AN APPROACH TO SUPPORT THE STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

OF SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

André Luiz Becker, Jorge Luis Nicolas Audy and Rafael Prikladnicki

Information Technology College, Pontifical Catholic University of RGS

Av. Ipiranga, 6681, Porto Alegre,Brazil

Keywords: Software process improvement, strategic alignment, strategic planning.

Abstract: The alignment between the strategy of a software process improvement program and the organizations’

business strategies has been mentioned as a critical factor of success. However, the main software process

reference models do not explicitly guide the companies towards defining processes which meet their strategic

goals. Based on this context, the purpose of this paper is to present a process for the strategic alignment of

software process improvement programs. Preliminary results indicate benefits beyond the demands of a

software process reference model itself, which include the planning and execution of a software process

improvement program taking into account the organization’s strategic goals in a more systematic way.

1 INTRODUCTION

The modern software development organizations are

inserted in a dynamic and competitive market. In this

context, the Software Engineering area approaches

the improvement of a software development process,

by means of planning and execution of improvement

programs, as the agent responsible for increasing the

competitiveness of these companies (Dybå, 2005).

Considering the substantial investment required

by such programs, the organizations tend to seek

explicit reasons to put these initiatives into practice.

One way to identify these reasons is defining the

strategy of an improvement program based on the

organization’s business strategic goals.

However, in the main software process reference

models existing in the industry today, such as SW-

CMM and CMMI, such goals are not easily related to

the software development processes to be implemented

by an organization (Debou, 1999; Liu, 2005; Peterson,

1995). As a consequence, organizations carry out

improvement programs without identifying what the

maturity of their processes can deliver concerning their

business strategic goals (Liu, 2005).

Therefore, this paper presents a research carried

out intending to propose a strategic alignment

process for software process improvement (SPI)

programs based on organizations' strategic planning.

The proposed process was applied to a company

through a case study. From such study, an evaluation

and a review of the process were performed.

In the sequence of the paper, section 2 presents the

theoretical review. In section 3, the research

methodology is described. Section 4 describes the

proposed process and section 5 describes its application

to a company. Section 6 presents the evaluation of the

proposed process, and Section 7 a discussion based on

the results found. Section 8 concludes the paper.

2 THEORETICAL REVIEW

An organization’s success depends more and more on

information systems as a competitive advantage.

Nevertheless, the purchase of such information

systems is complex, in view that the software projects

frequently fail either in schedule, cost or quality.

According to (Pitterman, 2000; Yamamura, 1999),

a software development process improvement has

been rising the quality of the information systems

produced, reducing the costs and the effort spent in

the projects, while increasing the productivity of the

activities performed. In this sense, the improvement

of processes quality is one of the main purposes of the

software manufacturers, which can result in

improvements in the final product as well. Generally,

companies structure process improvement programs

based on pre-established software process reference

Luiz Becker A., Luis Nicolas Audy J. and Prikladnicki R. (2008).

AN APPROACH TO SUPPORT THE STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT OF SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.

In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - ISAS, pages 66-73

DOI: 10.5220/0001690600660073

 SciTePress

models, such as SW-CMM (Paulk, 1993) and CMMI

(Chrissis, 2003). They are used as process definition

guidelines through levels that assist the companies in

the evolution of their processes.

These software process reference models

establish software engineering best practices for the

companies to use as basis in the definition of their

processes. Nonetheless, such models do not

explicitly guide the companies towards defining

processes which meet their strategic goals (Liu,

2005). As a consequence, companies develop their

processes using these guidelines, but with no

guaranty that these processes will be focused on the

companies’ business strategic goals.

However, the alignment between the strategy of a

process improvement program and the organizations’

business strategies has been mentioned as a critical

factor of success of software process improvement

programs (Biro, 1999; Brodman, 1995; Grady, 1997;

Humphrey, 1989; Pulford, 1996; Zahran, 1998). Such

alignment shall guarantee that the processes

institutionalized by an organization are guided

towards the strategic goals, instead of only

approaching the software engineering best practices

established in the software process reference models.

According to (McCoy, 1998), the process

improvement may result in processes that, when

institutionalized, intend to meet the goals defined in a

strategic planning (SP). This same author states that

competitive advantages can be attained when the

synergy between SP and process improvement

becomes properly compatible.

When the SP is started, it is focused on the goals

established for the organization and on the current

diagnosis. As a result, feasible purposes and

strategies are defined to meet such goals. Regarding

process improvement, the basic inputs are purposes,

strategic actions and resources. The result is a set of

optimized processes which, when institutionalized,

facilitate the performance of necessary activities to

meet the organization’s goals.

