Information & Management 47 (2010) 271–281

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Information & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/im

Exploring the relationship between organizational culture and software

process improvement deployment
Chiao-Ching Shih, Sun-Jen Huang *
Department of Information Management, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, 43, Sec. 4, Keelung Road, Taipei 106, Taiwan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: We explored the relationship between organizational culture and deployment of software process
Received 27 March 2009 improvement (SPI) approaches using a competing values framework. Our results indicated that the
Received in revised form 20 September 2009 organizational culture had an influence on SPI deployment, primarily made possible by a hierarchic
Accepted 26 May 2010
culture with its emphasis on procedures, order, and stability. Clan culture, with its emphasis on human
Available online 4 June 2010
development, commitment to others, and participation, appears to be a necessary condition in creating
skills development and sharing SPI knowledge in the process of its deployment. Software Engineering
Keywords:
Program Group leaders should ensure that internal values are in place to enhance SPI deployment.
Organizational culture
Software process improvement (SPI)
ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Competing values framework
Clan culture
Hierarchic culture

1. Introduction improved by its deployment [3,4,6,16] and there is still a great

In recent years, software process improvement (SPI) has
emerged as the dominant approach for delivering improvements
to the software product in software development organizations. Its
intent is to enhance software product quality, increase productivi-
ty, and reduce the cycle time for product development. A number
of advances have been made in the development of SPI approaches
such as ISO 9000, the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and its
newer versions: the Capability Maturity Model Integration
(CMMI), and Software Process Improvement and Capability
dEtermination (SPICE), which focus on defining and measuring
processes and practices to achieve quality software. ISO 9000
certification and CMMI are used by software companies all over the
world. They guide the process improvement throughout the
project in a division, or part or the entire organization.
CMMI helps adopters to integrate traditionally separate organi-
zational functions, set process improvement goals and priorities; it
also provides guidance for implementing quality processes and a
reference model for appraising current processes. CMMI provides a
staged representation with five levels of software process maturity
ranging from initial (processes poorly controlled and reactive) to
optimizing (focused on continuous process improvement) [11].
Despite the widespread adoption of SPI, there is still insufficient
quantitative evidence of how software products have been
deal of variability in the success of SPI initiatives [5,23]. A recent
review of 322 papers on SPI [7] indicated that the field was
dominated by one approach (CMM), and heavily biased towards
how SPI practitioners can carry out SPI initiatives. Surveys indicated,
however, that the SPI field lacked theoretical frameworks.
SPI attempts to change how software professionals think and
act in their everyday organizational activities. Therefore, its
activities can result in organizational changes. Ravichandran and
Rai [21] found that organizations face major hurdles in the
implementing SPI and that these are more organizational than
technological in nature. Several researchers [1,18] have also
indicated that SPI does not deal effectively with the social aspects
of organizations. Thus, it needs a managerial focus rather than a
technical one.
Hofstede regarded organizational culture as the collection of
values, beliefs and norms shared by its members and reflected in
its practices and goals. This can affect SPI deployment. Results of
several studies, e.g. [2,8,10], have also suggested that organiza-
tional culture has a significant effect on both the successful
implementation and the use of IT. Therefore, we decided to
examine SPI approaches, specifically CMMI, to ascertain the
influence that organizational culture has on SPI deployment.
2. Background

SPI involves understanding existing processes and changing

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 27376779; fax: +886 2 27376777. these processes to improve product quality and reduce cost and
E-mail address: huangsj@mail.ntust.edu.tw (S.-J. Huang). development time.

