the Agile methodologies and
improving the software development and if they have every the SPI maturity models is concerned, the answers the authors
used any other methodologies that the authors do not mention. received are significant lower. Only a small portion of the
The answers that they provided are the following: interviewees are familiar with the main combinations such as
• Firstly decide the methodology you are going to use, the CMM and XP, CMMI and XP, the CMM and Scrum, the
and the start developing the code. CMMI and Scrum, the CMMI and Six Sigma, the PRINCE2
• Establish good communication between the and DSDM and the PRINCE2 and XP.
managers, the development team and the customers. According to the practitioners, the benefits that have been
In addition, the requirements of the product should be observed through the usage of these combinations is the
clear to all the involved parties. quality increase and the on – cost and on – time development.
• Focus early on the development process, and then In addition, there is better communication between the
provide tight control of the process. customers, the enterprise and the development team and
• There is not only a correct methodology, since there therefore, the customer satisfaction is increased. Finally, there
are too many methods. Different combinations could is clear visibility and better management of the development
bring different results. process.
• Agile is considered to be the best practice now a It is worth to mention that the surveyed mentioned that for
days, which makes the software development process most of the combinations the information that exists in
fast, flexible regarding the change and on time. While literature and in real examples on the industry is very limited.
one thing that is going down is quality, and quality What is more, the combinations are again addressed for larger
can be improved by using CMMI or ISO standards, enterprises and as a result the project managers had to make
to control the quality of software in parallel. adjustments as mentioned before, such as creating smaller
• Provide training and motivation for learning. Change artifacts and try to make the processes that the combinations
of responsibilities and roles, in order to help the demand simpler. Furthermore, training is required for the
members of the team to have an overall view for the development team, the license of the SPI maturity models is
different parts of the product. not always for free and the enterprise had to change its culture.
Concluding, the interviewees mentioned that in order for an
 18

enterprise to be successful there should be established good period of time, as due to the evolution in the field of software
communication between the managers and the development engineering, new models could be created.
team. Moreover, they have noticed from their experience that Besides the internal validity, external validity was also
firstly the have to decide which methodology or combination used. It refers to what extend the extent it is possible to
they are going to use and then start developing the code. They generalize the findings, and to what extent the findings are of
sum up that there is not a right or wrong methodology. interest to other people outside the investigated case [117]. For
Instead, it is advisable for an enterprise to follow the this thesis, the researchers performed an SLR and a survey,
methodology or the combination that they are more familiar including 71 articles and 46 participants from four European
with, in order to achieve the maximum results. countries, Greece, Spain, France and the UK, as mentioned
before. Furthermore, the majority of the participants are
E. Conclusion project managers that work in Small and Medium – sized
Agile methodologies such as the Scrum, the XP, the firms and they have more than 10 years of experience in the
Adaptive Software Development and the Feature Driven field of Software Engineering.
Development are very familiar to the participants. Besides the The last type of validity that was used is the conclusion
Agile methodologies, the majority of the participants are validity. It focuses on how sure we can be that the treatment
familiar with the main SPI methodologies, such as the CMM, the authors used in an experiment is actually related to the
the CMMI, the SPICE and the PRINCE2. However, only one actual outcome they observed. The researchers, before
third of the participants are familiar with the combinations of conducting the survey, they had already performed a
Agile and SPI. They mention that they know the majority of Systematic Literature Review regarding the same topic. The
the combinations; nevertheless, they have mostly used the results that came up from this survey were compared with the
combinations that include the CMM, the CMMI and the results from the survey in order to see if there is an actual
Scrum for more than three years. relationship between the literature and the “real” examples
What is more, the combinations provide a series of benefits from the industry field.
such as better communication between customers, managers Finally, it is worth to mention, that triangulation was
and clients, quality increase, better visibility and control of the achieved in different ways, both the researchers reviewed the
development process and finally, development of the project results of the Literature Review and the survey. Additionally,
within the time and budget constraints. Besides the benefits, both the researchers were working with the same material in
the drawbacks that could emerge have to be taken into parallel, in case they identified potential wrong answers or
consideration. Most of the SPI models are not for free and results. Concluding, as far as the survey is concerned, it was
their licenses are quite expensive. Finally, and skilled also seen as important that the majority of the participants
personnel is required as the processes that these combinations were familiar with the researchers.
demand can become very complex.
VI. CONCLUSION
V. THREATS TO VALIDITY The overall goal of the thesis was to understand how the
There are different ways to classify aspects of validity and combination of Agile methodologies and SPI maturity models
threats to validity in the literature. In this report we decided to could be applied in SMEs, what are the possible benefits and
follow four aspects of validity and specifically the construct, drawbacks that could emerge and if they are really applied in
the internal, the external and finally the conclusion validity enterprises, as presented in literature. The main aim of the
according to Runeson et al. [117]. In addition, combinations is that they try to extract the best parts of each
countermeasures against threats to validity were then taken. Agile methodology and SPI maturity model, in order to create
As far as the construct validity is concerned, it refers to a new methodology containing all these key concepts. What is
what extend the inferences actually represent the research more, each methodology has to be transformed, in order to
questions [117]. In order to confront with the construct cover the need of each enterprise.
validity, both the researchers identified together the keywords, To understand all these mentioned above, the authors
and formatted the search strings. Additionally, they designed created 3 research questions. In the following section, a short
together the questions for the questionnaire and the interviews. summary of how each question was answered is presented.
As each researcher performed different interviews, both of RQ1: “What Agile methodologies combined with Software
them performed rehearsals, so that they could interpret the Process Improvement maturity models crafted for Small and
interviews in the same way. Medium enterprises exist?”
To continue with the internal validity, it refers to the In order to provide answers to this research question, an
determination of cause- and- effect relationships [117]. To SRL has been performed. Through this study, the most
deal this type of validity, both the researchers obtained good common combinations that the authors came up are the
knowledge of the domain. They performed individual searches following:
in literature and as well as individual interviews, in order to • CMMI and XP,
avoid the bias in the results. What is more, especially in the • CMM and XP,
survey, the researchers provided the same information to all
• PRINCE2 and XP,
the participants, in order to become familiar with the topic of
the survey and all of them should have a common • CMMI and Scrum,
understanding. Finally, the search was performed in a short • CMM and Scrum,
 19