In that sense, in order to define processes that

meet the strategic goals of the organizations, an

improvement program shall be aligned with the

business strategy. Considering the existing

relationship between improvement programs and

strategic planning, this paper presents a research

which specifically approaches the strategic alignment

of software process improvement programs.

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This is a research applied to the area of information

systems. Since the theme is an emerging area, the

use of an exploratory and qualitative research was

defined. Regarding the research method, a case

study was conducted, adopted as proposed by (Yin,

2003). The research was organized in three stages:

theoretical review, development and evaluation.

The first stage started with the study of existing

literature. The review comprised software quality

literature, software process improvement, strategic

planning and strategic alignment. During the

development stage, a strategic alignment process of

software process improvement programs (called AE-

MPS) was defined and a supporting tool was

developed. The evaluation stage was intended to

check the suitability of the AE-MPS process by

carrying out a case study.

With the purpose to systemize the task of

collecting and analyzing data originated in the case

study and, consequently, increase reliability, a

protocol for the development and formalization of the

study was defined and used. For the data collection, a

triangulation process was used: structured interview,

with open and closed questions, direct observation

and documentation (Yin, 2003).

The structured interviews were applied through two

research instruments. The first was a questionnaire

exploring the analysis of the company situation in a

moment prior to the application of the AE-MPS

process. The second was a questionnaire to evaluate the

suitability of the proposed process regarding its

purpose, efficiency of the supporting tool and the

company situation after the use of AE-MPS.

With the structured interviews, a content analysis

through category identification was performed. The

document review allowed the corroboration and

appreciation of the evidences arising from the interviews,

providing further details regarding the answers from the

interviewees. The observations delivered additional

information about the application of the AE-MPS process.

Based on the qualitative analysis of the data, an

evaluation of the AE-MPS process was performed.

Furthermore, a review of the proposed process was

carried out. In the following section, the structure of

the AE-MPS process is presented.

4 AE-MPS PROCESS

The proposed process is intended to align the strategy

of a software process improvement program based on

AN APPROACH TO SUPPORT THE STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT OF SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAMS

the organizations’ strategic planning. As a result of

the application of such process, the most important

elements of a software process reference model for

the organization can be identified.

The Quality Function Deployment (QFD) technique

proposes the planning of goal-oriented actions in order to

maximize the quality of a product (Akao, 1990).

Approaching an organization’s software development

processes as a product, such technique is applied so that

the process definitions are oriented towards the

organization’s goals as defined in the strategic planning.

Such process proposes the involvement of

professionals from an organization’s strategic, tactical

and operating perspectives. Therefore, in order to

establish the most important elements of a software

process reference model, the current problems with the

software development process and its respective causes,

as well as the strategic planning, are taken into account.

The QDF technique uses a number of matrices, which

collect, analyze and manage goals as an end product.

However, 95% of the QFD applications apply only the

first matrix, called House of Quality (Cox, 1992).

Basically, such matrix relates “what” – goals on a high

abstraction level to “how” – actions on low level (Zaijun,

2005). Then, a crossover between rows versus columns is

established and the impact analysis of each one of the

relationships is determined in accordance with Table 1.

Table 1: Relationship Levels.

7 Value Symbol

High

Medium

Low

None

0 N/A

While filling in the House of Quality matrices, a

value representing the priority of each one of the

defined elements shall be established. The higher the

value attributed to an element, the higher will its

priority be over the others. Furthermore, the use of

different-value scales is allowed to prioritize each

group of elements (a group of elements may be

defined in the rows or in the columns of the matrix).

At the end, these values are adjusted considering

the impact between the elements defined in the matrix.

Thus, each low-level action ("how") is prioritized

taking in account its relation with high-level goals

("what"). In the AE-MPS process, three matrices are

proposed based on the House of Quality matrix.

4.1 Strategic Goals Vs. Tactical Goals

Matrix

In order to use this matrix (Figure 1), the strategic and

tactical goals with the process improvement program shall

be defined. Furthermore, the relationship impact between

such goals should be analyzed. For such activities, the

strategic planning should be used as an input artifact.

Figure 1: Strategic Goals Vs. Tactical Goals Matrix.