0378-7206/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2010.06.001
272
C.-C. Shih, S.-J. Huang / Information & Management 47 (2010) 271–281
2.1. Deployment of software process improvement approaches
The deployment of SPI involves the post-implementation stages
of the innovation diffusion process, when the innovation is being
incorporated into the organization. It is necessary to focus on the
deployment because the SPI may not be used effectively or may not
have the intended consequences. The assessment of the deploy-
ment adopted by us included three items, as discussed next.
2.1.1. Perceived SPI support for software development
This can be linked to user’s understanding of the capabilities and
corresponding values to the organization [12]. The production
technology in our study was defined as: the impact on the ability of a
user in generating planning and design decisions and thus artifacts
or products. The co-ordination technology was defined as: function-
ality that enabled or supported the interactions of multiple agents in
the execution of a planning or design task; it consists of control and
cooperative functionality. The control technology was defined as: the
method of enabling the user to plan for and enforce rules, policies or
priorities that will govern or restrict the team members during the
process. The cooperative technology was defined as: the way of
enabling the user to exchange information with others in order to
affect the concept, process, or product of the team.
2.1.2. Perceived SPI impact on the quality of the software product and
development process
Examining product and process outcomes can reveal each of
their impacts on quality. In addition, quality processes are a
necessary prerequisite for delivering quality products and
satisfying customer needs. Therefore, we concentrated on two
dimensions: product quality (the overall evaluation of the product
produced by the process) and development process quality [20].
Process quality in our study is defined as the degree to which the
process is designed to promote consensus among participants in
software development, operate within established resource
parameters, and reduce waste and redundancy. The perceived
impact of the deployment of SPI can be linked to the probable or
actual consequences of its adoption.
2.1.3. The degree of SPI use
There has been little research confirming the actual value of using
SPI. Our study concentrated on two dimensions of SPI use: horizontal
(the degree of penetration of SPI use measured as the percentage of
software developers and projects using SPI knowledge) and vertical
(the maximum intensity of SPI use within the organization).
2.2. Organizational culture
An organization’s culture is its set of shared ideas and values
that serve as a means of accomplishing its mission. As such, it can
and does play an important role in many facets of the organization.
The values define what is important to a group. They answer the
question: Why people behave the way they do?
Different approaches have been used to study how organiza-
tional values affect its culture. The national and organizational
cultures represent the most popular approaches. They both define
the values that distinguish one group from another. The most
popular conceptualization of national culture has been Hofstede’s
well-known taxonomy of using the dimensions of power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity, and Confucian
dynamism or long-term Orientation [24]. These allow national-level
analyses and allow country or regional comparisons. At the
organizational level, the competing values framework (CVF) is
most popular. It allows of organizational cultural taxonomies has
been to enable the differentiation of comparison of organizations
along the dominant values of each organization’s behavior.
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
Fig. 1. Competing values framework of organizational culture.
The CVF is characterized by a two-dimensional space that
reflects different value orientations, as shown in Fig. 1. The first
dimension in this framework, the flexibility-control axis, shows
the degree to which the organization emphasizes change or
stability. A flexibility orientation reflects flexibility and spontaneity,
while a control orientation reflects stability, control and order. The
second dimension in this framework, the internal–external axis,
addresses the organization’s choice to focus on activities occurring
internally and those occurring outside the organization. An
internal orientation reflects maintaining and improving the
organization, while an external orientation reflects a competition,
adaptation, and interaction with the outside environment.
Thus four types of organizational culture appear: clan (which
emphasizes flexibility, change and a focus on the internal
organization), adhocracy (which also emphasizes flexibility, but
it is externally focused, primarily on growth, resource acquisition,
creativity and adaptation), hierarchic (which is externally focused,
but is control oriented, dealing with productivity and achievement
of well-defined objectives response to external competition.), and
market (which emphasizes stability but focuses on the internal
organization, its uniformity, co-ordination, internal efficiency and
a close adherence to rules and regulations). Though the framework
is divided into named quadrants with distinct characteristics, no
organization is likely to reflect only one value system. Instead, one
would expect to find combinations of values in one company, with
some more dominant than others.
Good fit between the values embedded in the software
development process and the overall organization’s values lead to
a more successful implementation. In a content analysis of
longitudinal data from three SPI initiatives, Ngwenyama and Nielsen
[17] found that cultural assumptions embedded in SPI methodolo-
gies could conflict with the cultural assumptions of developers,
leading to difficulties in implementing process improvements.
We used the competing values framework in our analysis of the
relationship between organizational culture and SPI deployment. It
focuses on values as its core constituents of organizational culture,
successfully reflects the conflicting demands of the organizational
context, and has been applied to the study of organizational issues
ranging from culture to leadership, being accepted as determining
both the type and strength of cultures prevalent in an organization.
2.3. The competing values framework in the context of SPI deployment
Little research has specifically examined the framework as it
relates to SPI deployment, except for Ngwenyama and Nielsen,
who applied it to the content analysis of the cultural assumptions
of the CMM and concluded that the design ideal of CMM reflected
the market culture, but it becomes more hierarchic at the higher
levels of maturity.
 C.-C. Shih, S.-J. Huang / Information & Management 47 (2010) 271–281
The significance of organizational culture (OC) as a source of
organizational inertia is well known and there has been some
interest in its influence on both the successful implementation and
the use of IT. Organizations with flexible cultures and having a
long-term orientation tend to adopt advanced manufacturing
technology. Intranet adoption is likely to succeed in adhocracy
culture. In addition, Cooper applied the CVF to understand IT
implementation and proposed that different IS may support
alternative values, and that if an IS conflicts the values of OC,
implementation of the system will be resisted. Therefore, we
expected that the competing values framework would play a
critical role in the deployment of SPI.
3. Research model and hypotheses
3.1. Research model
We developed our research model to predict the deployment of
SPI in terms of the four types of organizational culture (see Fig. 2).
In addition, the software process maturity level was expected to
moderate the strength of the relationships.
3.2. Hypotheses
The clan culture emphasizes on human relations and adopts
flexible operation procedures focusing on internal relationships. It is
believed to facilitate trust through affiliation and member partici-
pation. Managers need to promote employee dialogue, participation,
and training to improve cohesive relationships, individual commit-
ment and contribution. Top management commitment has been
repeatedly shown to be most important in promoting a project’s
success and when employees take ownership of SPI, they are proud of
their accomplishments, and promote its use. Employees then are
likely to trust their organizations. This led us to the hypotheses:
H1. There is a positive relationship between the clan culture and
SPI deployment.
H1a. There is a positive relationship between the clan culture and
perceived SPI support.
H1b. There is a positive relationship between the clan culture and
perceived SPI impact.
H1c. There is a positive relationship between the clan culture and
[(Fig._2)TD$IG] degree of SPI use.
the
Fig. 2. Research model.
273
An adhocracy culture concentrates on external positioning with
a high degree of flexibility supported by an open system that
promotes willingness to act. The organization values creativity,
experimentation, risk, autonomy and responsiveness and if they
have flexible cultures tend to adopt advanced manufacturing
technology. Modern software organizations operate in a highly
dynamic market, under tight time and cost constraints; therefore
they are active in adopting SPI to improve their software quality.
Additionally, adhocracy culture should increase employees’
positive attitude toward the organization and equity of its rewards.
This led to the hypotheses:
H2. There is a positive relationship between the adhocracy culture
and SPI deployment.
H2a. There is a positive relationship between the adhocracy cul-
ture and perceived SPI support.
H2b. There is a positive relationship between the adhocracy cul-
ture and perceived SPI impact.
H2c. There is a positive relationship between the adhocracy cul-
ture and the degree of SPI use.
A market culture concentrates on achieving goals through high
productivity and economical operation; it tends to be results
orientated and its members value competitiveness, diligence,
perfectionism, aggressiveness and personal initiative. Key man-
agement activities are designed to maximize profit. It reacts to its
environment in a manner that optimizes organizational produc-
tivity. According to Jiang et al. [15], organizations that have
adopted SPI may not experience much benefit until they reach a
higher maturity level. Moreover, strong emphasis on productivity
and efficiency will lead to a focus on short-run impact. Iivari and
Huisman [13] found that IS developers do not emphasize
productivity, efficiency and goal achievement in the deployment
of system development methodologies. This led us to the
hypotheses:
H3. There is no relationship between the market culture and SPI
deployment.
H3a. There is no relationship between the market culture and
perceived SPI support.
H3b. There is no relationship between the market culture and
perceived SPI impact.
274 C.-C. Shih, S.-J. Huang / Information & Management 47 (2010) 271–281