• CMMI and Lean, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

• CMMI and Six Sigma, The authors would like to express their highest appreciation
• PRINCE2 and DSDM. to their supervisor Dr. Stefanie Betz for her guidance,
RQ2: “Under which situations and how could these encouragement and support during the development of their
methodologies be applied? What are the results, benefits and dissertation thesis. Her feedback and advices were more than
potential drawbacks that each methodology could present? valuable for the authors and were leading their efforts.
When should each methodology be applied? What are the Special thanks to all the lectures from Blekinge Institute of
reasons for failure?” Technology in Karlskrona, for their guidance throughout the
The authors in order to answer this question were based Software Engineering Master’s Degree modules.
both on the SLR and survey. As analyzed in section III.3 each Last but not least, the authors would like to thank, their
combination could be applied in a different ways and presents families and friends for their excessive support and
different benefits and drawbacks. The authors found that the encouragement during the year.
enterprises usually follow firstly the Agile methodology and
then they proceed to the adoption of the SPI maturity model. APPENDIX A – QUESTIONS FOR QUALITY
The general benefits that could emerge almost in every ASSESSMENT
combination the combinations are increase in the quality of the
software project, better management and visibility during the The questions that were used for the quality assessment of the
development process. selected studies are presented bellow.
Nevertheless, the SPI maturity models are not always for 1. Is there a clear statement of the aims of the research
free and they are addresses to larger organizations. In addition methodology used:
qualified personnel is required. However, it has been proved a. SLR?
that if SMEs perform small adjustments, such as such as b. Case Study?
creating smaller artifacts or making the processes that the i. Exploratory study?
methodologies demand, simpler, they will be able to adopt ii. Action research?
these combinations. iii. Descriptive research?
c. Comparative Research?
RQ3: “Are these methodologies really applied in SMEs?” d. Experimental Research?
The answers for this research question came through the e. Survey?
survey that the authors performed. The results of the survey f. Other type of research?
show that although Small and Medium – sized firms face 2. Is there an adequate description of the context in
serious difficulties in adopting these methodologies, by which the
performing small adjustments, they could be able to adopt the a. SLR?
combinations mentioned above. b. Case Study?
The combinations that are really applied are the ones who i. Exploratory study?
involve the CMM, the CMMI and the Scrum. Specifically, the ii. Action research?
CMMI and XP, the CMM and XP, the CMM and Scrum, the iii. Descriptive research?
CMMI and Scrum and the CMMI and Six Sigma. c. Comparative Research?
From all the studies that were used for this thesis it can be d. Experimental Research?
said that applying the combination between different e. Survey?
methodologies would benefit the software development f. Other type of research?
process. As Agile methodologies and SPI maturity models are 3. Was the research design appropriate to address the
applied differently, depending on the environment where they aims of the
are applied, the obtained benefits from applying the a. SLR?
combination will vary from one case to another. Still, it can be b. Case Study?
assured that there will be benefits, since the idea of the i. Exploratory study?
combination is to take the practices that can be “interesting” ii. Action research?
for giving an extra value to the software process creation. iii. Descriptive research?
Concluding, as it was mentioned before, all the papers c. Comparative Research?
selected for the study were peer reviewed. Apart of that, the d. Experimental Research?
research methodology used in the paper, how it was applied e. Survey?
and the validity of the results was checked by both the authors. f. Other type of research?
What is more, during this paper, the authors did not identify 4. Was there a control group with which to compare
any studies referring to negative results by applying the treatments?
combinations. This happens as a result of what it was 5. Was the research methodology applied properly, in
mentioned before; getting bad results from the combination is terms of type of the study, data analysis,
etc.?
not really possible, and if it happens, it will be because the 6. Was the data collected in a sufficiently rigorous way
combinations were not performed properly. that addressed the research issue?
7. Is there a clear statement of findings?
8. Do the conclusions relate to the research aim?
 20

9. Do they discuss about limitations in the research?

10 Buglione, Luigi. “Light Maturity Models (LMM): An Agile
10. Does the paper / study discuss areas for future
Application.” In Proceedings of the 12th International
research?
Conference on Product Focused Software Development and
Process Improvement, 57–61. Profes ’11. New York, NY,
APPENDIX B – LIST OF SELECTED ARTICLES FOR THE SLR
USA: ACM, 2011. Doi:10.1145/2181101.2181115.

# Title 11 Fitzgerald, Brian, Klaas-Jan Stol, Ryan O'Sullivan,

and Donal O'Brien. “Scaling Agile Methods to
1 Cohen, David, Mikael Lindvall, and Patricia Costa. “Agile Regulated Environments: An Industry Case Study.” In
Software Development.” Data & Analysis Center for Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on
Software (DACS), New York (2003). Doi=10.1.1.201.270 Software Engineering, 863–872. ICSE ’13. Piscataway, NJ,
USA: IEEE Press, 2013.
2 Dybå, Tore, and Torgeir Dingsøyr. “Empirical Studies of
Agile Software Development: A Systematic Review.” 12 Mahfouz, Amr, John Shea, and Amr Arisha. “Simulation
Information and Software Technology 50, no. 9–10 (August Based Optimisation Model for the Lean Assessment in SME:
2008): 833–859. Doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006. a Case Study.” In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation
Conference, 2408–2418. WSC ’11. Phoenix, Arizona: Winter
3 Begel, A., and N. Nagappan. “Usage and Perceptions of Agile Simulation Conference, 2011.
Software Development in an Industrial Context: An http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2431772.2431806.
Exploratory Study.” In First International Symposium on
Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2007. 13 Jha, Rashmi, and Anil Kumar Saini. “An Exploratory Factor
ESEM 2007, 255–264, 2007. Doi:10.1109 Analysis on Pragmatic Lean ERP Implementation for SMEs.”
In 2012 2nd IEEE International Conference on Parallel,
4 Sison, R., and T. Yang. “Use of Agile Methods and Practices Distributed and Grid Computing, PDGC 2012, December 6,
in the Philippines.” In Software Engineering Conference, 2012 – December 8, 2012, 474–479. Proceedings of 2012 2nd
2007. APSEC 2007. 14th Asia-Pacific, 462–469, 2007. IEEE International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and
Doi:10.1109 Grid Computing, PDGC 2012. IEEE Computer Society, 2012.
Doi:10.1109/PDGC.2012.6449867.
5 Dyba, Tore, and T. Dingsoyr. “What Do We Know About
Agile Software Development?” IEEE Software 26, no. 5 14 Achanga, Pius, Essam Shehab, Rajkumar Roy, and Geoff
(2009): 6–9. Doi:10.1109/MS.2009.145. Nelder. “A Fuzzy-logic Advisory System for Lean
Manufacturing Within SMEs.” International Journal of
6 De Souza Carvalho, W.C., P.F. Rosa, M. dos Santos Soares, Computer Integrated Manufacturing 25, no. 9 (2012): 839–
M.A. Teixeira da Cunha Junior, and L.C. Buiatte. “A 852. Doi:10.1080/0951192X.2012.665180.
Comparative Analysis of the Agile and Traditional Software
Development Processes Productivity.” In Computer Science 15 Dombrowski, U., I. Crespo, and T. Zahn. “Adaptive
Society (SCCC), 2011 30th International Conference of the Configuration of a Lean Production System in Small and
Chilean, 74–82, 2011. Doi:10.1109/SCCC.2011.11. Medium-sized Enterprises.” Production Engineering 4, no. 4
(2010): 341–8. Doi:10.1007/s11740-010-0250-5.
7 Jha, R., and A.K. Saini. “ERP Redefined: Optimizing
Parameters with Lean Six Sigma for Small #x0026; Medium 16 Thomas, A., R. Barton, and C.C. Okafor. “Applying Lean Six
Enterprises.” In 2011 International Conference on Sigma in a Small Engineering Company : a Model for
Communication Systems and Network Technologies (CSNT), Change.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
683–687, 2011. Doi:10.1109/CSNT.2011.147. 20, no. 1 (2009): 113–29. Doi:10.1108/17410380910925433.

