Most software firms struggle to take advantage of the potential benefits of software process improvement (SPI) as they adopt this technology into the complex and dynamic realities of their day-to-day operation. Such efforts are therefore typically fluctuating between management's attempt to control SPI technology adoption and events that causes the process to drift in unpredictable directions. To further understand how management's attempt to control the process is complemented by drifting, this article investigates the role of improvisation in adoption of SPI technology in a Danish software firm, SmallSoft, over a 10-year period (1996–2005). We found that micro-level and macro-level improvisations interacted, often in uncoordinated ways, to shape SPI technology adoption at SmallSoft. The improvisations enhanced employee creativity, motivation and empowerment, created momentum in the adoption process despite constrained resources, and, most importantly, helped adapt SPI technology to the everyday practices at SmallSoft. However, we also identified un-called for improvisations and outcomes that were uncoordinated with SmallSoft's goals. Based on these findings we discuss how management in small software firms can exploit improvisations to facilitate adoption of complex technologies like SPI.
AaenI. (2003). Software Process Improvement: Blueprints versus recipes, IEEE Software20(5): 86–93.
2.
AaenI., ArendtJ., MathiassenL., and NgwenyamaO. (2001). A Conceptual MAP of Software Process Improvement, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems13: 81–101.
3.
BachJ. (1994). The Immaturity of the CMM, American Programmer7(9): 13–18.
4.
BaliaK., BemelmansT., KustersR., and TrienekensJ. (2001). Quality Through Managed Improvement and Measurement (QMIM): Towards a phased development and implementation of a quality management system for a software company, Software Quality Journal9(3): 177–193.
5.
BarrettF.J. (1998). Creativity and Improvisation in Jazz and Organizations: Implications for organizational learning, Organization Science9(5): 605.
6.
BatistaJ., and FigueiredoA.D.D. (2000). SPI in a Very Small Team: A case with CMM, Software Process: Improvement and Practice5(4): 243–250.
7.
BrighamM., and IntronaL.D. (2006). Hospitality, Improvisation and Gestell: A phenomenology of mobile information, Journal of Information Technology21: 140–153.
8.
BrodmanJ.G., and JohnsonD.L. (1994). What Small Businesses and Small Organizations say about the CMM, in 16th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-16) (Sorrento, Italy, 1994); Silver Spring, MD: IEEE Computer Society Press, 331–340.
9.
BrouseP.S., and BuysR.T. (1999). Affordable Ways to Improve Application Development, IT Professional1(4): 47–52.
10.
BrownS.L., and EisenhardtK.M. (1997). The Art of Continuous Change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly42(1): 1–34.
11.
CallonM. (1986). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay, in LawJ. (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A new sociology of knowledge?London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 196–223.
12.
CallonM., and LawJ. (1989). On the Construction of Socio Technical Networks: Content and context revisited, Knowledge and Society9(8): 57–83.
CaseyV., and RichardsonI. (2004). A Practical Application of the IDEAL Model, Software Process: Improvement and Practice9(3): 123–132.
15.
ChelariuC., JohnstonW.J., and YoungL. (2002). Learning to Improvise, Improvising to Learn: A process of responding to complex environments, Journal of Business Research55(2): 141–147.
16.
ChoS., MathiassenL., and NilssonA. (2008). Contextual Dynamics During Health Information Systems Implementation: An event-based actor-network approach, European Journal of Information Systems17: 614–630.
17.
CiborraC. (1999). Notes on Improvisations and Time in Organizations, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies9: 77–94.
18.
CiborraC. (2002). The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the wisdom of systems, New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
CiborraC., and WillcocksL. (2006). The Mind or the Heart? It Depends on the (Definition of) Situation, Journal of Information Technology21: 129–139.
20.
ConradiR., and FuggettaA. (2002). Improving Software Process Improvement, IEEE Software19(4): 92.
21.
CunhaM.P., CunhaJ.V., and KamocheK. (1999). Organizational Improvisation: What, when, how and why, International Journal of Management Reviews1(3): 299–341.
22.
DionR. (1992). Elements of a Process-Improvement Program, IEEE Software9(4): 83–85.
23.
ElbannaA.R. (2006). The Validity of the Improvisation Argument in the Implementation of Rigid Technology: The case of ERP systems, Journal of Information Technology21: 165–175.
24.
ElbannaA.R. (2008). Strategic Systems Implementation: Diffusion through drift, Journal of Information Technology23(2): 89–96.
25.
GrechenigT., and ZuserW. (2004). Creating Organic Software Maturity Attitudes (COSMA) Selected Principles and Activities for Software Maturity in Small and Medium Software Enterprises, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC'04) (Braunschweig, Germany, 2004); 134–143, doi 10.1109/QSIC.2004.1357954.