H3c. There is no relationship between the market culture and the
degree of SPI use.
The hierarchic culture concentrates on internal maintenance and
strives for stability and control through a clear task setting and
enforcement of strict rules. It tends to adopt a formal approach to
relationships and leaders need to be good coordinators and
organizers. It places a high value on economy, formality, rationality,
order and obedience. Emphasis is on the task rather than the
individual, who performs it. Ngwenyama and Nielsen found that SPI
models reflected the hierarchic culture, especially at higher maturity
levels. Iivari and Huisman found that there was a positive relationship
between the hierarchic cultural orientation and system development
methodology deployment for IS developers. SPI is consistent with a
hierarchic culture’s values emphasizing control of activities by
specifying methods and performance criteria in their internal focus.
Thus following SPI regulations may be a means of supporting control,
stability, and efficiency, leading to the hypotheses:
H4. There is a positive relationship between the hierarchic culture
and SPI deployment.
H4a. There is a positive relationship between the hierarchic cul-
ture and perceived SPI support.
H4b. There is a positive relationship between the hierarchic cul-
ture and perceived SPI impact.
H4c. There is a positive relationship between the hierarchic cul-
ture and the degree of SPI use.
Software process maturity shows the extent to which software
development process parameters are used to enhance process
effectiveness and the extent to which the process is controlled. Its
maturity levels influence both software quality and project
performance variables, such as cycle time and development effort
[9]. However, organizational culture is the context in which SPI
takes place. Therefore, SPI activities may result in organizational
changes. The design ideal of the CMM reflects the market culture
but it becomes more hierarchic at higher levels of maturity, leading
us to hypothesize:
H5. The level of software process maturity moderates the rela-
tionship between the clan culture and SPI deployment (perceived
SPI support – H5a; perceived SPI impact – H5b; the degree of SPI
use – H5c).
H6. The level of software process maturity moderates the rela-
tionship between the adhocracy culture and SPI deployment (per-
ceived SPI support – H6a; perceived SPI impact – H6b; the degree
of SPI use – H6c).
H7. The level of software process maturity moderates the rela-
tionship between the market culture and SPI deployment (per-
ceived SPI support – H7a; perceived SPI impact – H7b; the degree
of SPI use – H7c).
H8. The level of software process maturity moderates the rela-
and how software products have been improved by its deploy-
ment. Much criticism is based on case studies and therefore it is not
necessarily generalizable. We employed a survey to obtain insight
into SPI approaches and investigate the relationship between
organizational culture and SPI deployment.
The measurement items of variables of our model were drawn
from the literature but adapted to the context of SPI. The survey
instrument was pilot-tested with four SPI executives, two CMMI
consultants, and four researchers working in SPI. Suggestions made
by the respondents were incorporated and a new version of the
instrument was developed.
The population of interest was those organizations that had
adopted the CMMI approach in Taiwan. Taiwan is one an Asian
country that has organizations aggressively adopting CMMI.
According to the results reported by SEI in March 2007 [22]: 46
organizations in Taiwan had obtained CMMI certificates. Taiwan
had become number ninth in the world and fifth in Asia in holding
certificates.
At the time of the survey, 85 Taiwanese organizations had
adopted CMMI to improve their software development processes
[14]. For purposes of reliability, it was assumed that the Software
Engineering Program Group (SEPG) leader should be able to
provide reliable and accurate answers to our survey questions; this
approach should help to overcome single source limitations. With
the help of the Information Service Industry Association of R.O.C.
(CISA), questionnaires were addressed directly to the SEPG leader
in each organization. In the cover letter, confidentiality was
assured and a summary of findings was offered as an incentive for
participation. Of the 85 initial questionnaires mailed in the
summer of 2007, a total of 62 usable responses were received,
representing a response rate of 73%. The demographics of the 62
organizations and respondents are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
4.2. Measures
All the questionnaire items had been used in previous empirical
research. Principal component analysis was used to determine if all
items measuring a construct cluster should be loaded onto a single
factor. As a conservative rule, the sample size should be at least
four or five times the number of items in the factor analysis. For
measuring 11 different variables in our study, 58 questionnaire
items were used. However, the sample size was 62, and this is less
than the number of organizations required. Therefore, six separate
factor analyses for perceived SPI support, perceived SPI impact, and
Table 1
Profiles of responding organizations (N = 62).
Organizations characteristics Number %
Primary business
System Integration 23 37.1
Custom project development 12 19.4
Software product development 18 29
Information service 4 6.4
Other 5 8.1

tionship between the hierarchic culture and SPI deployment (per- Number of employees
ceived SPI support – H8a; perceived SPI impact – H8b; the degree Below 50 19 30.6
of SPI use – H8c). 50–100 12 19.4
100–500 19 30.6
500–1000 6 9.7
Above 1000 6 9.7
4. Research methodology
CMMI maturity level
No appraisal 15 24.2
4.1. Data collection ML2 31 50
ML3 15 24.2
ML4 0 0
Despite all the attention that SPI approaches have received,
ML5 1 1.6
there is no solid evidence that they are used across organizations
 C.-C. Shih, S.-J. Huang / Information & Management 47 (2010) 271–281 275

Table 2 Table 4
Profiles of responding SEPG leaders (N = 62). Factor analysis – perceived SPI support provided as control technology.

Respondents characteristics Number % Measurement items Factor

loadings
Education
Junior College 7 11.3 C1 Helps to estimate the size of the software to be developed 0.80
University degree 21 33.9 C2 Helps to estimate the time and effort required for 0.71
Master’s degree 34 54.8 the development of planned software
Title C3 Helps to plan software development projects 0.84
CEO 5 8.1 C4 Helps in defining useful milestones for our software 0.83
Executive vice president 12 19.4 development projects
General manager 32 51.6 C5 Helps to organize software development projects 0.85
Division chief 2 3.2 C6 Helps to keep our software development projects 0.71
Project manager 6 9.6 under control
System analyst/engineer 5 8.1 C7 Helps to estimate the project risks 0.79