8 Flores, M., A. Cabello, L. Torredemer, M. Agrawal, J. Keast, 17 Ribeiro, F.L., and M.T. Fernandes. “Exploring Agile Methods
S. Terzi, and A. Sopelana. “Do Enterprises Implement a in Construction Small and Medium Enterprises: a Case
Process Architecture Towards Lean in Product Development? Study.” Journal of Enterprise Information Management 23,
A Comparative Study Among Large and Small Firms.” In no. 2 (2010): 161–80. Doi:10.1108/17410391011019750.
2011 17th International Conference on Concurrent
Enterprising (ICE), 1–9, 2011. 18 Abad, Zahra Shakeri Hossein, Mahsa Hasani Sadi, and
Raman Ramsin. “Towards Tool Support for Situational
9 Nawrocki, J., B. Walter, and A. Wojciechowski. “Toward Engineering of Agile Methodologies.” In 17th Asia Pacific
Maturity Model for Extreme Programming.” In Euromicro Software Engineering Conference: Software for Improving
Conference, 2001. Proceedings. 27th, 233–239, 2001. Quality of Life, APSEC 2010, November 30, 2010 –
Doi:10.1109/EURMIC.2001.952459 December 3, 2010, 326–335. Proceedings – Asia-Pacific
Software Engineering Conference, APSEC. IEEE Computer
 21

Society, 2010. Doi:10.1109/APSEC.2010.45. 297–301, 2009. Doi:10.1109/ICCSIT.2009.5234402.

19 Barafort, Béatrix, Bernard Renzo, and Olivier Merlan. 28 Ciolkowski, M., and M. Soto. “Towards a Process Maturity
“Benefits Resulting from the Combined Use of ISO/IEC Model for Open Source Software.” In Computer Software and
15504 with the Information Technology Infrastructure Applications, 2008. COMPSAC ’08. 32nd Annual IEEE
Library (ITIL).” In Product Focused Software Process International, 1213–1214, 2008.
Improvement, edited by Markku Oivo and Seija Komi-Sirviö, Doi:10.1109/COMPSAC.2008.47.
2559:314–325. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg. Accessed April 5, 2013. 29 Cater-Steel, A.P. “Process Improvement in Four Small
http://link.springer.com.miman.bib.bth.se/content/pdf/10.100 Software Companies.” In Software Engineering Conference,
7%2F3-540-36209-6_27. 2001. Proceedings. 2001 Australian, 262 –272, 2001.
Doi:10.1109/ASWEC.2001.948520.
20 Unterkalmsteiner, M., T. Gorschek, A.K.M.M. Islam, Chow
Kian Cheng, R.B. Permadi, and R. Feldt. “Evaluation and 30 Boas, G.V., A.R.C. da Rocha, and M. Pecegueiro do Amaral.
Measurement of Software Process Improvement #x02014;A “An Approach to Implement Software Process Improvement
Systematic Literature Review.” IEEE Transactions on in Small and Mid Sized Organizations.” In Quality of
Software Engineering 38, no. 2 (2012): 398–424. Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC),
Doi:10.1109/TSE.2011.26. 2010 Seventh International Conference on The, 447–452,
2010. Doi:10.1109/QUATIC.2010.77.
21 Tanovic, A., and F. Orucevic. “Integration of PRINCE2
Model into ITIL V3 Model.” In Telecommunications Forum 31 Habib, M., S. Ahmed, A. Rehmat, M.J. Khan, and S. Shamail.
(
FOR), 2011 19th, 102–105, 2011. Doi:10.1109/
“Blending Six Sigma and CMMI – an Approach to Accelerate
FOR.2011.6143503. Process Improvement in SMEs.” In Multitopic Conference,
2008. INMIC 2008. IEEE International, 386–391, 2008.
22 Pino, Francisco J., Félix García, and Mario Piattini. “Software Doi:10.1109/INMIC.2008.4777768.
Process Improvement in Small and Medium Software
Enterprises: a Systematic Review.” Software Quality Journal 32 Scott, L., Ross Jeffery, L. Carvalho, J. D’Ambra, and P.
16, no. 2 (June 1, 2008): 237–261. Doi:10.1007/s11219-007- Rutherford. “Practical Software Process Improvement – the
9038-z. IMPACT Project.” In Software Engineering Conference,
2001. Proceedings. 2001 Australian, 182–189, 2001.
23 Suwanya, S., and W. Kurutach. “An Analysis of Software Doi:10.1109/ASWEC.2001.948512.
Process Improvement for Sustainable Development in
Thailand.” In 8th IEEE International Conference on Computer 33 Jezreel, M., M. Mirna, N. Pablo, O. Edgar, G. Alejandro, and
and Information Technology, 2008. CIT 2008, 724–729, M. Sandra. “Identifying Findings for Software Process
2008. Doi:10.1109/CIT.2008.4594764. Improvement in SMEs: An Experience.” In Electronics,
Robotics and Automotive Mechanics Conference (CERMA),
24 Alexandre, S., A. Renault, and N. Habra. “OWPL: A Gradual 2012 IEEE Ninth, 141–146, 2012.
Approach for Software Process Improvement In SMEs.” In Doi:10.1109/CERMA.2012.30.
32nd EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and
Advanced Applications, 2006. SEAA ’06, 328–335, 2006. 34 Pino, F.J., F. Garcia, and M. Piattini. “A Support Tool for
Doi:10.1109/EUROMICRO.2006.48. Rapid Software Process Assessment.” Latin America
Transactions, IEEE (Revista IEEE America Latina) 5, no. 4
25 Zhang, Lina, and Dan Shao. “Software Process Improvement (2007): 218–223. Doi:10.1109/TLA.2007.4378509.
for Small and Medium Organizations Based on CMMI.” In
2011 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35 Sharma, B., N. Sharma, and N. Sharma. “Software Process
Management Science and Electronic Commerce (AIMSEC), Improvement: A Comparative Analysis of SPI Models.” In
2402–2405, 2011. Doi:10.1109/AIMSEC.2011.6011045. 2009 2nd International Conference on Emerging Trends in
Engineering and Technology (ICETET), 1019–1024, 2009.
26 Garcia-Mireles, Gabriel Alberto, Ma Angeles Moraga, and F. Doi:10.1109/ICETET.2009.206.
Garcia. “Development of Maturity Models: A Systematic
Literature Review.” In 16th International Conference on 36 Pino, Francisco J., Félix Garcia, and Mario Piattini. “Key
Evaluation Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE Processes to Start Software Process Improvement in Small
2012), 279–283, 2012. Doi:10.1049/ic.2012.0036. Companies.” In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium on
Applied Computing, 509–516. SAC ’09. New York, NY,
27 Khoshgoftar, M., and O. Osman. “Comparison of Maturity USA: ACM, 2009. Doi:10.1145/1529282.1529389.
Models.” In 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer
Science and Information Technology, 2009. ICCSIT 2009, 37 Espinosa-Curiel, Ismael Edrein, Josefina Rodríguez-Jacobo,
 22

and José Alberto Fernández-Zepeda. “A Competency 46 Villalón, Jose A. Calvo-Manzano, Gonzalo Cuevas Agustín,
Framework for the Stakeholders of a Software Process Tomás San Feliu Gilabert, Antonio De Amescua Seco, Luis
Improvement Initiative.” In Proceedings of the 2011 García Sánchez, and Manuel Pérez Cota. “Experiences in the
International Conference on Software and Systems Process, Application of Software Process Improvement in SMES.”
139–148. ICSSP ’11. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2011. Software Quality Journal 10, no. 3 (November 1, 2002): 261–
Doi:10.1145/1987875.1987898. 273. Doi:10.1023/A:1021638523413.