26.
HansenB., RoseJ., and TjørnehøjG. (2004). Prescription, Description, Reflection: The shape of the software process improvement field, International Journal of Information Management24(6): 457–472.
27.
HerbslebJ.D., and GoldensonD.R. (1996). A Systematic Survey of CMM Experience and Results, in the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-18) (Berlin, Germany, 1996); Silver Spring, MD: IEEE Computer Society Press, 323–330.
28.
HorvatR.V., RozmanI., and GyörkösJ. (2000). Managing the Complexity of SPI in Small Companies, Software Process: Improvement and Practice5(1): 45–54.
29.
HumphreyW. (1989). Managing the Software Process, Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
30.
HumphreyW.S. (1988). Characterizing the Software Process, IEEE Software5(2): 73–79.
31.
HumphreyW.S., SnyderT.R., and WillisR.R. (1991). Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft, IEEE Software8(4): 11–23.
32.
JohnsonD.L., and BrodmanJ.G. (1997). Tailoring the CMM for Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Projects, Software Process Newsletter8: 1–6.
33.
KamocheK., CunhaM.P.E., and CunhaJ.V.D. (2003). Towards a Theory of Organizational Improvisation: Looking beyond the Jazz metaphor, Journal of Management Studies40(8): 2023–2051.
34.
KautzK. (1999). Making Sense of Measurement for Small Organizations, IEEE Software16(2): 14–20.
35.
KautzK., HansenH.W., and ThaysenK. (2000). Applying and Adjusting a Software Process Improvement Model in Practice: The use of the IDEAL model in a small software enterprise, in 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering (Limerick, Ireland, 2000); Los Angeles, CA: ACM Press, 626–633.
36.
KellyD.P., and CulletonB. (1999). Process Improvement for Small Organizations, Computer32(10): 41–47.
37.
KilpiT. (1998). Product Management Challenge to Software Change Process: Preliminary results from three SMEs experiment, Software Process: Improvement and Practice3(3): 165–175.
38.
KochP., KuvajaS., MilaL., KrzanikA., BicegoS., and SaukkonenG. (1994). Software Process Assessment and Improvement: The BOOTSTRAP approach, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
39.
KuvajaP., PaloJ., and BicegoA. (1999). TAPISTRY – A software process improvement approach tailored for small enterprises, Software Quality Journal8(2): 149–156.
40.
LatourB. (1987). Science in Action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
LawJ. (1991). Introduction: Monsters, machines, and socio technical relations, in LawJ. (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays of power, technology and domination, London: Routledge.
42.
LeungH.K.N., and YuenT.C.F. (2001). A Process Framework for Small Projects, Software Process: Improvement and Practice6(2): 67–83.
43.
MathiassenL. (2002). Collaborative Practice Research, Information, Technology & People15(4): 321–345.
44.
MathiassenL., BorumF., and PedersenJ.S. (1999). Developing Managerial Skills in IT Organizations: A case study based on action learning, Journal of Strategic Information Systems8(2): 209–225.
45.
MathiassenL., and PourkomeylianP. (2003). Managing Knowledge in a Software Organization, Journal of Knowledge Management7(2): 63–80.
46.
MathiassenL., Pries-HejeJ., and NgwenyamaO. (eds.) (2002). Improving Software Organizations: From principles to practice, Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
47.
MathiassenL., and VainioA.M. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities in Small Software Firms: A sense-and-respond approach, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management54(3): 522–538.
48.
McfeeleyB. (1996). IDEAL: A user's guide for software process improvement, Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute.
49.
MckayJ., and MarshallP. (2001). The Dual Imperatives of Action Research, Information Technology & People14(1): 46–59.
50.
MinerA.S., MoormanC., and BassoffP. (1997). Organizational Improvisation in New Product Development, Working paper, Marketing Science Institute, MSI, Report No. 97–110.
51.
MoormanC., and MinerA.S. (1998). Organizational Improvisation and Organizational Memory, The Academy of Management Review23(4): 698–723.
52.
NewmanM., and RobeyD. (1992). A Social Process Model of User-Analyst Relationship, MIS Quarterly16(2): 249–266.
53.
NgwenyamaO., and NielsenP.A. (2003). Competing Values in Software Process Improvement: An assumption analysis of CMM from an organizational culture perspective, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management50(1): 100–112.
54.
NielsenP.A., and NørbjergJ. (2001). Assessing Software Processes: Low maturity or sensible practice?Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems13: 51–68.
55.
NielsenP.A., and TjørnehøjG. (2005). Mapping Social Networks in SPI, in IFIP 8.6 Conference: Business Agility and IT Diffusion (Atlanta, GA, USA, 2005); Berlin: Springer Verlag.
56.