Work experience Eigenvalue 4.40

1–5 years 18 29 Percentage of total variance 62.9%
6–10 years 12 19.4
11–15 years 9 14.5
16–20 years 14 22.6
21–25 years 7 11.3 Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.90 revealed a high level of internal
26–30 years 2 3.2 consistency among measurement items. Also from Huisman and
Gender Iivari’s research, perceived SPI support as cooperative technology was
Male 46 74.2 measured using seven 5-point Likert scale items. The factor
Female 16 25.8 analysis resulted in a one-factor solution with loadings greater
than 0.7. These seven items explained 72.9% of the total variance as
shown in Table 5. The Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.94 again
organizational culture were carried out to obtain a better solution revealed a high level of internal consistency among measurement
by increasing the ratio of the sample size to the number of items. items.
In addition, the small ratio of subjects to measures may result in
instability in the factor loadings due to sampling error. In our 4.2.1.2. Perceived SPI impact on product and process quality. Five 5-
study, in order to avoid the bias introduced by sampling, a point Likert scale items were used to assess perceived SPI impact on
‘‘complete’’ survey was conducted because 100% of the population product quality, also adapted from Huisman and Iivari and Rai and
was surveyed to avoid sampling error. Al-Hindi’s work. A factor analysis with varimax rotation was
conducted for the product quality items; it showed that the five
4.2.1. Dependent variables: SPI deployment items loaded on one factor, each with loadings greater than 0.70.
These explained 79.3% of the total variance, as can be seen in
4.2.1.1. Perceived SPI support for software development. Adapted Table 6. Table 8 shows that the Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.93
from Huisman and Iivari, perceived SPI support as production shows a high level of internal consistency among measurement
technology was measured using seven 5-point Likert scale items, items. Adapted from Rai and Al-Hindi, perceived SPI impact on
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Principal process quality was measured using five 5-point Likert scale items.
component analysis followed by varimax rotation resulted in a Factor analysis resulted in a one-factor solution, each with loadings
one-factor solution with loadings greater than 0.7. These items greater than 0.70. These five items explained 71.1% of the total
explained 74.1% of the total variance. The results are shown in variance, as seen in Table 7; the Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.89
Table 3. The reliability of measures was tested using Cronbach’s again revealed a high level of internal consistency among
alpha, for which a minimum value of 0.70 is generally recom- measurement items.
mended. Table 8 shows the Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.94,
revealing a high level of internal consistency among measurement 4.2.1.3. SPI use. A two-item instrument was used to assess SPI
items. Seven 5-point Likert scale items were used to assess horizontal use. The items reflect the percentage of software
perceived SPI support as control technology. These items were developers and projects using SPI knowledge. The Cronbach’s
adapted from Huisman and Iivari. Similarly, a factor analysis with
varimax rotation was conducted for the items, resulting in a one- Table 5
factor solution; each loading was greater than 0.7. These seven Factor analysis – perceived SPI support provided as cooperative technology.
items explained 62.9% of the total variance as seen in Table 4. The
Measurement items Factor
loadings
Table 3 D1 Describes a sound way of developing software 0.91
Factor analysis – perceived SPI support provided as production technology. D2 Forms a useful standard for our software development 0.89
D3 Reminds me about activities/tasks of software 0.87
Measurement items Factor
development
loadings
D4 Provides a useful list of possible software 0.83
B1 Align the software to be developed with the business 0.87 development activities
B2 Build management commitment in our software 0.92 D5 Provides useful guidelines for conducting 0.80
development projects software development
B3 Helps in software design 0.90 D6 Allows us to learn from our software development 0.83
B4 Helps in implementing developed software 0.94 experience
B5 Helps in reviewing developed software 0.83 D7 Defines an ideal process of software 0.84
B6 Helps in testing developed software 0.82 development that is useful, even though it
B7 Helps to get the software accepted 0.74 is not followed in practice

Eigenvalue 5.19 Eigenvalue 5.11

Percentage of total variance 74.1% Percentage of total variance 72.9%
276 C.-C. Shih, S.-J. Huang / Information & Management 47 (2010) 271–281

Table 6 v1.1, and appraisal method, the Standard CMMI Appraisal Method
Factor analysis – perceived SPI impact on product quality.
for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) Class A v1.1. The latter
Measurement items Factor loadings appraisal was conducted by a SEI-certified lead appraiser. As
E1 Helps to develop more functional software 0.87 shown in Table 1, 47 organizations had performed a CMMI
E2 Helps to develop more reliable software 0.91 appraisal, and 15 organizations had adopted a CMMI approach but
E3 Helps to develop more maintainable software 0.89 had not reached the appraisal stage. Due to the extremely small
E4 Helps to develop better software 0.90 number of maturity levels 4 and 5, two dummy variables were
E5 Helps to make users more satisfied with 0.89
used to represent maturity levels. The MD1 dummy took the value
our software
‘‘1’’ for maturity level 2, and zero otherwise. The MD2 dummy took
the value ‘‘1’’ for maturity level 3, and zero otherwise. For those
Eigenvalue 3.97 with no appraisal, all dummy variables were set to zero.
Percentage of total variance 79.3%

5. Data analysis and results

Table 7
Factor analysis – perceived SPI impact on process quality.
Measurement items
F1 Helps to improve the degree of agreement among
participants in the development process
F2 Helps to decrease the duplication of efforts during the
development process
F3 Helps to complete software within budget
F4 Helps to complete software within schedule
F5 Improves the quality of the development efforts
Eigenvalue
Percentage of total variance
alpha value of 0.87 reveals a high level of internal consistency
among measurement items for perceived SPI horizontal use, as
seen in Table 8. One 5-point Likert scale item was used to measure
SPI vertical use, ranging from 1 (nominally) to 5 (intensively). This
item reflects the maximum intensity of SPI usage.
4.2.2. Independent variables: organizational culture
A 24-item scale was used to assess organizational culture. The
items were adopted from the Organizational Culture Assessment
Instrument (OCAI), which has been widely used in almost 10,000
organizations worldwide. The scale consisted of four variable
groups (each of which consisted of six items) corresponding to the
four ideal culture types specified in the competing value
framework. Although the organizational culture construct had
been previously examined, a factor analysis with varimax rotation
was conducted by us. The results showed that four factors were
extracted, each of which corresponded to one of the four
competing values framework culture orientations. These four
factors explained 62.5% of the total variance, as seen in Table 9.
Table 10 shows that the Cronbach’s alpha calculated for each
variable ranged from 0.71 to 0.80 revealing an acceptable level of
reliability.
4.2.3. Moderating variables: software process maturity
The CMMI level of organizations in our survey was determined
by a CMMI-based appraisal using the benchmark model, CMMI
5.1. Analysis of main effects
Factor
loadings An examination of mean values of each cultural variable in
0.75 Table 10 reveals that the hierarchic culture has the highest mean
value, followed by clan, market and adhocracy cultures, suggesting
0.76 that their SPI initiatives were internally oriented.
A regression analysis was then conducted, taking SPI deploy-
0.85
ment as the dependent variable and organizational culture as the
0.93
0.91 independent variable. The results of this analysis are shown in
Table 11. The P-value of 0.00 indicated that there was a significant
3.56
relationship between SPI deployment and organizational culture,
71.1%
suggesting that it had a positive relationship (0.64) with SPI
deployment.
To further examine the relationships between the individual
culture and SPI deployment, another regression analysis was
conducted by breaking the overall organizational culture construct
into the four cultural orientations; Table 11 shows that the clan
and hierarchic cultures were marginally significantly related to SPI
deployment. On the other hand, the adhocracy and market cultures
were not.
To understand the underlying dynamics of these marginally
significant or non-significant trends, separate multiple regression
analyses was conducted to determine whether individual culture
was related to any of the three SPI deployment dimensions.
Table 12 shows the relationships between the organizational
culture and perceived SPI support. These indicated that there was a
significant relationship between hierarchic culture and overall SPI
support. The relationships between the different SPI support
dimensions and the cultural dimensions were then further
examined, showing that the SPI support dimensions of production,
control, and cooperation were all positively related to hierarchic
culture either significantly (P < 0.01) or marginally (P < 0.10).
Control was related to market culture in a marginally negative
direction. Therefore, Hypotheses 3a and 4a were supported but 1a
and 2a were not.
Table 13 shows the relationships between cultural dimensions
and perceived overall SPI impact on product quality and
development process quality. These indicated that there was a
positive significant relationship between hierarchic culture and

Table 8
Reliability of SPI deployment.

