Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 291

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 access
Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T., Islam, A. K. M. M., Chow Kian Cheng, Permadi, R. B., Feldt, R.·2012·IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tse.2011.26

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 291

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.