An initial priority value for each strategic and

tactical goal is established. Thus, the adjusted

priority of the tactical goal is defined with the

application of the following expression:

= TI

j *

∑ EI

* R (E

, T

)

i = 1

(1)

where,

TAj is the adjusted priority of the tactical goal j;

TIj is the initial priority of the tactical goal j;

EIi is the priority of the strategic goal i;

R (Ei, Tj) is the value representing the relationship

between the strategic goal i and the tactical goal j;

k is the quantity of strategic goals.

4.2 Tactical Goals Vs. Causes of

Problems Matrix

For the use of this matrix (Figure 2), the organization’s

software development process needs to be analyzed

and all the existing problems and their respective

causes need to be identified. Therefore, it is necessary

to fill in the matrix and analyze the relationship impact

between the tactical goals and the causes of problems.

Figure 2: Tactical Goals Vs. Causes of Problems Matrix.

ICEIS 2008 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

The initial priority of each process cause of problems

should be established. Concerning the initial priority of the

tactical goals, it is originated in the result from Strategic

Goals Vs. Tactical Goals matrix. Thus, a new adjustment

in the priority of the tactical goals can be performed:

TA2

= TA

j *

∑ CI

* R (C

, T

) * F

i = 1

(2)

where,

TA2j is the adjusted priority 2 of the tactical goal j;

TAj is the adjusted priority of the tactical goal j;

CIi is the priority of the process cause of problems i;

R (Ci, Tj) is the value representing the relationship between

the process cause of problem i and the tactical goal j;

F is the importance factor of the process cause of problems;

k is the quantity of process cause of problems.

4.3 Tactical Goals Vs. Processes Matrix

The relationship impact analysis between the tactical goals

and the elements of a software process reference model is

established in this matrix (Figure 3). The elements of a

model that should be filled out in the matrix are the

software engineering best practices related specifically to a

level of maturity. In the matrix, they are called Processes.

Figure 3: Tactical Goals Vs. Processes Matrix.

After that, the priority of each element of the software

process reference model can be determined from their

relationships with the tactical goals. The following

expression is considered:

= ∑ TA2

* R (T

, P

)

i = 1

(3)

where,

PIj is the initial priority of the process j;

TA2i is the adjusted priority 2 of the tactical goal i;

R (Ti, Pj) is the value representing the relationship

between the tactical goal i and the process j;

k is the quantity of tactical goals.

Next, the current situation and the use frequency

of each element of the software process reference

model in the company are analyzed. An importance

factor for the use frequency should be also

established. Such factor can vary between 0.1 and 1.0,

where: 0.1 – the smallest value, and 1.0 – the highest

value, and establishes the importance of the use

frequency in changing the priority of an element of

the software process reference model. With such data,

an improvement rate is established for these elements:

= SA

* (F

* FI

)

(4)

where,

Tj is the improvement rate of process j;

SAj is the current situation of process j;

Fj is the use frequency of process j;

FIj is the importance factor of the use frequency.

At the end, the priority of the elements of the software

process reference model is adjusted considering the

improvement rate and the implementation difficulty. The

expression used for such adjustment is the following:

= (PI

* T

) * DI

(5)

where,

PAj is the adjusted priority of process j;

PIj is the initial priority of the process j;

Tj is the improvement rate of process j;

DIj is the implementation difficulty of process j.

The application of these matrices allows the

establishment of the importance percentages of the

software process reference model elements for the

organization. Next, the proposed process is illustrated

with the data obtained from the case study.

5 AE-MPS IN PRACTICE

To evaluate the proposed process, a case study was

carried out in a small Brazilian software development

company. Such company develops corporate portals

and web solutions related to information and

knowledge management, focusing especially on

increasing the productivity of its customers. The

company has been active in the market for 10 years

now, employing nearly seventy professionals allocated

in two Brazilian capitals (Sao Paulo and Porto Alegre).

The company is improving its processes using the

software process reference model MR-MPS (Montoni,

2007; Weber, 2005). This model was developed in the

context of a nationwide initiative for Brazil aiming to

make small companies more competitive in local and

global markets. The initiative has been executed since

December 2003 and the main goal is to disseminate

software process improvements aligned to Brazilian

software industry realities.

AN APPROACH TO SUPPORT THE STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT OF SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAMS

The seven MR-MPS maturity levels are: A

(Optimizing), B (Quantitatively Managed), C

(Defined), D (Largely Defined), E (Partially Defined),

F (Managed) and G (Partially Managed). The level G

is the most immature level, and level A is the most

mature one. The MR-MPS maturity levels are based

on the CMMI staged representation maturity levels.