38 Staples, Mark, and Mahmood Niazi. “Two Case Studies on 47 Monteiro, P., R.J. Machado, R. Kazman, and C. Henriques.
Small Enterprise Motivation and Readiness for CMMI.” In “Dependency Analysis Between CMMI Process Areas.” In
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Product Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. 11th
Focused Software, 63–66. PROFES ’10. New York, NY, International Conference, PROFES, 21-23 June 2010, 263–
USA: ACM, 2010. Doi:10.1145/1961258.1961274. 75. Product-Focused Software Process Improvement.
Proceedings 11th International Conference, PROFES.
39 Dyb\aa, Tore. “Factors of Software Process Improvement Springer Verlag, 2010. Doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13792-1_21.
Success in Small and Large Organizations: An Empirical
Study in the Scandinavian Context.” In Proceedings of the 9th 48 Mishra, Deepti, and Alok Mishra. “Simplified Software
European Software Engineering Conference Held Jointly with Inspection Process in Compliance with International
11th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Standards.” Computer Standards and Interfaces 31, no. 4
Foundations of Software Engineering, 148–157. ESEC/FSE- (2009): 763–771. Doi:10.1016/j.csi.2008.09.018.
11. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2003.
Doi:10.1145/940071.940092. 49 Homchuenchom, Disorn, Chayakorn Piyabunditkul, Horst
Lichter, and Toni Anwar. “SPIALS: A Light-weight Software
40 Mesquida, Antoni Lluís, Antonia Mas, Esperança Amengual, Process Improvement Self-assessment Tool.” In 2011 5th
and Jose A. Calvo-Manzano. “IT Service Management Malaysian Conference in Software Engineering, MySEC
Process Improvement Based on ISO/IEC 15504: A 2011, December 13, 2011 – December 14, 2011, 195–199.
Systematic Review.” Information and Software Technology 2011 5th Malaysian Conference in Software Engineering,
54, no. 3 (March 2012): 239–247. MySEC 2011. IEEE Computer Society, 2011.
Doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2011.11.002. Doi:10.1109/MySEC.2011.6140668.

41 Staples, Mark, and Mahmood Niazi. “Systematic Review of 50 Mishra, D., and A. Mishra. “Software Process Improvement
Organizational Motivations for Adopting CMM-based SPI.” in SMEs: A Comparative View.” Computer Science and
Information and Software Technology 50, no. 7–8 (June Information Systems 6, no. 1 (June 2009): 111–40.
2008): 605–620. Doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2007.07.003. Doi:10.2298/CSIS0901111M.

42 Pettersson, F., M. Ivarsson, T. Gorschek, and P. Öhman. “A 51 McCaffery, F., and G. Coleman. “Lightweight SPI
Practitioner’s Guide to Light Weight Software Process Assessments: What Is the Real Cost?” Software Process:
Assessment and Improvement Planning.” Journal of Systems Improvement and Practice 14, no. 5 (September 2009): 271–
and Software 81, no. 6 (June 2008): 972–995. 8. Doi:10.1002/spip.430.
Doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.08.032.
52 Sivashankar, M., A.M. Kalpana, and A.E. Jeyakumar. “A
43 Habra, Naji, Simon Alexandre, Jean-Marc Desharnais, Claude Framework Approach Using CMMI for SPI to Indian
Y. Laporte, and Alain Renault. “Initiating Software Process SME’s.” In 2010 International Conference on Innovative
Improvement in Very Small Enterprises: Experience with a Computing Technologies (ICICT), 12-13 Feb. 2010, 5 pp.
Light Assessment Tool.” Information and Software 2010 International Conference on Innovative Computing
Technology 50, no. 7–8 (June 2008): 763–771. Technologies (ICICT). IEEE, 2010.
Doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2007.08.004. Doi:10.1109/ICINNOVCT.2010.5440086.

44 Pino, Francisco J., César Pardo, Félix García, and Mario 53 Mishra, Deepti, and Alok Mishra. “Software Process
Piattini. “Assessment Methodology for Software Process Improvement Methodologies for Small and Medium
Improvement in Small Organizations.” Information and Enterprises.” In 9th International Conference on Product-
Software Technology 52, no. 10 (October 2010): 1044–1061. Focused Software Process Improvement, PROFES 2008,
Doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.04.004. June 23, 2008 – June 25, 2008, 5089 LNCS:273–288.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including Subseries
45 Lepmets, Marion, Tom McBride, and Eric Ras. “Goal Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in
Alignment in Process Improvement.” Journal of Systems and Bioinformatics). Springer Verlag, 2008. Doi:10.1007/978-3-
Software 85, no. 6 (June 2012): 1440–1452. 540-69566-0_23.
Doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.01.038.
 23

54 Omran, A. “AGILE CMMI from SMEs Perspective.” In 3rd Improving Agile Mantema: Measurement, Control and
International Conference on Information and Communication Evaluation of Maintenance Projects in SMEs.” In 2011 6th
Technologies: From Theory to Applications, 2008. ICTTA Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies
2008, 1 –8, 2008. Doi:10.1109/ICTTA.2008.4530352. (CISTI), 1–6, 2011.

55 Al-Zoabi, Z. “Introducing Discipline to XP: Applying 64 McCaffery, F., M. Pikkarainen, and I. Richardson. “Ahaa –
PRINCE2 on XP Projects.” In 3rd International Conference agile, Hybrid Assessment Method for Automotive, Safety
on Information and Communication Technologies: From Critical Smes.” In ACM/IEEE 30th International Conference
Theory to Applications, 2008. ICTTA 2008, 1–7, 2008. on Software Engineering, 2008. ICSE ’08, 551–560, 2008.
Doi:10.1109/ICTTA.2008.4530347. Doi:10.1145/1368088.1368164.