Composite variable Variable name Description Items Cronbach’s alpha Mean Std. dev.

Perceived SPI support PRODUCTION As production technology B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7 0.94 3.80 0.59
CONTROL As control technology C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7 0.90 3.40 0.61
COOPERATIVE As cooperative technology D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7 0.94 3.61 0.66

Perceived SPI Impact PRODUCT PROCESS Product quality E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 0.93 3.73 0.66
Process quality F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 0.89 3.60 0.66

SPI use HOR_USE Horizontal use G1, G2 0.87 3.98 0.90

VER_USE Vertical use G3 – 3.66 0.79
 C.-C. Shih, S.-J. Huang / Information & Management 47 (2010) 271–281 277

Table 9
Factor analysis – organizational culture.

Items Key word Market Clan Hierarchic Adhocracy

culture culture culture culture

A1 Personal place 0.77

A5 Mentoring, facilitating, nurturing 0.74
A9 Teamwork and participation 0.63
A13 Loyalty and mutual trust 0.52
A17 Human development 0.77
A21 Commitment and concern for people 0.50
A2 Dynamic and entrepreneurial place 0.69
A6 Entrepreneurship, innovating 0.81
A10 Individual risk-taking, innovation 0.80
A14 Commitment to innovation 0.62
A18 Acquiring new resources 0.52
A22 Having the most unique products 0.67
A3 Results oriented 0.48
A7 No-nonsense, aggressive 0.60
A11 Competitiveness and high demands 0.58
A15 Emphasis on goal accomplishment 0.75
A19 Competitive actions and achievements 0.70
A23 Winning in the marketplace 0.78
A4 Controlled and structured 0.55
A8 Coordinating, organizing 0.79
A12 Security of employment and conformity 0.65
A16 Formal rules and policies 0.53
A20 Permanence and stability 0.48
A24 Efficiency 0.48

Percentage of total variance (%) 20.64 17.60 14.00 10.2

Cumulative percentage of total variance (%) 20.64 38.24 52.24 62.5

Note: For clarity, only factor loadings > 0.45 are shown.

Table 10 Table 12
Reliability of organizational culture. Regression coefficients of organizational culture on perceived SPI support.

Variable Description Cronbach’s Mean Std. Independent Dependent variable

name alpha dev. variable
PRODUCTION CONTROL COOPERATIVE Overall SPI
CLAN Clan culture 0.80 3.96 0.46 Support
ADHOC Adhocracy culture 0.79 3.72 0.50
CLAN 0.04 0.02 0.33 0.13
MARKET Market culture 0.71 3.84 0.41
ADHOC 0.02 0.24 0.09 0.12
HIER Hierarchic culture 0.77 4.01 0.44
MARKET 0.26 0.29# 0.09 0.23
HIER 0.62** 0.57** 0.35# 0.56**
Model R2 0.26 0.32 0.42 0.38
Adjusted R2 0.20 0.28 0.37 0.34
overall SPI impact. The relationships between the different SPI F-value 4.92** 6.80** 10.10** 8.7**
impact and cultural dimensions were separately examined, **
P < 0.01.
showing that the SPI impact dimensions of product quality and #
P < 0.10.
process quality were all significantly and positively related to
hierarchic culture. Process quality was related to market culture in
a marginally negative direction. Therefore, Hypotheses 3b and 4b
were supported, while 1b and 2b were not. Therefore, Hypotheses 1c and 3c were supported while 2c and 4c
Table 14 shows the relationship between the strength of each were not.
culture dimension and overall SPI use suggesting that the clan The organizational size (number of employees) was included as
culture had a marginally positive relationship with overall SPI use. a control variable in the revised regression model. However, there
The relationships between the different SPI use dimensions and the were no significant associations with any of the hypotheses.
cultural dimensions were separately examined, showing that
horizontal use had a marginally significant relation with clan
culture. However, the adhocracy culture did not exhibit any
Table 13
significant association with SPI support, SPI impact, and SPI use. Regression coefficients of organizational culture on perceived SPI impact.

Independent variable Dependent variable

Table 11 PRODUCT PROCESS Overall SPI impact
Regression results.
CLAN 0.12 0.21 0.18
Dependent variable Independent variable Coefficient P-value ADHOC 0.28 0.07 0.18
(1) SPI deployment Organizational culture 0.64 0.00** MARKET 0.17 0.27# 0.23
HIER 0.40* 0.56** 0.51**
(2) SPI deployment CLAN 0.32 0.09# Model R2 0.39 0.37 0.42
ADHOC 0.28 0.13 Adjusted R2 0.35 0.33 0.38
MARKET 0.21 0.15 F-value 9.16** 8.5** 10.4**
HIER 0.30 0.08# *
P < 0.05.
** **
P < 0.01. P < 0.01.
# #
P < 0.10. P < 0.10.
278 C.-C. Shih, S.-J. Huang / Information & Management 47 (2010) 271–281

Table 14 5.2. Analysis of moderating effects

Regression coefficients of organizational culture on SPI use.

