1. 26th International Forum on Systems, Software, and COCOMO Cost Modeling. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. November 2-4, 2011 Cultural Mismatches as Predictors for the Successful Adoption of Software Process Improvement Models Dr. Jorge Aguilar Cisneros, Universidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de Puebla jorge.aguilar@upaep.mx Dr. Ricardo Valerdi, University of Arizona rvalerdi@arizona.edu

2. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Agenda 1.Problem 2.Consequences of failed adoption 3.MoProSoft Example 4.Methodology proposal 5.Identify intrinsic culture of process 6.Identify organizational culture (8 mexican firms) 7.Differences & Similarities 8.Conclusion

3. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Problem Companies trying to adopt models to support software processes (i.e., CMMI, MoProSoft, ISO 9000-3, MIL STD 498, SCRUM, etc.) face organizational culture challenges. The main tension is between intrinsic culture of process improvement models which they are attempting to adopt and the culture of their organization

4. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Consequences of Failed Adoptions Millions of dollars of economic losses Decreased productivity Slipped delivery schedules Lack of process formality

5. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 5 MoProSoft Example CMMI fared well in the U.S., but what about Mexico? 92% of Mexican software companies are small/medium-sized (< 100 people) and average process capability level is 0.9 (Oktaba 2006) Only 3 Mexican companies have achieved level 2; 33 are level 1 (MoProSoft) A process model for small enterprises. Oktaba, H., “MoProSoft: A Process Model for Small Enterprises,” Proceedings of the 1 st International Research Workshop for Process Improvement in Small Settings, CMU/SEI-2006-SR-001, Software Engineering Institute – Carnegie Mellon University, 2006. Adequate for low-maturity SMEs Inexpensive to adopt Permissible as a national standard Specific for SW dev. and maint. Based on int. recognized practices ISO9000:2000Yes No CMM/CMMIYesNo Yes ISO/IEC 12207??Yes ISO/IEC 15504??Yes No

6. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Research Methodology

7. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 7 Culture of Technology Technology Practice Cultural Aspect Goals, values, and ethical codes, belief in progress, awareness and creativity Organizational Aspect Economic and industrial activity, professional activity, users and consumers, trade unions Technical Aspect Knowledge, skill, and technique, tools, machines, chemicals, resources, products and wastes General meaning of “technology” Restricted meaning of “technology” Pacey, A., The Culture of Technology, MIT Press, 1983.

8. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Two tasks – Competing Values Framework culture characterization: Clan, Hierarchy, Adhocracy, Market – Books NMX-I-059/NYCE characterization (books 1,2,3 and 4) Using co-ocurrences methodology Identify Intrinsic Culture of Process (1/5)

9. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Identify Intrinsic Culture of Process (2/5) Example: Clan characterization. If then, this word is a co-occurrence that characterizes the clan culture.

10. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Example: Book 1 characterization. If then, this word is a co-occurrence that characterizes book 1. Identify Intrinsic Culture of Process (3/5)

11. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Algorithm to identify the intrinsic culture of technology. Identify Intrinsic Culture of Process (4/5)

12. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Intrinsic culture of the Mexican standard NMX-I- 059/NYCE-2005  HIERARCHY Identify Intrinsic Culture of Process (5/5)

13. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Organizational Culture of 8 Mexican Software Firms (1/2)

14. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 The organizational culture identified in the Mexican companies was clustered into three groups. – The first group included the companies with a dominant culture of CLAN type. – The second group with a dominant culture of MARKET type. – The third group with a dominant culture of ADHOCRACY type. Organizational Culture of 8 Mexican Software Firms (2/2)

15. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Differences & Similarities (1/3) Firm #8 The Highest mismatch.

16. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Differences & Similarities (2/3) Firm #6 The Lowest mismatch

17. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Differences & Similarities (3/3)

18. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Conclusion (1/2) The outcomes provide information that can be used to carry out the necessary cultural modifications to improve adoption rates With these increased adoption rates we would observe a reduction of effort for adopting software process improvement models and increased chances of successful adoption

19. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Conclusions (2/2) Our methodology could be applied to various situations: a)When a company begins adoption activities of a software process improvement model. b)When a company faces problems of institutionalizing a software process improvement model. c)When the software process improvement model used undergoes an update.

20. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Limitations These outcomes are valid only for the participating companies in this research and, represent a situation at a specific point in time Organizational cultures are dynamic just as much as the software process improvement models

21. 26th COCOMO Forum. USC Nov. 2011 Contact Jorge Aguilar Cisneros jorge.aguilar@upaep.mx Ricardo Valerdi rvalerdi@arizona.edu Thank you. Questions?