56 Sutherland, J., C.R. Jakobsen, and K. Johnson. “Scrum and 65 Ruiz, J.C., Z.B. Osorio, J. Mejia, M. Munoz, A.M. Chavez,
CMMI Level 5: The Magic Potion for Code Warriors.” In and B.A. Olivares. “Definition of a Hybrid Measurement
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Process for the Models ISO/IEC 15504-ISO/IEC 12207:2008
Proceedings of the 41st Annual, 466–466, 2008. and CMMI Dev 1.3 in SMEs.” In 2011 IEEE Electronics,
Doi:10.1109/HICSS.2008.384. Robotics and Automotive Mechanics Conference (CERMA),
421–426, 2011. Doi:10.1109/CERMA.2011.74.
57 Vriens, C. “Certifying for CMM Level 2 and IS09001 with
XP@Scrum.” In Agile Development Conference, 2003. ADC 66 Al-Tarawneh, Mejhem Yousef, Mohd Syazwan Abdullah,
2003. Proceedings of The, 120–124, 2003. and Abdul Bashah Mat Ali. “A Proposed Methodology for
Doi:10.1109/ADC.2003.1231461. Establishing Software Process Development Improvement for
Small Software Development Firms.” Procedia Computer
58 Jakobsen, C.R., and T. Poppendieck. “Lean as a Scrum Science 3 (2011): 893–897. Doi:10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.146.
Troubleshooter.” In Agile Conference (AGILE), 2011, 168–
174, 2011. Doi:10.1109/AGILE.2011.11. 67 Pino, Francisco J., Oscar Pedreira, Félix García, Miguel
Rodríguez Luaces, and Mario Piattini. “Using Scrum to Guide
59 Miller, J.R., and H.M. Haddad. “Challenges Faced While the Execution of Software Process Improvement in Small
Simultaneously Implementing CMMI and Scrum: A Case Organizations.” Journal of Systems and Software 83, no. 10
Study in the Tax Preparation Software Industry.” In 2012 (October 2010): 1662–1677. Doi:10.1016/j.jss.2010.03.077.
Ninth International Conference on Information Technology:
New Generations (ITNG), 314–318, 2012. 68 Kirk, Diana, and Ewan Tempero. “A Lightweight Framework
Doi:10.1109/ITNG.2012.53. for Describing Software Practices.” Journal of Systems and
Software 85, no. 3 (March 2012): 582–595.
60 Lina, Zhang, and Shao Dan. “Research on Combining Scrum Doi:10.1016/j.jss.2011.09.024.
with CMMI in Small and Medium Organizations.” In 2012
International Conference on Computer Science and 69 Coleman, Gerry, and Rory O’Connor. “Investigating
Electronics Engineering (ICCSEE), 1:554–557, 2012. Software Process in Practice: A Grounded Theory
Doi:10.1109/ICCSEE.2012.477. Perspective.” Journal of Systems and Software 81, no. 5 (May
2008): 772–784. Doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.07.027.
61 Marcal, A.S.C., B.C.C. de Freitas, F.S. Furtado Soares, and
A.D. Belchior. “Mapping CMMI Project Management 70 Salo, O., and P. Abrahamsson. “Integrating Agile Software
Process Areas to SCRUM Practices.” In 31st IEEE Software Development and Software Process Improvement: a
Engineering Workshop, 2007. SEW 2007, 13–22, 2007. Longitudinal Case Study.” In 2005 International Symposium
Doi:10.1109/SEW.2007.102. on Empirical Software Engineering, 2005, 10 pp.–, 2005.
Doi:10.1109/ISESE.2005.1541828.
62 Khan, M.I., M.A. Qureshi, and Q. Abbas. “Agile
Methodology in Software Development (SMEs) of Pakistan
Software Industry for Successful Software Projects (CMM 71 Lin, Lie-Chien, Tzu-Su Li, and Judy P. Kiang. “A Continual
Framework).” In 2010 International Conference on Improvement Framework with Integration of CMMI and Six-
Educational and Network Technology (ICENT), 576–580, sigma Model for Auto Industry.” Quality and Reliability
2010. Doi:10.1109/ICENT.2010.5532104. Engineering International 25, no. 5 (2009): 551–569.
Doi:10.1002/qre.988.
63 Osorio Martinez, Z.B., E. Irrazabal, and J. Garzas. “Toward

1. Enterprise
APPENDIX C – QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONS
1. What is the name of the enterprise? *
 24

…………
3. What were the results of applying these
2. What is the number of employees in your enterprise? methodologies?
a. 0-20
b. 20-50 Easy adapt to changes
c. 50-100 Flexibility
Rapid development
d. 100-200
Better visibility in the development process
e. Other: …..
Better communication between the customers
and the enterprise
3. How old is the company? Continuous planning
a. 0-2 years Reduce the risk in the development process
b. 3-5 years Cost reduction
c. 5-10 years Other (Please specify)
d. 10-20 years ……
e. 20+ years
3. SPI Maturity Models
4. What is your position on the enterprise?
……….. 1. Do you know any of the following SPI Maturity
Models?
2. Agile Methodologies
CMMI + XP
1. Do you know any of the following methodologies?
CMM + XP
PRINCE2 + XP
Scrum
CMMI + Scrum
XP
CMM + Scrum
Lean
CMMI + Lean
Feature Driven Development
CMMI + Six Sigma
Crystal Methodologies
PRINCE2 + DSDM
Adaptive Software Development
Other (Please Specify)
Dynamic System Development Method
……..
Other (please specify)
………
2. Have you ever applied any of the following SPI
maturity models? For how long?
2. Have you ever applied any of the following
methodologies? For how long?
Never 0-3 3-5 5-10 More
years years years than 10
Neve 0-3 3-5 5-10 10
years
r year year year year
CMM
s s s s or
CMMI
mor
ISO/IECE
e
15504 –
Scrum
SPICE
XP
P3M3
Lean
OPM3
Feature
PRINCE2
Driven
Other
Development
Crystal
3. What were the results of applying these maturity
Methodologie
models?
s
Adaptive
Better control
Software
Development Better management
Dynamic Cost reduction
System On – cost and on – time development
Development Quality increase
Method Stick on the plans
Other Risk reduction
 25

Other (please specify) 5. Improvements

……..
1. Do you have any suggestions – proposals of
4. Agile and SPI combination improving the software processes?
………
1. Do you know any of the following combinations?
CMMI + XP 2. Do you know or have you ever applied or developed
CMM + XP any other method(s) for improvement?
PRINCE2 + XP ………
CMMI + Scrum
CMM + Scrum 3. Would you agree if we ask for an interview, in order
CMMI + Lean to receive more detailed information?
CMMI + Six Sigma a. Yes
b. No
PRINCE2 + DSDM
Other (Please Specify)
……..
REFERENCES

2. Have you ever applied any of the combinations? For [1] B. Kitchenham and S. Charters, “Guidelines for performing
systematic literature reviews in software engineering,” Guid.
how long?
Perform. Syst. Lit. Rev. Softw. Eng., 2007.
[2] F. L. Ribeiro and M. T. Fernandes, “Exploring agile methods in
Never 0-3 3-5 5-10 More construction small and medium enterprises: a case study,” Journal of
years years years than 10 Enterprise Information Management, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 161–80,
years 2010.
CMMI + [3] P. Runeson and M. Höst, “Guidelines for conducting and
XP reporting case study research in software engineering,” Empir. Softw.
CMM + Eng., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 131–164, 2009.
[4]“Zotero | Home.” [Online]. Available: http://www.zotero.org/.
XP [Accessed: 01-Dec-2013].
PRINCE2 [5] B. Kitchenham, R. Pretorius, D. Budgen, O. Pearl Brereton, M.
+ XP Turner, M. Niazi, and S. Linkman, “Systematic literature reviews in
CMMI + software engineering – A tertiary study,” Information and Software
Scrum Technology, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 792–805, Aug. 2010.
CMM + [6] “Online survey software. Free web survey tool.
Scrum eSurveysPro.com.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.esurveyspro.com/. [Accessed: 01-Dec-2013].
CMMI +
[7] E. Kabaale and J. Nabukenya, “A Systematic Approach to
Lean Requirements Engineering Process Improvement in Small and
CMMI + Medium Enterprises: An Exploratory Study,” in Product-Focused
Six Sigma Software Process Improvement. 12th International Conference,
PRINCE2 PROFES 2011, 20-22 June 2011, 2011, pp. 262–75.
DSDM [8] D. Mishra and A. Mishra, “Software process improvement in
Other SMEs: A comparative view,” Computer Science and Information
Systems, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 111–140, 2009.
[9] J. A. Highsmith, Agile Software Development Ecosystems.
3. What are the results of these methodologies? Addison-Wesley Professional, 2002.
[10] E. Kamsties, K. Hörmann, and M. Schlich, “Requirements
Quality increase Engineering in Small and Medium Enterprises: State-of-the-practice,
Cost reduction problems, solutions and technology transfer,” in Proc. Conference on
Better management European Industrial Requirements Engineering (CEIRE’98),
Clear visibility in the development process Hammersmith, UK, 1998.
[11] A. Cockburn, "Agile Software Development Joins the "Would-
Risk reduction
Be" Crowd," Cutter IT Journal, pp. 6-12, Jan. 2002.
Stick on the plans [12] T. Merten, K. Lauenroth, and S. Bursner, “Towards a New
On – time development Understanding of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises in
On – cost development Requirements Engineering Research,” in Requirements Engineering:
Flexibility in adopting the changes Foundation for Software Quality. 17th International Working
Better relationship between the customers and the Conference, REFSQ 2011, 28-30 March 2011, 2011, pp. 60–5
enterprise [13] C. R. Klaus Pohl, Requirements Engineering Fundamentals.
O’Reilly.
Other (please specify) [14] A. Talbot and A. Connor, “Requirements Engineering Current
…….. Practice and Capability in Small and Medium Software Development
Enterprises in New Zealand,” in 2011 9th International Conference
 26