Independent variable Dependent variable Regression analysis was conducted to test the roles of software
HOR_USE VER_USE Overall SPI use process maturity in moderating the association between organiza-
tional culture variables and SPI deployment. Table 15 shows that
CLAN 0.46# 0.26 0.40#
ADHOC 0.02 0.35 0.19
this did not find any significant interactions between maturity
MARKET 0.14 0.04 0.10 dummies and the four types of organizational culture on perceived
HIER 0.04 0.01 0.03 SPI support, indicating that maturity level did not moderate the
Model R2 0.17 0.32 0.27 influence of organizational culture on perceived SPI support.
Adjusted R2 0.12 0.27 0.22
Therefore, Hypotheses 5a, 6a, 7a, and 8a were not supported.
F-value 3.0* 6.65** 5.4
Table 16 shows that only the interaction of clan culture with the
*
P < 0.05. dummy for maturity level 3 (MD2) had a significantly negative
**
P < 0.01.
#
P < 0.10.
effect on vertical use. Therefore, Hypothesis 5c was weakly
supported while 5b was not. However, the effect of the interaction
of adhocracy, market, and hierarchic culture with maturity level
did not exhibit any significant association with SPI impact and SPI
use. Therefore, Hypotheses 6b, 6c, 7b, 7c, 8b and 8c were not
Table 15 supported.
Regression coefficients of organizational culture and maturity level on perceived SPI
support.
6. Discussion and implications
Independent variable Dependent variable

PRODUCTION CONTROL COOPERATIVE One important finding was that the organizational culture does
indeed have an influence on SPI deployment, particularly for the
CLAN 0.44 0.27 0.57
ADHOC 0.13 0.54 0.34 relationships between hierarchic culture and SPI deployment.
MARKET 0.75* 0.33 0.47 However, the deployment of SPI is most likely to occur in
HIER 0.68* 0.91** 0.61* organizations where the organizational culture is hierarchic, which
MD1 0.02 2.48 2.80#
apparently acts as a facilitator for further SPI implementation. A
MD2 0.14 2.16 1.06
CLAN  MD1 3.47 0.01 3.10 summary of the results is given in Table 17.
CLAN  MD2 1.31 2.82 0.20 Our results also indicated that SPI support and its impact were
ADHOC  MD1 0.71 0.47 0.74 most related to hierarchic culture. More specifically, an organiza-
ADHOC  MD2 1.78 2.97 2.31 tion so characterized could increase understanding of the
MARKET  MD1 3.45 0.21 1.66
capabilities of the SPI approach, its probable value to the
MARKET  MD2 4.35 0.37 2.48
HIER  MD1 0.68 2.91 2.19 organization, and the actual consequences of adopting an SPI
HIER  MD2 3.79 1.67 1.14 approach. Over 70% of the responding companies in our study
Model R2 0.33 0.39 0.50 were, however, at the lower maturity levels (below 3). The
Adjusted R2 0.13 0.21 0.35
environment facing software organizations today is marked by
F-value 1.6 2.1* 3.3**
extreme competition and uncertainty. According to Panayotopou-
*
P < 0.05. lou et al. [19], when employees feel uncertain and insecure about
**
P < 0.01.
#
P < 0.10.
their future, they show greater tolerance towards factors that
could negatively influence their work, such as bureaucratic
procedures and tight control. Thus an hierarchic culture is a
necessary condition for successful deployment of SPI.
The study also suggests that SPI use could be improved by clan
culture. It could increase the proportion of software developers and
Table 16
Regression coefficients of organizational culture and maturity level on perceived SPI projects using the SPI knowledge, as it emphasizes teamwork and
impact and use. employee commitment through the development of a strong value
system that promotes corporate identity. It can thus be surmised
Independent variable Dependent variable
that clan culture is a necessary condition in creating skills
PRODUCT PROCESS HOR_USE VER_USE development and sharing SPI knowledge in the process of SPI
CLAN 0.02 0.44 0.80# 0.90* deployment.
ADHOC 0.50 0.07 0.08 0.42 The market culture, as expected, did not exhibit any significant
MARKET 0.38 0.51 0.30 0.52
association with SPI deployment. It requires a great amount of time
HIER 0.82** 0.71* 0.08 0.32
MD1 1.59 1.46 2.42 0.31 and money before benefits can be realized. However, to our
MD2 1.87 1.57 1.10 0.10 surprise, the adhocracy culture was not related to SPI deployment.
CLAN  MD1 1.52 2.12 3.42 3.18 Possibly its focus on growth and innovation was not met through
CLAN  MD2 3.53 0.06 5.16 6.96* SPI deployment.
ADHOC  MD1 0.08 1.13 0.75 0.65
ADHOC  MD2 2.31 0.07 1.66 0.57
In the competing values framework, both clan and hierarchic
MARKET  MD1 3.26 0.83 0.45 0.89 cultures reflected internal values. Our overall results showed that
MARKET  MD2 0.39 1.29 0.03 2.49 the deployment of SPI was associated with an internal orientation,
HIER  MD1 3.46 1.24 0.01 2.25 reflecting an emphasis on the maintenance and improvement of
HIER  MD2 3.42 2.88 2.59 5.22
the existing organization.
Model R2 0.52 0.40 0.35 0.49
Adjusted R2 0.38 0.21 0.15 0.33 The moderating effect of maturity levels on the relationship
F-value 3.67** 2.2* 1.7# 3.1** between organizational culture and vertical use was significant.
*
P < 0.05.
However, the significantly negative interaction only existed
**
P < 0.01. between clan culture and maturity level 3. This result implied
#
P < 0.10. that the negative effect of clan culture on the maximum intensity
 C.-C. Shih, S.-J. Huang / Information & Management 47 (2010) 271–281 279

Table 17
Summary of results.

Hypothesis number Results from study Is hypothesis supported?

H1 Clan culture was marginal significantly related to SPI deployment Yes (weak support)
H1a Clan culture was not related to SPI support No
H1b Clan culture was not related to SPI impact No
H1c Clan culture was marginal significantly related to SPI use Yes
H2 Adhocracy culture was not related to SPI deployment No
H2a Adhocracy culture was not related to SPI support No
H2b Adhocracy culture was not related to SPI impact No
H2c Adhocracy culture was not related to SPI use No
H3 Market culture was not related to SPI deployment Yes (full support)
H3a Market culture was not related to SPI support Yes
H3b Market culture was not related to SPI impact Yes
H3c Market culture was not related to SPI use Yes
H4 Hierarchic culture was marginal significantly related to SPI deployment Yes (weak support)
H4a Hierarchic culture was positively related to SPI support Yes
H4b Hierarchic culture was positively related to SPI impact Yes
H4c Hierarchic culture was not related to SPI use No
H5 The interaction of clan culture with maturity level was positively related to SPI deployment Yes (weak support)
H5a The interaction of clan culture with maturity level was not related to SPI support No
H5b The interaction of clan culture with maturity level was not related to SPI impact No
H5c The interaction of clan culture with maturity level was related to SPI use Yes (weak support)
H6 The interaction of adhocracy culture with maturity level was not related to SPI deployment No
H6a The interaction of adhocracy culture with maturity level was not related to SPI support No
H6b The interaction of adhocracy culture with maturity level was not related to SPI impact No
H6c The interaction of adhocracy culture with maturity level was not related to SPI use No
H7 The interaction of market culture with maturity level was not related to SPI deployment No
H7a The interaction of market culture with maturity level was not related to SPI support No
H7b The interaction of market culture with maturity level was not related to SPI impact No
H7c The interaction of market culture with maturity level was not related to SPI use No
H8 The interaction of hierarchic culture with maturity level was not related to SPI deployment No
H8a The interaction of hierarchic culture with maturity level was not related to SPI support No
H8b The interaction of hierarchic culture with maturity level was not related to SPI impact No
H8c The interaction of hierarchic culture with maturity level was not related to SPI use No

of SPI usage was stronger in organizations with higher maturity
levels. None of the interaction terms were significant, indicating
that maturity levels do not moderate the influence of adhocracy,
market, and hierarchic cultures on SPI deployment.
7. Conclusions
Our study applied a competing values framework to analyze the
relationship between the organizational culture and SPI deployment.
Results suggested that the organizational culture did indeed have an
influence on the deployment, which was primarily associated with
hierarchic culture. On the other hand, clan culture was a necessary
condition for creating skills development and sharing SPI knowledge
in the process of SPI deployment. Therefore, SEPG leaders should
recognize all the steps involved in software process improvement,
learn how to be good coordinators and organizers, and encourage the
development of internally oriented cultures. This study points out
the need to consider culture when a new SPI approach is
implemented; it may be incompatible with the existing culture.
One limitation of our study was that it focused only on CMMI as
the software process improvement approach. Another limitation of
this study is that its findings were based on investigations in
Taiwan. Obviously, generalizing the results to different cultural or
economic contexts should be made with caution.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Science Council
(NSC) of Taiwan under the contract 98-2410-H-011-004. The
authors also wish to thank anonymous reviewers for their
constructive comments and the chief editor Prof. Edgar H Sibley
for his editorial effort on the manuscript of this paper.

Appendix A. Questionnaire items

This appendix describes the questionnaire items that pertained to the constructs used in the study.

A.1. Organizational culture

For each item listed below, to what extent do you agree with the following statements? (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree,
5 = strongly agree):

A1. The organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves.
A2. The organization is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks.
A3. The organization is a very results orientated. A major concern is getting on with the job. People are very competitive and achievement orientated*
A4. The organization is a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally govern what people do.
A5. The leadership of the organization is generally considered to exemplify mentoring, facilitating or nurturing.
A6. The leadership of the organization is generally considered to exemplify entrepreneurship, innovation or risk taking.
A7. The leadership of the organization is generally considered to exemplify a no-nonsense, aggressive, results-orientated focus.
A8. The leadership of the organization is generally considered to exemplify coordinating, organizing, or smooth-running efficiency.
A9. The management style in the organization is characterized by teamwork, consensus and participation
A10. The management style in the organization is characterized by individual risk-taking, innovation, freedom and uniqueness.
280 C.-C. Shih, S.-J. Huang / Information & Management 47 (2010) 271–281

A11. The management style in the organization is characterized by hard-driving competitiveness, high demands and achievement
A12. The management style in the organization is characterized by security of employment, conformity, predictability and stability in relationships
A13. The glue the holds the organization together is loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to the organization runs high.
A14. The glue the holds the organization together is commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis on being on the cutting edge.
A15. The glue the holds the organization together is the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment. Aggressiveness and winning are common themes.
A16. The glue the holds the organization together is formal rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running organization is important.
A17. The organization emphasizes human development. High trust, openness and participation persist.
A18. The organization emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating new challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued.
A19. The organization emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch targets and winning in the marketplace are dominant.
A20. The organization emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficiency, control and smooth operations are important.
A21. The organization defines success on the basis of the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment and concern for people.
A22. The organization defines success on the basis of having the most unique or the newest products. It is a product leader and innovator.
A23. The organization defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition. Competitive market leadership is the key.
A24. The organization defines success on the basis of efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling and low cost production are critical.

A.2. Deployment of SPI approaches

To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 5 = strongly agree):
Perceived SPI support provided as production technology
B1. Our software process improvement approach helps to align the software to be developed with the business.
B2. Our software process improvement approach helps to build management commitment in our software development projects.
B3. Our software process improvement approach helps in software design.
B4. Our software process improvement approach helps in implementing developed software.
B5. Our software process improvement approach helps in reviewing developed software.
B6. Our software process improvement approach helps in testing developed software.
B7. Our software process improvement approach helps to get the software accepted

Perceived SPI support provided as control technology

C1. Our software process improvement approach helps to estimate the size of the software to be developed.
C2. Our software process improvement approach helps to estimate the time and effort required for the development of planned software.
C3. Our software process improvement approach helps to plan software development projects.
C4. Our software process improvement approach helps in defining useful milestones for our software development projects.
C5. Our software process improvement approach helps to organize software development projects.
C6. Our software process improvement approach helps to keep our software development projects under control.
C7. Our software process improvement approach helps to estimate the project risks.

Perceived SPI support provided as cooperative technology

D1. Our software process improvement approach describes a sound way of developing software.
D2. Our software process improvement approach forms a useful standard for our software development.
D3. Our software process improvement approach reminds me about activities/tasks of software development.
D4. Our software process improvement approach provides a useful list of possible software development activities.
D5. Our software process improvement approach provides useful guidelines for conducting software development.
D6. Our software process improvement approach allows us to learn from our software development experience.
D7. Our software process improvement approach defines an ideal process of software development that is useful, even though it is not followed in practice.

Perceived SPI impact on product quality

E1. Our software process improvement approach helps to develop more functional software.
E2. Our software process improvement approach helps to develop more reliable software.
E3. Our software process improvement approach helps to develop more maintainable software.
E4. Overall, our software process improvement approach helps to develop better software.
E5. Overall, our software process improvement approach helps to make users more satisfied with our software.

Perceived SPI impact on process quality

F1. Our software process improvement approach helps to improve the degree of agreement among participants in the development process.
F2. Our software process improvement approach helps to decrease the duplication of efforts during the development process.
F3. Our software process improvement approach helps to complete software within budget.
F4. Our software process improvement approach helps to complete software within schedule.
F5. Overall, our software process improvement approach improves the quality of the development efforts.