The MR-MPS levels F, C, B and A correspond

respectively to CMMI levels 2, 3, 4 and 5. The MR-

MPS level G is an intermediary level between CMMI

levels 1 and 2, and the MR-MPS levels E and D are two

intermediary levels between CMMI levels 2 and 3. The

company wants to implement the level F, approaching

the following processes: Project Management,

Requirements Management, Acquisition, Configuration

Management, Quality Assurance and Measurement.

5.1 Strategic Goals Vs. Tactical Goals

Matrix

In order to fill in this matrix, four strategic goals

with the improvement of processes were defined

from the strategic planning: increase profit, increase

customer satisfaction, improve product quality, and

prospect and produce larger projects.

For each one of the strategic goals, the strategic

planning was analyzed again, and related tactical

goals were defined. From that, the Strategic Goals

Vs. Tactical Goals Matrix can be filled in and the

relationships can be analyzed. In Figure 4, the

matrix developed in the case study is presented.

A value to represent the priority of each strategic

and tactical goal was established. Considering the

relationship between strategic and tactical goals the

priority of the tactical goals was adjusted as per

expression 1.

5.2 Tactical Goals Vs. Causes of

Problems Matrix

The current problems with the software development

process of the organization and its respective causes

were identified. With such information, this matrix

was filled in and the relationship between the

tactical goals and the causes of problems were

analyzed. In Figure 5, a concise view of the matrix

developed in the case study is presented.

Subsequently, a value to represent the priority of

each cause of process problems was established.

Furthermore, the value 1 was established for the

importance factor of the causes of process problems

for the new adjustment of the tactical goals, in a

range from 0.1 – the smallest importance, to 1 – the

highest importance. From expression 2, the tactical

goals had their priority adjusted again.

5.3 Tactical Goals Vs. Processes Matrix

In order to establish the partial priority of the

elements referent to level F of the MR-MPS model,

this matrix was filled in and the relationship level

between the tactical goals and these elements was

analyzed. Therefore, expression 3 was applied, and

the process partial priority of the MR-MPS model

was established. In Figure 6, this matrix is presented.

In the sequence, the current situation of each

element of the MR-MPS model was analyzed (Table

2). The following levels to characterize this current

situation were used: T – Totally Satisfied; L –

Largely Satisfied; P – Partially Satisfied; and N –

Not Satisfied (ISO/IEC 15504-2, 2003).

Table 2: Current Situation of MR-MPS Processes.

MR-MPS Processes Current

Situation

Value

Project Management P 0.66

Requirements Management P 0.66

Acquisition P 0.66

Configuration Management N 1

Quality Assurance N 1

Measurement P 0.66

Figure 4: Strategic Goals Vs. Tactical Goals Matrix developed in the case study.

ICEIS 2008 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

Figure 5: Tactical Goals Vs. Causes of Problems Matrix developed in the case study.

Then, the use frequency of each MR-MPS element was

determined in a range with four values: no use; little use;

reasonable use; and much use. It was also established the

value of 0.5 as an importance factor of this use frequency,

ranging from 0.1 to 1.0, where: 0.1 – smallest importance;

and 1.0 – highest importance. With that, the improvement

rate of the MR-MPS processes was established from

expression 4.

Table 3: Frequency of the MR-MPS Processes.

MR-MPS Processes Use Frequency Value

Project Management Much use 1

Requirements Management Much use 1

Acquisition Little use 0.33

Configuration

Management

Much use 1

Quality Assurance Reasonable use 0.66

Measurement Reasonable use 0.66

Then, the implementation difficulty of each MR-

MPS element in the organization was established. A

range with four values was used: no difficulty; little

difficulty; reasonable difficulty; and much difficulty.

Table 4: Implementation Difficulty of MR-MPS Processes.

MR-MPS Processes Implementation

Difficulty

Value

Project Management Little difficulty 0.75

Requirements

Management

Reasonable

difficulty

0.5

Acquisition Much difficulty 0.25

Configuration

Management

Reasonable

difficulty

0.5

Quality Assurance Much difficulty 0.25

Measurement Reasonable

difficulty

0.5

After that, the priority of the MR-MPS elements was

adjusted from expression 5. At the end, each MR-MPS

element had its final priority established. Therefore,

the importance percentage of each MR-MPS element

for the organization could be identified.

Figure 6: Tactical Goals Vs. Processes Matrix developed

in the case study.

Based on these importance percentages, the

organization defined process improvements from

Requirements Management and Project Management.

After these processes are defined, a professional team

was trained and four pilot projects were started. An

evaluation of the AE-MPS process, based on the

results from the case study, is described next.

