Hardware Reference
In-Depth Information
It would be impossible to reference all the research work that has been inseminated
by Argyris and Schön's theories [10]. In the software engineering field, Halloran [11]
investigates the relationship between a software process assessment and improvement
model and organizational learning. This work points out the difference between “en-
gineer's espoused theory” and his/her “theory in use” but it does not develop this
matter as we did and rather focuses on the use of organizational learning to promote a
proactive approach culturally to continuous improvement and learning procedures.
Many propositions have been made for Process Improvement or Process Assess-
ment in small software companies ([12], [13], [14]). Many small organizations are
unaware of existing SPI& SPA standards and assumes that assessments conformant to
these standards can be expensive and time consuming, difficult to perform in small
companies. We think that while building the observatory of course-of-action, founda-
tions are set-up that will facilitate further SPI & SPA programs. There are similitude
with the SPA process proposed in [13] based on an initial self-evaluation and follow-
ing structured interviews and the observatory as we use it.
4 Observing Software Activities
4.1 Software Engineering Standards
A very concise definition of the objects of software engineering is “a project uses
resources in performing processes to produce products for a customer [15].” It gives a
model in figure 2, centered on the software engineering project as the focal point for
applying software engineering standards. This suggests a categorization of standards
in four major areas: customer, process, product, and resource.
Fig. 2.
The objects of software engineering, suggesting a categorization of standards in the
subject areas of customer, process, product, and resource [15]
