Predicting acceptance of Software Process Improvement

ABSTRACT

Software Process Improvement (SPI) initiatives induce organizational change, by introducing new tools, techniques and work practices. Organizations have to address acceptance issues such as resistance to change, compatibility and fear of adverse consequences. Social psychology literature includes the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which study such adoption issues and predict intention to use and actual usage of workplace technology. Some constructs of these models could be applied to software organizations to make it easier for them to counter the initial resistance and to assimilate process improvement into the work culture. To increase applicability of these models to the SPI context, some additional constructs are proposed, by taking into account organizational culture, the impact of changes caused by SPI and the unique characteristics of software developers.

References

1. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, (1991), 179--211.
2. Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, (2002), 665--683.
3. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, (1977), 191--215.
4. Briand, L. C., Differding, C. M., and Rombach, H. D. Practical guidelines for measurement-based process improvement. Software Process - Improvement and Practice, 2, (1996), 253--280.
5. Chilton, M. and Hardgrave, B. Assessing information technology personnel: toward a behavioral rating scale. DATA BASE Adv. Inform. Syst., 35, 3, (2004), 88--104.
6. Davis, F. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and end user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, (1989), 318--339.
7. Dasakalantonakis, M. A practical view of software measurement and implementation experiences within Motorola." IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 18, (Nov. 1992), 998--1010.
8. Dekkers, C. A. The secrets of highly successful measurement programs. Cutter IT Journal, 12, 4, (1999), 29--35.
9. Gopal, A., Krishnan, M. S., Mukhopadhyay, T., and Goldenson, D. Measurement programs in software development: determinants of success. IEEE Trans. on Software Eng., 28, 9, (Sep. 2002), 863--875.
10. Hall, T. and Fenton, N. Implementing effective software metrics programs. IEEE Software, (March/April 1997), 55--65.
11. Hardgrave, B. and Johnson, R. Toward an information systems development acceptance model: the case of object-oriented systems development. IEEE Trans. On Eng. Management, 50, 3, (Aug. 2003), 322--336.
12. Hardgrave, B., Davis, F., and Riemenscheneider, C., Investigating determinants of software developers' intentions to follow methodologies. J. Manage. Inform. Syst., 20, (2003), 123--151.
13. Iversen, J., and Mathiassen, L. Lessons from implementing a software metrics program. In Proc. Hawaii Int'l Conf. System Sciences (HICSS-33), 2000.
14. Jeffery, D. R. and Berry, M. A framework for evaluation and prediction of metrics program success," In Proc. 1st Int'l Software Metrics Symp. (Los Alamitos, Calif., 1993).IEEE Computer Society Press, 1993, 28--39.
15. Jeffery, D. R., Basili, V., and Berry, M. Establishing successful measurement for software quality improvement. In Proc. TC8AUS IFIP Int'l Working Conf. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1994), 339--350.
16. Mathieson, K. Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2, (1991), 173--191.
17. Moore, G., and Benbasat, I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2, (1991), 192--222.
18. Niessink, F., and van Vilet, H. Towards mature measurement programs. In Proc. Second Euromicro Conf. on Software Maintenance and Reengineering. (Florence, Italy, March 8-11. 1998). IEEE Computer Society, 82--88.
19. Offen, R. J. and Jeffrey, R. Establishing software measurement programs. IEEE Software, (Mar./Apr. 1997), 45--53.
20. Orlikowski, W. J. CASE tools as organizational change: investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly, 17, 3, (1993), 309--340.
21. Paulish, D., and Carleton, A. Case studies of software process improvement measurement. IEEE Computer, 27, 9, (Sep. 1994), 50--57.
22. S. L. Pfleeger, "Lessons Learned in Building a Corporate Metrics Program," IEEE Software, pp. 67--74, May 1993.
23. Pfleeger, S. L. Understanding and improving technology transfer in software engineering. J. Systems and Software, 47, 2-3, (Jul. 1999), 111--124.
24. Premkumar, G., and Potter, M. Adoption of computer aided software engineering (CASE) technology: An innovation adoption perspective. DATA BASE Adv. Inform. Syst., 26, 2&3, (1995), 105--123.
25. Rai, A., and Patnayakuni, R. A structural model for CASE adoption behavior. J. Manage. Inform. Syst., 13, .2, (1996), 205--234.
26. Reimenschneider, C., Hardgrave, B., and Davis, F. D. Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: A comparison of five theoretical models. IEEE Trans. on Software Eng., 28, 12, (Dec. 2002), 1135--1145.
27. Rhodes, R., and Courneya, K. Investigating multiple components of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived control: An examination of the theory of planned behavior in the exercise domain. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, (2003), 129--146.
28. Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovation. 4th ed. Free Press, New York, 1995.
29. Rubin, H. Measuring 'Rigor' and putting measurement into action. American Programmer, 4, 9, (Sep. 1991), 9--23.
30. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci., 46, 2, (2000), 186--204.

Index Terms

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Management of computing and information systems

      • Project and people management

      • Software management

• Software and its engineering

  • Software creation and management

    • Software development process management

    • Software verification and validation

      • Process validation