SPI use
Horizontal use
G1. What is the proportion of projects in your organization that are developed by applying software process improvement approach knowledge?

None 1
None 1 1–25% 2
1–25% 2 26–50% 3
26–50% 3 51–75% 4
51–75% 4 Over 75% 5
Over 75% 5

Vertical use
G2. What is the proportion of people in your organization who apply G3.To what extent is your organization using CMMI at present? (1 = nominally,
software process improvement approach knowledge? 5 = intensively)
 C.-C. Shih, S.-J. Huang / Information & Management 47 (2010) 271–281
References
[1] I. Aaen, J. Arendt, L. Mathiassen, O. Ngwenyama, A conceptual MAP of software
process improvement, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 13, 2001, pp.
79–99.
[2] S.S. Al-Gahtani, G.S. Hubona, J. Wang, Information technology (IT) in Saudi
Arabia:Culture and the acceptance and use of IT, Information & Management
44 (8), 2007, pp. 681–691.
[3] N. Ashrafi, The impact of software process improvement on quality in theory and
practice, Information & Management 40 (7), 2003, pp. 677–690.
[4] N. Baddoo, T. Hall, De-motivators for software process improvement: an analysis
of practitioners’ views, The Journal of Systems and Software 66 (1), 2003, pp. 23–
33.
[5] F. Cattaneo, A. Fuggetta, D. Sciuto, Pursuing coherence in software process
assessment and improvement, Software Process Improvement and Practice 6
(1), 2001, pp. 3–22.
[6] D.L. Gibson, D.R. Goldenson, Performance results of CMMI-based process im-
provement, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-004, 2006.
[7] B. Hansen, J. Rose, G. Tjørnehøj, Prescription, description, reflection: the shape of
the software process improvement field, International Journal of Information
Management 24, 2004, pp. 457–472.
[8] G.R. Harper, D.R. Utiey, Organizational culture and successful information tech-
nology implementation, Engineering Management Journal 13 (2), 2001, pp. 11–
15.
[9] D.E. Harter, M.S. Krishnan, S.A. Slaughter, Effects of process maturity on quality,
cycle time, and effort in software projects, Management Science 46 (4), 2000, pp.
451–466.
[10] N. Hoffman, R. Klepper, Assimilating new technologies: the role of organizational
culture, Information Systems Management 17 (3), 2000, pp. 36–42.
[11] S.-J. Huang, W.-M. Han, Selection priority of process areas based on CMMI
continuous representation, Information & Management 43 (3), 2006, pp. 297–
307.
[12] M. Huisman, J. Iivari, Deployment of systems development methodologies:
perceptual congruence between IS managers and systems developers, Informa-
tion & Management 43 (1), 2006, pp. 29–49.
[13] J. Iivari, M. Huisman, The relationship between organizational culture and the
deployment of systems development methodologies, MIS Quarterly 31 (1), 2007,
pp. 35–58.
[14] Information Service Industry Association of R.O.C. (CISA), http://www.cmmi-taiwan.
org.tw/content/index.aspx, 2007.
[15] J.J. Jiang, K. Gary, H.G. Hwang, J. Huang, S.Y. Hung, An exploration of the
relationship between software development process maturity and project per-
formance, Information & Management 41 (2), 2004, pp. 279–288.
[16] J.P. Kuilboer, N. Ashrafi, Software process and product improvement: an empirical
assessment, Information and Software Technology 42 (1), 2000, pp. 27–34.
[17] O. Ngwenyama, P.A. Nielsen, Competing values in software process improve-
ment: an assumption analysis of CMM from an organizational culture perspec-
tive, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50 (1), 2003, pp. 101–111.
[18] P.A. Nielsen, J. Nørbjerg, Software process maturity and organizational politics, in:
Proceedings of the IFIP TC8/WG8.2 Working Conference on Realigning Research
and Practice in Information Systems Development: The Social and Organizational
Perspective, 2001, pp. 221–240.
[19] L. Panayotopoulou, D. Bourantas, N. Papalexandris, Strategic human resource
management and its effects on firm performance: an implementation of the
281
competing values framework, International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment 14 (4), 2003, pp. 680–699.
[20] A. Rai, H. Al-Hindi, The effects of development process modeling and task
uncertainty on development quality performance, Information & Management
37 (6), 2000, pp. 335–346.
[21] T. Ravichandran, A. Rai, Total Quality management in information systems
development: key constructs and relationships, Journal of Management Informa-
tion Systems 24 (3), Winter 1999–2000, pp. 81–415.
[22] SEI, Process maturity profile of the software community, Software Engineering
Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2007.
[23] M. Staples, M. Niazi, Systematic review of organizational motivations for adopting
CMM-based SPI, Information and Software Technology 50 (7), 2008, pp. 605–620.
[24] C. Yoon, The effects of national culture values on consumer acceptance of e-
commerce: online shoppers in China, Information & Management 46 (5), 2009,
pp. 294–301.
Chiao-Ching Shih is a lecturer in the Department of
Information Management at St. John’s University,
Taiwan. She received her Master degree in Information
Management from National Chung Cheng University in
1997, and is currently a PhD candidate in the
Department of Information Management, National
Taiwan University of Science and Technology (NTUST).
She is also a member of the Software Engineering and
Management Laboratory at NTUST, Taiwan. Her re-
search interests include software process improve-
ment, system development, and project management.
Sun-Jen Huang received his B.A. in Industrial Manage-
ment in 1988, and his M.S. in Engineering and
Technology in 1991, both from the National Taiwan
University of Science and Technology, and his PhD
degree from the School of Computer Science and
Computer Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne,
Australia, in 1999. He is currently a professor in the
Department of Information Management, National
Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei,
Taiwan. He also servers as the head of the Software
Engineering and Management Laboratory at NTUST,
which hosts research projects every year from National
Science Council and software industry in Taiwan. Dr.
Huang is also a chairman of Software Quality Promotion Committee at the Chinese
Society for Quality. His research interests include software engineering and project
management, software process improvement, software measurement and analysis,
and software quality management. Dr. Huang has published more than 20 papers in
journals including Information & Management, IEEE Transactions on Software
Engineering, Software Practice & Experience, Journal of Systems and Software, Informal
and Software Technology, The Service Industries Journal, European Journal of
Operational Research, Applied Intelligence, Journal of Information Science and
Engineering, and Journal of Software Engineering Studies.