6 PROCESS EVALUATION

Based on the qualitative analysis of the data, we evaluate

the suitability of the AE-MPS process in aligning the

strategy of a software process improvement program and

the organization’s strategic planning. The evaluation for

each one of the proposed matrices is reported, as well as

the involvement of different hierarchical levels.

AN APPROACH TO SUPPORT THE STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT OF SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAMS

6.1 Strategic Goals Vs. Tactical Goals

Matrix

According to most of the people involved with the use

of the AE-MPS within the organization, the use of the

proposed process successfully allowed the software

process improvement program strategy to be aligned

with the organization’s business strategy.

Considering the importance of goals defined for

an software process improvement program (Liu,

2005), the use of this matrix guaranteed them to be

established, prioritized and related to the current

problems and elements of the MR-MPS model.

Moreover, the AE-MPS process proposed the analysis

of the current situation of the strategic goals by means

of metrics, clarifying the quantitative expectations of

the company with the improvement program.

6.2 Tactical Goals Vs. Causes of

Problems Matrix

Unanimously, the ones involved in the use of the AE-

MPS affirmed that this process assisted a lot in the

analysis of the current problems with the organization’s

software development process and their respective causes.

Since it was the first time that this type of analysis was

carried out in the organization, those involved outlined the

importance of a consolidation of the current problems and

their causes on organizational level.

As a weak point, it was found that a few problems

with the software development process were

mentioned in individual interviews; however they

were not consolidated during the matrix filling-in

activity. On the other hand, the team work allowed the

identification of two new problems which were not

mentioned in any individual interview.

Furthermore, the ones involved mentioned that

they were not aware of the existing convergence

between the organization’s causes of problems and

the tactical goals. With the use of this matrix, such

relationship can be quantified and the current

process problems in the strategic alignment of the

improvement program can be considered.

6.3 Tactical Goals Vs. Processes Matrix

According to those involved in the application of the

proposed process, the main advantage of this matrix was

allowing the identification of the MR-MPS model

elements, which shall be prioritized by the organization.

As per the attained answers, the MR-MPS model elements

prioritized by means of the AE-MPS process application

are indeed the most important for the organization.

Considering that this prioritization is based on the

organization’s goals with the process improvement

program and on the current problems with the software

development process, it was guaranteed that the prioritized

MR-MPS elements represent the organization’s needs as a

whole and not in personal views.

Those involved outlined that the application of the

proposed process made it easier for the organization’s

strategic goals with the improvement program to be

met. In addition, the senior management’s satisfaction

with this initiative was guaranteed.

6.4 Involvement of Different

Hierarchical Levels

According to those involved, the AE-MPS process

delivers a higher involvement of the organization’s

strategic, tactical and operating levels with the

improvement program. However, they mentioned that

the main difficulties in the application of this process are

the number of people required and the reduced

availability of those involved in the performed activities.

Concerning the number of people required, it was

found that such difficulty, at the same time, establishes an

advantage for the proposed process, which is involving

every organizational level. The AE-MPS process is

intended to guarantee the associates’ participation in the

process improvement program, intending to involve the

highest number of people possible (Niazi, 2003).

7 DISCUSSION

The main contribution of this research was proposing

a process that assists in the definition of the strategy

of an improvement program based on the

organizations’ strategic goals. The intention of the

AE-MPS process is that the process improvements in

an improvement program meet, in a more systematic

way, the organization’s strategic goals and not only

the demands of a software process reference model.

In addition, the most important element identification

of a software process reference model for an

organization allows the first efforts in an improvement

program to be spent on these elements identified by the

AE-MPS. Considering that these elements were

prioritized from a consolidation of the organization’s

needs, the probability of effective results right from the

beginning of improvement programs is increased.

Regarding the definition of strategic goals for a

software process improvement program, it was found that

they facilitate the monitoring of such initiatives. Such

goals involve the senior management and allow assessing

whether an improvement program is being successful.

ICEIS 2008 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

The AE-MPS process also considers the current

problems with the software development process of

the organization and their respective causes.

According to (Hierholzer, 1998), it is essential that a

process improvement program approaches the

existing problems in the software development

process and proposes solutions. It was found that the

resolution of such problems produces commitment

and interest from those who perform the processes.

8 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

In this paper, a process for the strategic alignment of

software process improvement programs based on the

strategic planning was proposed. That contributes for

the systematization of how to maximize the results of

these programs based on the organization’s goals and

the current problems with the software development

process, either by using models such as CMMI or

SPICE, or their derivatives, such as in this study.

