The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving software process improvement
Abstract
Two dichotomies characterize software process improvement efforts and approaches: disciplined versus creative work and procurer risks versus user satisfaction. Based on these perspectives, the authors introduce six theses to illuminate the problems of pursuing SPI.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
People, organizations, and process improvement
Perry, D. E., Staudenmayer, N. A., & Votta, L. G. (1994) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/52.300082 · Cited by 401
Cited by
Experiences using systematic review guidelines
Staples, M., & Niazi, M. (2007) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.046 · Cited by 313
An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI
Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P., & Murphy, R. (2007) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2006.09.008 · Cited by 260
Metadata
- Authors
- Conradi, H., & Fuggetta, A.
- Venue
- IEEE Software
- Published
- 2002-07
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 92-99
- ISSN
- 0740-7459 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2056650879
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 24.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving software process improvement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/ms.2002.1020295
- The paper
- Conradi, H., & Fuggetta, A. (2002). Improving software process improvement. IEEE Software. https://doi.org/10.1109/ms.2002.1020295
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