PaulkM.C. (1998). Using the Software CMM in Small Organizations, in The joint 1998 Proceedings of Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference and the Eighth International Conference on Software Quality (Portland, 1998); 350–361.
57.
PaulkM.C., CurtisB., ChrissisM.B., and WeberC. (1993). Capability Maturity Model for Software Version 1.1, Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute.
58.
PetersonM.F. (1998). Embedded Organizational Events: Units of process in organization science, Organization Science9: 16–33.
59.
PettigrewA.M. (1990). Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and practice, Organization Science1(3): 267–292.
60.
RichardsonI. (2001). Software Process Matrix: A small company SPI model, Software Process: Improvement and Practice6(3): 157–165.
61.
RichardsonI. (2002). SPI Models: What characteristics are required for small software development companies?Software Quality Journal10(2): 101–114.
62.
RodenbachE., Van LatumF., and Van SolingenR. (2000). SPI – A guarantee for success? – A reality story from industry, in Second International Conference, PROFES 2000 (Oulu, Finland, 2000); Berlin: Springer, 216–231.
63.
RoutT.P. (1995). SPICE: A framework for software process assessment, Software Process: Improvement and Practice1(1): 57–66.
64.
SaastamoinenI., and TukiainenM. (2004). Software Process Improvement in Small and Medium Sized Software Enterprises in Eastern Finland: A state-of-the-practice study, in 11th European Conference on Software Process Improvement (EuroSPI) (Trondheim, Norway, 2004); Berlin: Springer Verlag, 69–78.
65.
SaccolA.Z., and ReinhardN. (2006). The Hospitality Metaphor as a Theoretical Lens for Understanding the ICT Adoption Process, Journal of Information Technology21: 154–164.
66.
ScottL., JefferyR., CarvalhoL., D'ambraJ., and RutherfordP. (2001). Practical Software Process Improvement – The IMPACT Project, in 13th Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC'01) (Canberra, 2001); New York: IEEE, 182.
67.
SteelA.P.C. (2004). Low-Rigour, Rapid Software Process Assessments for Small Software Development Firms, in 2004 Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC'04) (Melbourne, 2004); New York: IEEE, 323–334.
68.
SusmanG.I., and EveredR.D. (1978). An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research, Administrative Science Quarterly23(4): 582–603.
69.
SuttonR.I., and HargadonA. (1996). Brainstorming Groups in Context: Effectiveness in a product design firm, Administrative Science Quarterly41(4): 685.
70.
The Cmmi Product Team (2001). Capability Maturity Model Intergration (CMMI-SM), Version 1.1, Continuous Representation, Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon, Software Engineering Institute.
71.
The Cmmi Product Team (2002). CMMISM for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering/Integrated Product and Process Development/Supplier Sourcing, Version 1.1, Staged Representation (CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD/SS, V1.1, Staged), Technical Report of SEI, Pittsburgh, PA: SEI.
72.
TjornehojG., and MathiassenL. (2008). Between Control and Drift: Negotiating improvement in a small software firm, Information Technology & People21(1): 69–90.
73.
TrienekensJ., KustersR., and Van SolingenR. (2001). Product Focused Software Process Improvement: Concepts and experiences from industry, Software Quality Journal9(4): 269–281.
74.
TruffleyA., GroveB., and McnairG. (2004). SPICE for Small Organizations, Software Process: Improvement and Practice9(1): 23–31.
75.
VeraD., and CrossanM. (2004). Theatrical Improvisation: Lessons for organizations, Organization Studies25(5): 727–749.
76.
VillalonJ., AgustinG.C., GilabertT.S.F., SecoA.D., SanchezL.G., and CotaM.P. (2002). Experiences in the Application of Software Process Improvement in SMES, Software Quality Journal10(3): 261–273.
77.
WalshamG. (1993). Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations, Chichester: Wiley.
78.
WalshamG. (1995). Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and method, European Journal of Information Systems4(2): 74–81.
79.
WalshamG. (1997). Actor-Network Theory and IS Research: Current status and future prospects, in LeeA.S., LiebenauJ., and DegrossJ.I. (eds.) Information Systems and Qualitative Research, London: Chapman and Hall, pp. 466–480.
80.
WardR.P., FayadM.E., and LaitinenM. (2001). Software Process Improvement in the Small – A small software development company's most difficult challenge: Changing processes to match changing circumstances, Communications of the ACM44(4): 105–107.
81.
WilkieF.G., McfallD., and MccafferyF. (2005). An Evaluation of CMMI Process Areas for Small- to Medium-Sized Software Development Organizations, Software Process: Improvement and Practice10(2): 189–201.
82.
WohlwendH., and RosenbaumS. (1994). Schlumberger's Software Improvement Program, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering20(11): 833–839.
83.
YinR. (1984). Case study research, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