Since only a case study was carried out, the

generalization of the attained results is restricted.

However, this is a typical situation in qualitative

researches of exploratory nature. As a future work,

this process shall be applied to other companies,

extending the possibility of result generalization.

The results attained from this research point

towards the importance of having approaches

allowing the identification of the organizations’

strategic goals and, from those, the priorities in a

software process reference model. Therefore, the

improvement programs can be directed towards the

company’s strategy and seeking better results.

REFERENCES

Akao, Y., 1990. The book, QFD: Integrating customer

requirements into product design. Portland,

Productivity Press.

Biro, M., Tully, C., 1999. The Software Process in the Context of

Business Goals and Performance. In Better Software Practice

for Business Benefit: Principles and Experience. CS Press.

Brodman, J.G., Johnson, D.L., 1995. Return on Investment (ROI)

from Software Process Improvement as Measured by US

Industry. In Software Process Improvement and Practice.

Chrissis, M. B., Konrad, M., Shrum, S., 2003. The book,

CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and

Product Improvement. Addison-Wesley.

Cox, C. A., 1992. Keys to success in quality function

deployment. In APICS—The Performance Advantage.

McCoy, W. L., 1998. Interfacing Three Complementary

Technologies: Strategic Planning, Process Modeling,

and System Dynamics. In IEEE International

Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

Debou, C., Courtel, D., Lambert, H.-B., Fuchs, N., Haux,

M, 1999. Alcatel’s Experience with Process

Improvement. In Better Software Practice for Business

Benefit: Principles and Experience. CS Press.

Dybå, T., 2005. An Empirical Investigation of the Key

Factors for Success in Software Process Improvement. In

IEEE Trans. Software Eng., v. 31, n. 5, 2005, pp.410-424.

Grady, R.B., 1997. The book, Successful Software Process

Improvement. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Hierholzer, A., Herzwurm, G., Schlang, H., 1998.

Applying QFD for Software Process Improvement at

SAP AG. In Proceedings of the World Innovation and

Strategy Conference in Sydney, Australia.

Humphrey, W.S., 1989. The book, Managing the Software

Process. Addison-Wesley.

ISO/IEC 15504-2, 2003. Information Technology - Process

Assessment – Part 2 - Performing an Assessment. In

International Organization for Standardization and

International Electrotechnical Commission. Genebra, ISO.

Liu, X., Sun, Y., Kane, G., Kyoya, Y., Noguchi, K., 2005. QFD

Application in Software Process Management and

Improvement Based on CMM. In ACM SIGSOFT Software

Engineering. SESSION: Software Quality (WOSQ).

Montoni, M., Santos, G., Rocha, A. R., Weber, K. C., Araújo.

E. R., 2007. MPS Model and TABA Workstation:

Implementing Software Process Improvement Initiatives

in Small Settings. In WoSQapos;07: ICSE Workshops

2007. Volume, Issue, 20-26 May 2007 Page(s): 4 - 4

Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D., 2003. A model for the

implementation of software process improvement: A

pilot study. In Journal of Systems and Software, ACM.

Paulk, M.., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M., Weber, C. V., 1993. Capability

Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1. Technical Report.

Peterson, B., 1995. Transitioning the CMM into practice.

In Proceedings of the European Conference on

Software Process Improvement, Barcelona, Spain

Pitterman, B., 2000. Telcordia Technologies: The journey

to high maturity. In IEEE Software.

Pulford, K, Kuntzmann-Combelles, A., Shirlaw, and S., 1996. The

book, A Quantitative Approach to Software Management. The

AMI Handbook. Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley.

Weber, K., Araújo, E., Rocha, A., Machado, C., Scalet, D.,

Salviano, C. F., 2005. Brazilian Software Process Reference

Model and Assessment Method. In Proceedings of 20th Int.

Symp. on Computer and Info. Sciences, pp. 402-411, 2005.

Yamamura, G., 1999. Software process satisfied

employees. In IEEE Software.

Yin, R., 2003. The book, Case Study Research: Design

and Methods. Sage Publications Inc.

Zahran, S., 1998. The book, Software Process

Improvement: Practical Guidelines for Business

Success. Harlow, England: Addison-Wesley.

Zaijun, H., 2005. Value-Centric Process Improvement for

Small Organizations by Using QFD and CMMI. In

Proceedings of the First International Research

Workshop for Process Improvement in Small Settings.

AN APPROACH TO SUPPORT THE STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT OF SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAMS