Hardware Reference
In-Depth Information
Argyris and Schön explored the nature of organizational learning and defined two
kind of learning: simple-loop learning and double-loop learning [22]. Then they set up
two models (Model I and Model II) that describe features of theories-in-use that either
inhibit or enhance double-loop learning. Further work is required to consider how
course-of-action analysis is related with these organizational learning models and
hence, on the VSE's ability to cope with innovations and changes.
References
1.
Schön, D.: The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books, New York (1983)
2.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., McLain Smith, D.: Action Science, Concepts, methods, and skills
for research and intervention. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1985)
3.
Software Engineering - Lifecycle Profiles for Very Small Enterprises (VSE) - Part 1,
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/
catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=51150
4.
Theureau, J., Filippi, G., Gaillard, I.: From semio-logical analysis to design: the case of
traffic control, communication. In: Colloquium Work activity in the perspective of organi-
zation and design, M.S.H., Paris (1992)
5.
Theureau, J., Filippi, G.: Analysing cooperative work in an urban traffic control room for
the design of a coordination support system. In: Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., Heath, C. (eds.)
Workplace studies, ch. 4, pp. 68-91. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (2000)
6.
Theureau, J.: Course-of-action analysis & course-of-action centered design. In: Hollnagel,
E. (ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design. Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., New Haven (2003)
7.
Ribaud, V., Saliou, P.: Revealing Software Engineering Theory-in-Use through the Obser-
vation of Software Engineering Apprentices' Course-of-action. In: 4
th
International Multi-
Conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology. IEEE Press, New York
(2009)
8.
Theureau, J.: Selfconfrontation interview as a component of an empirical and technologi-
cal research programme. In: II° Journées internationales des sciences du sport, Paris (2002)
9.
Varela, F.: Principles of biological autonomy. Elsevier, New York (1980)
10.
Argyris, C., Schön, D.: Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-
Bass, San Fransisco (1974)
11.
Halloran, P.: Organisational Learning from the Perspective of a Software Process Assess-
ment & Improvement Program. In: 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-
ences. IEEE Press, New York (1999)
12.
Cater-Steel, A.P.: Process improvement in four small software companies. In: Software
Engineering Conference, pp. 262-272. IEEE Press, New York (1999)
13.
Grunbacher, P.: A software assessment process for small software enterprises. In: Euromi-
cro 1997. New Frontiers of Information Technology, pp. 123-128. IEEE Press, New York
(1997)
14.
von Wangenheim, C.G., Anacleto, A., Salviano, C.F.: Helping small companies assess
software processes. IEEE Software 23, 91-98 (2006)
15.
Moore, J.W.: An integrated collection of software engineering standards. IEEE Soft-
ware 16(6), 51-57 (1999)
16.
ISO/IEC 12207:2008, Information technology - Software life cycle processes. Interna-
tional Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva (2008)
17.
ISO/IEC 15504:2004, Information technology - Process assessment. International Organi-
zation for Standardization (ISO), Geneva (2004)