on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications CMMI For Small Business Pilot Study in Huntsville. Alabama,
(SERA), 2011, pp. 17 –25. USA”, Presented at Info Seminar, June 2004, Carnegie Mellon
[15] M. Kauppinen, M. Vartiainen, J. Kontio, S. Kujala, and R. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, USA
Sulonen, “Implementing requirements engineering processes [33] PRINCE2_Maturity_Model_P2MM.pdf http://www.p3m3-
throughout organizations: success factors and challenges,” officialsite.com/P3M3Model/Model_mhtry.aspx
Information and Software Technology, vol. 46, no. 14, pp. 937–953, [34] J. Dorr, S. Adam, M. Eisenbarth, and M. Ehresmann,
Nov. 2004. “Implementing Requirements Engineering Processes: Using
[16] F. J. Pino, F. García, and M. Piattini, “Software process Cooperative Self-Assessment and Improvement,” IEEE Software,
improvement in small and medium software enterprises: a systematic vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 71 –77, Jun. 2008.
review,” Software Qual J, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 237–261, Jun. 2008. [35] B. Kitchenham, S. Linkman, and D. Law, “DESMET: a
[17] M. Y. al-Tarawneh, M. S. Abdullah, and A. B. M. Ali, “A methodology for evaluating software engineering methods and tools,”
proposed methodology for establishing software process development Computing Control Engineering Journal, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 120–126,
improvement for small software development firms,” Procedia June.
Computer Science, vol. 3, pp. 893–897, 2011. [36] T. Dybå and T. Dingsøyr, “Empirical studies of agile software
[18] B. Sharma, N. Sharma, and N. Sharma, “Software Process development: A systematic review,” Information and Software
Improvement: A Comparative Analysis of SPI models,” in 2009 2nd Technology, vol. 50, no. 9–10, pp. 833–859, Aug. 2008.
International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and [37] W. C. de Souza Carvalho, P. F. Rosa, M. dos Santos Soares, M.
Technology (ICETET), 2009, pp. 1019–1024. A. Teixeira da Cunha Junior, and L. C. Buiatte, “A Comparative
[19] “Software process improvement in small and medium software Analysis of the Agile and Traditional Software Development
enterprises: a systematic review - Springer.” Processes Productivity,” in Computer Science Society (SCCC), 2011
[20] H. Kaindl, S. Brinkkemper, J. A. Bubenko Jr, B. Farbey, S. J. 30th International Conference of the Chilean, 2011, pp. 74–82.
Greenspan, C. L. Heitmeyer*, J. C. S. do P. [38] Z. Al-Zoabi, “Introducing Discipline to XP: Applying PRINCE2
Leite†, N. R. Mead, J. Mylopoulos, and J. Siddiqi, on XP Projects,” in 3rd International Conference on Information and
“Requirements Engineering and Technology Transfer: Obstacles, Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications, 2008.
Incentives and Improvement Agenda,” Requirements Engineering, ICTTA 2008, 2008, pp. 1–7.
vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 113–123, Sep. 2002. [39] A. Omran, “AGILE CMMI from SMEs perspective,” in 3rd
[21] M. Unterkalmsteiner, T. Gorschek, A. K. M. M. Islam, C. K. International Conference on Information and Communication
Cheng, R. B. Permadi, and R. Feldt, “Evaluation and Measurement of Technologies: From Theory to Applications, 2008. ICTTA 2008,
Software Process Improvement #x02014;A Systematic Literature 2008, pp. 1 –8.
Review,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 38, no. 2, [40] D. Cohen, M. Lindvall, and P. Costa, “Agile software
pp. 398–424, 2012. development,” Data & Analysis Center for Software (DACS), New
[22] F. J. Pino, F. Garcia, and M. Piattini, “Key processes to start York, 2003.
software process improvement in small companies,” in Proceedings [41] K. Beck, A. Cockburn, R. Jeffries, and J. Highsmith. Agile
of the 2009 ACM symposium on Applied Computing, New York, NY, Manifesto. http://www.agilemanifesto.org . 2001. 12-4-2002.
USA, 2009, pp. 509–516. [42] J. Highsmith, K. Orr, and A. Cockburn, "Extreme
[23] J. A. C.-M. Villalón, G. C. Agustín, T. S. F. Gilabert, A. D. A. Programming," E-Business Application Delivery, pp. 4-17, Feb.
Seco, L. G. Sánchez, and M. P. Cota, “Experiences in the Application 2000.
of Software Process Improvement in SMES,” Software Quality [43] S. Nerur and V. Balijepally, “Theoretical Reflections on Agile
Journal, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 261–273, Nov. 2002. Development Methodologies,”Comm. ACM, vol. 50, no. 3, 2007,
[24] L. Scott, R. Jeffery, L. Carvalho, J. D’Ambra, and P. Rutherford, pp.79–83.
“Practical software process improvement - the IMPACT project,” in [44] S. Nerur, R. Mahapatra, G. Mangalaraj, Challenges of migrating
Software Engineering Conference, 2001. Proceedings. 2001 to agile methodologies, Communications of the ACM (May) (2005)
Australian, 2001, pp. 182–189. 72–78.
[25] S. Jantunen, “Exploring software engineering practices in small [45] A. Qumer, and B. Henderson-Sellers (2006b), “Measuring
and medium-sized organizations,” in Proceedings of the 2010 ICSE agility and adoptability of agile methods: a 4- dimensional analytical
Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software tool”, in N. es Guimara ̃, P. Isaias and A. Goikoetxea (Eds),
Engineering, New York, NY, USA, 2010, pp. 96–101. Proceedings. IADIS International Conference Applied Computing,
[26] A. Simon, R. Alain, H. Naji: “OWPL: A Gradual Approach for IADIS Press, pp. 503-7.
Software Process Im- provement In SMEs”. In: Proceedings of the [46] J. Erickson, K. Lyytinen, and K. Siau, “Agile Modeling, Agile
32nd EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Software Development, and Extreme Programming: The State of
Advanced Applications (EUROMICRO-SEAA 2006) (2006) Research,” Journal of Database Management, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 88–
[27] D. Mishra and A. Mishra, “Software process improvement in 100, 34 2005.
SMEs: A comparative view,” Computer Science and Information [47] A. Thomas, R. Barton, and C. C. Okafor, “Applying lean six
Systems, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 111–140, 2009. sigma in a small engineering company : a model for change,” Journal
[28] G. Cugola and C. Ghezzi, “Software Processes: A Retrospective of Manufacturing Technology Management, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 113–
and a Path to the Future,” Software Process: Improvement and 29, 2009.
Practice, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 101-123, Sept. 1998. [48] J. P. Womack, D. T. Jones (2003) “Lean thinking: banish waste
[29] A. Fuggetta, “Software Process: A Roadmap,” Proc. Conf. and create wealth in your corporation”. Simon & Schuster, New
Future of Software Eng., pp. 25-34, 2000. York.
[30] N. Ehsan, A. Perwaiz, J. Arif, E. Mirza, and A. Ishaque, “CMMI [49] U. Dombrowski, I. Crespo, and T. Zahn, “Adaptive
/ SPICE based process improvement,” in 2010 IEEE International Configuration of a Lean Production System in Small and Medium-
Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology (ICMIT), sized Enterprises,” Production Engineering, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 341–8,
2010, pp. 859–862. 2010.
[31] SEI, CMMI for I, Version 1.2. Technical Report CMU/SEI- [50] H. Takeuchi and I. Nonaka, “The new product development
2006-TR-008., 2006.http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/ game,” Harvard Business Review (January- February), 1986.
[32] S. Garcia, S. Cepeda, J.M. Staley, G. Miluk, “Summary of [51] K. Schwaber and M. Beedle, “Agile Software Development with
 27

SCRUM”, Prentice-Hall, 2002. “Experiences on establishing software processes in small

[52] B. Fitzgerald, K.-J. Stol, R. O'Sullivan, and D. companies”, Information and Software Technology, 48(2006), 890-
O'Brien, “Scaling agile methods to regulated environments: an 900. (2006).
industry case study,” in Proceedings of the 2013 International [74] H. Oktaba, F. Garcia, M. Piattini, F. Ruiz, C. Alquicira,
Conference on Software Engineering, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2013, “Software Process Improvement: The Competisoft Project”, IEEE
pp. 863–872. Computer, 40(10), 21-28. (2007).
[53] D. Cohen, M. Lindvall, and P. Costa, “An introduction to agile [75] S. Trudel, J. M. Lavoie, M. C. Pare, W. Suryn, “PEM: The small
methods”, Advances in Computers, vol. 62, pp. 2–67, 2004. company- dedicated software process quality evaluation method
[54] K. Beck, “Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Chang”, combining CMMI and ISO/IEC 14598”. Software Quality Journal,
Addison-Wesley, 2004, ISBN 978-0321278654 14(1), 7-23. (2006).
[55] A. Cockburn, “Crystal Clear: A Human-Powered Methodology [76] D. H. Bae, “Panel: Software Process Improvement for Small
for Small Teams”, Addison-Wesley, 2004, ISBN 0-201-69947-8. organizations”, 31st Annual International Computer Software and
[56] J. Stapleton, “DSDM: Dynamic Systems Development Method,” Applications Conference (COMPSAC 2007), IEEE Computer
in Proceedings of Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Society. (2007).
Systems, 1999, 1999, pp. 406–406. [77] T. Dyba, “Factors of software process improvement success in
[57] S. R. Palmer and M. Felsing, A Practical Guide to Feature- small and large organizations: an empirical study in the scandinavian
Driven Development, 1st ed. Pearson Education, 2001. context,” in Proceedings of the 9th European software engineering
[58] P. Coad et al. “Java modeling in Color with UML”, Upper conference held jointly with 11th ACM SIGSOFT international
Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall PTR, 1999. symposium on Foundations of software engineering, New York, NY,
[59] J. A. Highsmith, “Adaptive Software Development: A USA, 2003, pp. 148–157.
Collaborative Approach to Managing Complex Systems”, 2000 New [78] A. P. Cater-Steel, “Low-rigour, rapid software assessments for
York: Dorset House, 392pp, ISBN 0-932633-40-4. small software development firms” Proceedings of Australian
[60] North American and European Enterprise Software and Services Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC), Melbourne, 368-377.
Survey, Business Technographics Ed., 2005. (2004).
[61] A. Begel and N. Nagappan, “Usage and Perceptions of Agile [79] J. A. Calvo-Manzano, G. C. Agustin, T. S. F. Gilabert, A. D. A.
Software Development in an Industrial Context: An Exploratory Seco, L. Z. Sanchez, M. P. Cota, “Experiences in the Application of
Study,” in First International Symposium on Empirical Software Software Process Improvement in SMES”, Software Quality Journal,
Engineering and Measurement, 2007. ESEM 2007, 2007, pp. 255– 10, 261-273. (2002).
264. [80] M. García, J. J. D. Cosín, “Medición práctica de la
[62] R. Sison and T. Yang, “Use of Agile Methods and Practices in coordinación utilizando GQ (I) M y CMMI”, taller Apoyo a la
the Philippines,” in Software Engineering Conference, 2007. APSEC decisión en ingeniería del software, septiembre 2007.
2007. 14th Asia-Pacific, 2007, pp. 462–469. [81] M. García, E. Irrazábal, J. Garzás, "Implantación de las normas
[63] D. Turk, R. France, and B. Rumpe, “Assumptions underlying ISO/IEC 15504 e ISO/IEC 12207:2008 con métodos ágiles y
agile software-development processes,” J. Datab. Manage., vol. 16, SCRUM," 2010.
2005. [82] P. Team “CMMI for development, version 1.2, CMMI-DEV v1.
[64] P. Mcbreen, Questioning Extreme Programming, Pearson 2. Continuous Representation, CMU/SEI- 2006-TR-008”, Technical
Education, Boston, MA, USA, 2003, ISBN 0-201- 84457-5. Report. Software Engineering Institute, August, 2008.
[65] M. Cohn, and D. Ford, “Introducing an Agile Process to an [83] ISO. ISO/IEC 15504:2003, Information Technology Process
Organization”, Assessment - Part 2: Performing an assessment. Geneva,
http://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com/articles/IntroducingAnAgileP International Organization for Standardization. www.iso.org, 2004.
rocess.pdf .2002. 8-2-2002. [84] J. C. Ruiz, Z. B. Osorio, J. Mejia, M. Munoz, A. M. Chavez, and
[66] J. Stanworth and D. Purdy, 2003. “SME fact and issues, a B. A. Olivares, “Definition of a Hybrid Measurement Process for the
compilation of current data and issues on UK small and medium Models ISO/IEC 15504-ISO/IEC 12207:2008 and CMMI Dev 1.3 in
sized firms”. London: University of Westminster. SMEs,” in 2011 IEEE Electronics, Robotics and Automotive
[67] D. Leffingwell, “Agile Software Requirements: Lean Mechanics Conference (CERMA), 2011, pp. 421–426.
Requirements Practices for Teams, Programs, and the Enterprise”, [85] M. Flores, A. Cabello, L. Torredemer, M. Agrawal, J. Keast, S.
1st ed., ser. Agile Software Development Series. Addison-Wesley Terzi, and A. Sopelana, “Do enterprises implement a process
Professional, January 2011, no. ISBN- 13: 978-0321635846. architecture towards Lean in product development? A comparative
[68] T. Dyba and T. Dingsoyr, “What Do We Know about Agile study among large and small firms,” in 2011 17th International
Software Development?,” IEEE Software, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 6–9, Conference on Concurrent Enterprising (ICE), 2011, pp. 1–9.
2009. [86] O. Salo and P. Abrahamsson, “Integrating agile software
[69] B. J. Hicks, and J. Matthews, 2010. “The barriers to realising development and software process improvement: a longitudinal case
sustainable process improvement: a root cause analysis of paradigms study,” in 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software
for manufacturing systems improvement”, International Journal of Engineering, 2005, 2005, p. 10 pp.–.
Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 23 (7), 585–602. [87] M. Pikkarainen and A. Mäntyniemi, “An approach for using
[70] Y. Wang & G.King, “Software Engineering Processes: CMMI in agile software development assessments: experiences from
Principles and Applications”, CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL, three case studies,” in SPICE 2006 conference, Luxemburg, 2006,
USA,(2000). pp. 4–5.
[71] A. Cater-Steel, “An Evaluation Of Software Development [88] K. C. Dangle, P. Larsen, M. Shaw, and M. V. Zelkowitz,
Practice And Assessment-Based Process Improvement In Small “Software process improvement in small organizations: a case
Software Development Firms,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Sch..Com. Info. study,” IEEE Software, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 68 – 75, Dec. 2005.
Tech, Griffith Uni, Australia, (2004). [89] D. P. Kelly, and B. Culleton, “Process improvement for small
[72] K. Kautz, “Software Process Improvement in Very Small organizations”, IEEE Computer, 32, 10(1999), 41- 47.
Enterprises: Does it Pay Off ?”, Software Process – Improvement [90] M. I. Khan, M. A. Qureshi, and Q. Abbas, “Agile methodology
and Practice, 4(4), 209-226. (1998). in software development (SMEs) of Pakistan software industry for
[73] C. G. V. Wangenheim, S. Weber, JCR. Hauck, G. Trentin, successful software projects (CMM framework),” in 2010
 28

