The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND—Software Process Improvement (SPI) is a systematic approach to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of a software development organization and to enhance software products. OBJECTIVE—This paper aims to identify and characterize evaluation strategies and measurements used to assess the impact of different SPI initiatives. METHOD—The systematic literature review includes 148 papers published between 1991 and 2008. The selected papers were classified according to SPI initiative, applied evaluation strategies, and measurement perspectives. Potential confounding factors interfering with the evaluation of the improvement effort were assessed. RESULTS—Seven distinct evaluation strategies were identified, wherein the most common one, “Pre-Post Comparison,” was applied in 49 percent of the inspected papers. Quality was the most measured attribute (62 percent), followed by Cost (41 percent), and Schedule (18 percent). Looking at measurement perspectives, “Project” represents the majority with 66 percent. CONCLUSION—The evaluation validity of SPI initiatives is challenged by the scarce consideration of potential confounding factors, particularly given that “Pre-Post Comparison” was identified as the most common evaluation strategy, and the inaccurate descriptions of the evaluation context. Measurements to assess the short and mid-term impact of SPI initiatives prevail, whereas long-term measurements in terms of customer satisfaction and return on investment tend to be less used.
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
Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031619 · Cited by 8,733
Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering
Runeson, P., & Höst, M. (2009) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-008-9102-8 · Cited by 3,862
Atkinson, R. (1999) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(98)00069-6 · Cited by 2,359
Selecting Empirical Methods for Software Engineering Research
Easterbrook, S., Singer, J., Storey, M.-A., & Damian, D. (2008) · Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5_11 · Cited by 1,167
The Logical Framework Method for Defining Project Success
Baccarini, D. (1999) · Project Management Journal · doi:10.1177/875697289903000405 · Cited by 1,136
Prospects for an engineering discipline of software
Shaw, M. (1990) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/52.60586 · Cited by 346
Empirical Research Methods in Software Engineering
Wohlin, C., Höst, M., & Henningsson, K. (2003) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45143-3_2 · Cited by 270
Cited by
Software fault prediction metrics: A systematic literature review
Radjenović, D., Heričko, M., Torkar, R., & Živkovič, A. (2013) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2013.02.009 · Cited by 538
Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study
Paternoster, N., Giardino, C., Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T., & Abrahamsson, P. (2014) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2014.04.014 · Cited by 451
Self-citationAmpatzoglou, A., Bibi, S., Avgeriou, P., Verbeek, M., & Chatzigeorgiou, A. (2019) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2018.10.006 · Cited by 305
Challenges and solutions when adopting DevSecOps: A systematic review
Rajapakse, R. N., Zahedi, M., Babar, M. A., & Shen, H. (2022) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106700 · Cited by 235
Khan, A. A., Shameem, M., Kumar, R. R., Hussain, S., & Yan, X. (2019) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105648 · Cited by 126
Metadata
- Authors
- Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T., Islam, A. K. M. M., Cheng, C. K., Permadi, R. B., & Feldt, R.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2012-03
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 398-424
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2022683857
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 8.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.2011.26
- The paper
- Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T., Islam, A. K. M. M., Cheng, C. K., Permadi, R. B., & Feldt, R. (2012). Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement—A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2011.26
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.