International Conference on Educational and Network Technology University, 2004.

(ICENT), 2010, pp. 576–580. [111] DSDM with PRINCE2 Task Group. “Using DSDM with
[91] H. Glazer, J. Datton, D. Anderson, M. Kenradl, and S. Shrum, PRINCE2,” DSDM consortium 2000.
“CMMI or Agile: Why Not Embrace Both!”. [112] “DSDM and PRINCE2 -Perfect Marriage or Strange
[92] D. J. Anderson, “Stretching Agile to fit CMMI level 3”, Agile Bedfellows?,” D. Tudor – Technical Director TCC Ltd- www.tcc-
conference, Denver July 2005. net.com(Research Paper published on www.dsdm.org).
[93] J. Newkirk, “Introduction to Agile Processes and Extreme [113] “Using DSDM with Prince2 - DSDM_Prince2_WP_10.pdf.”
Programming”, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, 2002. [Online]. Available:
[94] Z. Lina and S. Dan, “Research on Combining Scrum with CMMI http://leadinganswers.typepad.com/leading_answers/files/DSDM_Pri
in Small and Medium Organizations,” in 2012 International nce2_WP_10.pdf. [Accessed: 31-Aug-2013].
Conference on Computer Science and Electronics Engineering [114] S. A. Bohner, “Software Change Impact Analysis,” 1996.
(ICCSEE), 2012, vol. 1, pp. 554–557. [115] O. Pedreira, Et Al., “A Systematic Review Of Software Process
[95] J. Sutherland, C. R. Jakobsen, and K. Johnson, “Scrum and Tailoring,” Acm Sigsoft Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 32, No. 3,
CMMI Level 5: The Magic Potion for Code Warriors,” in Hawaii (2007) , Pp. 1-6.
International Conference on System Sciences, Proceedings of the [116] M. Habib, S. Ahmed, A. Rehmat, M. J. Khan, and S. Shamail,
41st Annual, 2008, pp. 466–466. “Blending Six Sigma and CMMI - an approach to accelerate process
[96] C. R. Jakobsen and K. A. Johnson, “Mature Agile with a Twist improvement in SMEs,” in Multitopic Conference, 2008. INMIC
of CMMI,” in Agile, 2008. AGILE ’08. Conference, 2008, pp. 212– 2008. IEEE International, 2008, pp. 386–391.
217.
[97] C. R. Jakobsen and J. Sutherland, “Scrum and CMMI Going [117] P. Runeson and M. Höst, “Guidelines for conducting and
from Good to Great,” in Agile Conference, 2009. AGILE ’09., 2009, reporting case study research in software engineering,” Empir
pp. 333–337. Software Eng, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 131–164, Apr. 2
[98] A. S. C. Marcal, B. C. C. de Freitas, F. S. Furtado Soares, and A.
D. Belchior, “Mapping CMMI Project Management Process Areas to
SCRUM Practices,” in 31st IEEE Software Engineering Workshop,
2007. SEW 2007, 2007, pp. 13–22.
[99] C. Vriens, “Certifying for CMM Level 2 and IS09001 with
XP@Scrum,” in Agile Development Conference, 2003. ADC 2003.
Proceedings of the, 2003, pp. 120–124.
[100] C. R. Jakobsen and T. Poppendieck, “Lean as a Scrum
Troubleshooter,” in Agile Conference (AGILE), 2011, 2011, pp. 168–
174.
[101] R. Jha and A. K. Saini, “ERP Redefined: Optimizing
Parameters with Lean Six Sigma for Small #x0026; Medium
Enterprises,” in 2011 International Conference on Communication
Systems and Network Technologies (CSNT), 2011, pp. 683–687.
[102] J. M. Edward D. Arnheiter, “The integration of lean
management and Six Sigma,” The TQM Magazine, vol. 17, no. 1, pp.
5–18, 2005.
[103] R. Shah, A. Chandrasekaran, and K. Linderman, “In pursuit of
implementation patterns: the context of Lean and Six Sigma,”,
International Journal of Production Research, vol. 46, no. 23, pp.
6679–6699, 2008.
[104] N. Kamalakshi and H. Naganna, “CMMI and Six
Sigma-Relationship #x00026; Integration,” in International
Conference on Signal Acquisition and Processing, 2009. ICSAP
2009, 2009, pp. 174–176.
[105] J. Siviy, M. Penn, and E. Harper, “Relationships Between
CMMI and Six Sigma,” Software Engineering Institute, Dec. 2005.
[106] J. M. Siviy, M. L. Penn, and R. W. Stoddard, “CMMI and Six
Sigma: Partners in Process Improvement”, Pearson Education, 2007.
[107] R. Hefner, “Using Six Sigma to Accelerate CMMI Adoption
(and Vice Versa).” Presented at the Software Engineering Process
Group Conference, Seattle, WA, March 7-10, 2005.
[108] J. Siviy, Jeannine, M. Penn, M. Lynn & R. W. Stoddard,
(February 2008). “Integrating the CMMI and Six Sigma: Strategies”.
Retrieved from
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1161616.
[109] Z. Xiaosong, H. Zhen, Z. Min, W. Jing, and Y. Dainuan,
“Process integration of Six Sigma and CMMI,” in 6th IEEE
International Conference on Industrial Informatics, 2008. INDIN
2008, 2008, pp. 1650–1653.
[110] J. Bergey et al. “Results of SEI Independent Research and
Development Projects and Report on Emerging Technologies and
Technology Trends,” Chapter 5 (CMU/SEI-2004-TR-018).
Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon