COMSATS University Islamabad

Registrar Office, Principal Seat, Islamabad

Form for Approval of Synopsis of Graduate Programs Students (MS) of CUI

Student’s Details;
Registration No: FA18-RSE-007 Name: Babar Khan
Father Name: Khushal Khan Program Name: MS(SE)
Area of Specialization (if any as per
SE
approved SoS):

Supervisor/ Co-Supervisor’s Details:

Supervisor’s Name and Designation: Dr. Uzair Iqbal Janjua

Co-Supervisor’s Name and Designation: Dr. Tahir Mustafa Madni

Synopsis Title
Software Process Improvement of Small Medium Enterprises in GSD Context – A
Conceptual Model
Recommended & Signed by Supervisory Committee (Name & Signature):

1. -------------
2. -------------
3. -------------

Recommended & Signed by Departmental Graduate Advisory Committee: (Name &

Signature)

1. ------------
2. ------------
3. ------------
4. ------------

Signed by Student;……………………………………………………………………………

Signed Recommended by HoD on the basis of Turnitin Similarity Report (attached)

……………

Signed and approved by the respective Dean;……………………………………………...

1
 COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad
Campus

Synopsis for the Degree of MS/MPhil/PhD

PART-1

Name of Student: Babar Khan

Department: Department of Computer Science, CUI,

Islamabad Campus

Registration No.: Date of Thesis Registration:

3rd FEB, 2020

Research Supervisor: Dr. Uzair Iqbal Janjua

Research Area

Members of Supervisory Committee

Title of Research Synopsis: Software Process Improvement of Small Medium

Enterprises in GSD Context – A Conceptual
Model
Signature of Student:

2
Title: Software Process Improvement of Small Medium Enterprises in GSD Context
– A Conceptual Model

Abstract: Software development is often considered as demanding task across the

world. Due to the technological advancements, software development organizations
(SDOs) need to adjust their processes and activities to cope with changing trends. SDOs
use software process improvement (SPI) methodology for analysis and improvement of
their development process and activities. By using SPI methodology, organizations -
analyzed their current practices and alter them according to the needs of their customers
and competitive market. SDOs have adopted modern ways of developing software by
hiring talented staff across the world and globalizing their development activities and
termed it as global software development (GSD). These teams are distributed
geographically and work in different time zones to achieve various benefits which
include the availability of talented staff, reduce cycle time and to gain competitive
advantage in market. However, various challenges are also associated with this mode of
software development due to temporal, cultural and geographical distance.
In this research, we aim to study to various inhibitors that prevent the successful
implementation of SPI initiatives in GSD context for SMEs. To achieve this objective,
we conduct literature review to add new inhibitors in taxonomy based on PMBOK
framework. Further, taxonomy is used to create conceptual framework to achieve
successful implementation of SPI initiatives. The conceptual framework is then
empirically evaluated by experts and practitioners working in SPI domain. The purpose
of this empirical investigation is to find the factors that may be encountered by the
industrial practitioners, but not stated in the literature. Similarly, there might be some
factors that are stated in literature but not faced by the practitioners anymore due to the
enhancement of technologies. Finally, we examined how inhibitors could negatively
affect organizations’ return on investment for SPI initiatives.

Introduction: Software development organizations (SDOs) wasted millions of dollars

every year because of ineffective and inefficient development process [1]. Most of those
organizations fall in the category of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). About 95%
of all software companies around the world are classified as small software companies
and they are adding significantly to the world economy [2]. However, the quality of
software developed by them is still questionable because about 50% of those projects
3
fail to meet customer requirements. Software process improvement (SPI) is used to
overcome the problems with software development process of an organization. SPI
improves effectiveness, efficiency and related problems with development process and
consequently improve software quality and reliability and customer satisfaction [3] [4].

Software process improvement approach is widely used in software development

organizations to enhance their performance [3] [5]. Software organizations’ performance
can be measured in terms of software product quality, employee satisfaction and revenue
generation [6]. The purpose of software process improvement is to study the undergoing
practices of an organization and then find gap by comparing it with any particular
standard or framework. Moreover, SPI is used to suggest changes in their current
process to improve their performance [2] [5]. The competitive market has made software
organization to look into their processes rather than technology aspects.

Software development organizations (SDO) have adopted modern ways of developing

software to enhance their competitive advantage and customer satisfaction. They have
started to hire talented staff across the world and globalizing their development activities
[7]. The process of hiring the talented staff across the world and globalizing the software
development process is known as “Global software development” [8]. The distinction of
SPI concepts between in-house development and GSD must be acknowledged by the
SDO’s. The characteristics of GSD make SPI implementations initiatives more
challenging and demanding task as compared to in-house development [9].
Subsequently, the implementation of SPI needs certain considerations which involve
careful design implementation and follow up keeping in mind the special characteristics
of GSD [8] [10].

Different models and standards are introduced to practice SPI in organizations. These
models and standards provide guidelines about the application and measurement of
applied processes. State of the art studies has suggested various models that can be used
for underlying purpose. Mostly used models are International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) standards and Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
standards [8] [11].

4
Although process improvement in GSD reduced development cost and streamlines all
related development process. However, generalization of SPI practices is more
challenging task in GSD context due to cultural diversity. Many issues arise in regard of
different cultures and trust among the outsourcing company and client [7]. To overcome
these issues, practitioners need to fully understand all related concepts of SPI
implementation in GSD context.

Research Objectives:
• To Identify SPI inhibitors that could affect the SMEs in GSD through detailed
systematic literature review.
• To categorize factors and taxonomy of SPI inhibitors
• To propose conceptual framework
• To validate conceptual framework

Literature Review:
SLRs are used as basic tools for investigating and categorizing existing literature related
to a specific research area by using well defined procedures and guidelines. Main phases
of SLR are: planning, conducting, and reporting the review [12].
Table 1 Data Collected

Paper Selection by SLR

Phases Studies Inclusion/Exclusio Inclusion/Exclusion Inclusion/Exclusi Final

after n on title and on introduction and on on full text selection
applying abstract basis conclusion basis basis
search
string
IEEE
Xplore 149 127 75 17 8

ACM
DL 65 59 24 5 3

Science
Direct 108 96 41 9 5

Google
Scholar 252 221 83 49 12

Wiley
Online 69 31 18 7 4

Emerald
Insights 57 54 14 2 0

Total 700 588 255 89 32

5
Quality Assessment:

RQ1. Are the objectives of proposed study clearly discussed?

RQ2. Is the research method clearly defined and documented?
RQ3. Does the study explicitly focused on SPI for GSD?
RQ4. Does the study address SPI aspects for small and medium enterprises?
RQ5. Are the results of proposed study answers the research question and research
objectives?
RQ6. Does the study discuss future implications?

Table 2 Quality Assessment Questions

Quality Assessment Questions Score

Ref # Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Score
[1] 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
[2] 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 5
[3] 1 1 1 0 1 1 5
[4] 0.5 1 0 1 1 0.5 4
[5] 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 5.5
[6] 1 1 0 1 1 1 5
[7] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 1 0 2.5
[8] 1 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0 2.5
[9] 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 5.5
[10] 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 4.5
[11] 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 5
[12] 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 5.5
[13] 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 4.5
[14] 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 5.5
[15] 1 1 0.5 0 1 0 3.5
[16] 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 5.5
[17] 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 5.5
[18] 1 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 4
[19] 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 4.5
[20] 1 1 0 0 1 0.5 3.5
[21] 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 4.5
[22] 1 1 0 1 1 0.5 4.5
[23] 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0 4
[24] 1 0.5 0 1 1 1 4.5
[25] 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 4.5
[26] 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 4
[27] 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 4
[28] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 4
[29] 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 4.5
[30] 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 5
[31] 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 5.5
[32] 0.5 1 0 1 1 0 3.5

6
 Table 3 Review Matrix

Review Matrix for Literature Review

   
Description of Evaluation
Author(s) Methodology Limitations
Research Measures
Investigation of
factors affecting
P. Sharma, Not Search engine
SPI Systematic
and A. L. empirically limitations and data
implementation mapping study
Sangal [5] evaluated extraction bias
initiatives in
SMEs
To develop a
Global Teaming
(GT) process
area to deal with
temporal,
I. Model has not been
cultural, Literature review Validation
Richardson, implemented in real
geographic and for factors through
V. Casey, et organization for GSD
linguistic identification DSS
al. [7] project
distance
problems which
will deal with
issues related to
GSD
Identify barriers
that negatively
A. A. Khan, affect SPI SLR and Some important relevant
Empirically
J. Keung, et initiatives questionnaire studies might not have
evaluated
al [23] implementation survey been included
in GSD
organization
To identify and
M. A. T. Not Limited number of
discuss SPI Systematic
Almomani, et empirically reference models are
initiatives in Literature Review
al [8] evaluated identified
SMEs

To investigate all
M.
papers that Comprehensive Not
Kuhrmann, Research bias, relaying
discuss SPI systematic empirically
P. Diebold, et on base paper data
initiatives in mapping study evaluated
al
GSE context

To develop
framework to
Limited sample size of
model structural
P. Sharma, SMEs in few domains
dependencies Mix method Empirically
and A. L. were tested to know the
among inhibitors approach evaluated
Sangal [15] SPI inhibitors impact in
that impact SPI
SPI initiative in GSD
initiatives in
GSD
I. To assist Action Research Not …
Richardson, implementation empirically
V. Casey, et of GSE by evaluated
al [7] fulfilling
requirements for

7
 successful
implementation
in an
organization
To review
communication
literature to
Limited number of
highlight Not
studies have been
S. Wu [10] key issues of Review paper empirically
covered by this research
communication evaluated
article
related with
activities in GSD
process
Development of
software process
improvement
implementation
A. A. Khan, and management
Systematic Empirically Case study sample size
J. W. Keung, model (SPIIMM)
Literature Review evaluated was very limited
et al [9] to assist GSD
organizations in
assessing and
improving their
SPI activities
Verification of
S. B. Basri, Not
formality of the Survey
and R. V. empirically …
SPI initiatives questionnaire
O’Connor [6] evaluated
in very SSCs
To investigate
Not
M. Bano, and empirical work Systematic List of factors is not
empirically
N. Ikram [11] reported within Literature Review given
evaluated
SPI literature.
Development of
comparison
M. Tuape, framework that Not No rationale behind the
Systematic
and Y. serves as basis empirically use of a specific area is
Literature Review
Ayalew [16] for adaptable evaluated provided
SPI framework
for SSC
Identification of
M. Tuape, success factors Not
Systematic Limited number of
and Y. affecting empirically
Literature Review studies, publication bias
Ayalew [2] development evaluated
process of SSCs
To build
hierarchical
P. Sharma, Not
structure model Mix method
and A. L. empirically …
to assist SPI approach
Sangal [18] evaluated
initiatives in
software SMEs.
To explore the Need for more research
relationship to better understand the
M. Humayun, between GSD, influence of trust in
Empirically
and N. knowledge Web-based survey achieving a shared
evaluated
JHANJHI management, understanding of
trust and requirement in GSD
collaboration settings
A. A. Khan, Identification Systematic Not Limited number of
and J. Keung and classification Literature Review empirically success factors,

8
 of success
factors and
[13] evaluated publication bias
barriers to assist
SPI initiatives
Identification
and classification
A. A. Khan, of success Not Limited number of
Systematic
J. Keung, et factors for GSD empirically success factors,
Literature Review
al. [14] organizations in evaluated publication bias
client –vendor
perspective

Problem Statement: Software process improvement (SPI) approach is widely used

in software development organizations (SDO) to enhance their performance despite of
the size of the organization [3] [5]. SDO have adopted modern ways of developing and
improving software to enhance their competitive advantage and customer satisfaction.
SDOs have applied SPI initiatives in global software development (GSD) context [7].
However, it is challenging task because the nature of GSD is different from in-house
development and as a result challenges faced are also different for successful
implementation of SPI initiatives [8]. However, to the best of our knowledge the existing
literature lacks some inhibitors and controlling framework/mechanism that prevent the
successful implementation of SPI initiatives in GSD context for SMEs [5] [9] [13].
Thus, there is a need to identify inhibitor and categorize them in taxonomy according to
Global software development context. Moreover, a conceptual framework/tool and its
empirical evaluation is required for successful implementation of SPI initiatives for
SMEs in order to help them for successful implementation of improvement standards
and later on successful delivery of projects and customer satisfaction [5] [14].

Research Questions: The research questions for the given problem are mentioned
below:
RQ1: What are the SPI inhibitors that could affect the SMEs in GSD?
RQ1.1: What are the critical inhibitors that could affect the SMEs in GSD?
RQ1.2: What are the key categories to classify the inhibitors in GSD?
RQ2: What are the missing factors in existing frameworks in GSD context?
RQ2: What are the models/tools/framework, to SPI implementation in SMEs in global
software development?
RQ3: How we can successfully implement improvement standards for SME’s in global
software development?

9
Research Contributions: The research contributions should be highlighted in
bullet points for instance:
• Identifications and validation of SPI factors that could affect the SMEs in GSD
through detailed systematic literature review which will help industry to identify
new inhibitors how inhibitors could negatively affect organizations’ return on
investment for SPI initiatives.
• The identified inhibitors are categorized in taxonomy that is based on 4 P’s. The
presented taxonomy is further used to achieve the primary purpose of this
research by presenting a conceptual framework for successful implementation of
SPI initiatives. Further, the proposed framework will be empirically evaluated
through controlled experiment which will serve for successful implementation of
improvement standards and later on successful delivery of projects and customer
satisfaction.

Methodology:
Research Design: The selected method for this study is Systematic Literature Review
(SLR) and industrial empirical study. SLRs are used as basic tools for investigating and
categorizing existing literature related to a specific research area by using well defined
procedures and guidelines. Main phases of SLR are: planning, conducting, and reporting
the review.
Research Setting: Google survey will be formed and is conducted to be mostly
in Pakistan.

Research Duration: It will take 2 months with October November.

Data Analysis: Firstly, we will disseminate the online questionnaire of different

active researchers of several universities and research organization of different
domains. Without gender discrimination, we will collect the response of
respondents. Beside demographic information, mostly questions of the
questionnaire are of closed-form to know about the respondent feedback in the
form of Likert Scale as shown in Appendix A.

10
 Statistical Analysis: After collecting data, we will perform frequency analysis to
describe the strength of populations and we will apply t-tests to benchmark the
findings. Moreover, we will present descriptive statistics to benchmark the
findings of certain populations.

Result Dissemination: We present results in two fold. Firstly, we describe some

data distribution between responses of certain groups. Secondly, we emphasized
the factors through the researcher’s feedback which could affect their
productivity.

Sample Size & Technique: How many instances will be included? If there are
Groups how many per group? And what will be the technique used

Data Collection Method: Data will be gathered by using google forms and
SPSS tool will be used.

Data Analysis: Complete description of software, variables and statistical

methods.

Timeline: Brief breakdown of milestones with tentative dates.

11
 Table 4 Tentative Timetable

Tentative Timetable for Thesis

Serial No. Activity Date

1. Background study and detailed literature review 08-03-2020

2. Formulation of problem and proposing solution 14-09-2020

3. Analysis and discussion of results 25-09-2020

4. Synopsis Writing 01-10-2020

5. Thesis Writing

6. Thesis Submission

References:
[1] S. K. Amer, N. Badr, O. Ibrahim, and A. Hamad, "Empirical study on the effectiveness of
adopting software quality frameworks in the Egyptian software industry," In 2017 Eighth
International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Information Systems (ICICIS), pp. 263-
270. IEEE, 2017.
[2] M. Tuape, and Y. Ayalew, "Factors affecting development process in small software companies,"
In 2019 IEEE/ACM Symposium on Software Engineering in Africa (SEiA), pp. 16-23. IEEE,
2019.
[3] V. Claudia, M. Mirna, and M. Jezreel, "Characterization of software processes improvement
needs in SMEs," In 2013 International Conference on Mechatronics, Electronics and Automotive
Engineering, pp. 223-228. IEEE, 2013.
[4] M Jiménez, A. Vizcaíno, and M. Piattini. "Improving distributed software development in small
and medium enterprises," The Open Software Engineering Journal, Vol. 4, no. 1 2010.
[5] P. Sharma, and A. L. Sangal, "Investigating the factors which impact SPI implementation
initiatives in software SMEs—A systematic map and review," Journal of Software: Evolution
and Process, vol. 31, no. 7, 2019.
[6] S. B. Basri, and R. V. O'Connor, "Organizational commitment towards software process
improvement an irish software VSEs case study," In 2010 International Symposium on
Information Technology, vol. 3, pp. 1456-1461. IEEE, 2010.
[7] I. Richardson, V. Casey, J. Burton, and F. McCaffery, "Global software engineering: A software
process approach," In Collaborative software engineering, pp. 35-56. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, 2010.
[8] M. A. T. Almomani, S. Basri, S. Mahamad, and A. O. Bajeh, "Software process improvement
initiatives in small and medium firms: a systematic review," In 2014 3rd International

12
 [9] A. A. Khan, J. W. Keung, and M. Abdullah-Al-Wadud, "SPIIMM: toward a model for software
process improvement implementation and management in global software development," IEEE
Access 5, pp. 13720-13741, 2017.
[10] S. Wu, "Overview of communication in global software development process," In Proceedings of
2012 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, pp.
474-478. IEEE, 2012.
[11] M. Bano, and N. Ikram, "Software process improvement: a systematic literature review," In 2012
15th International Multitopic Conference (INMIC), pp. 459-464. IEEE, 2012.
[12] Kitchenham, B., Pearl Brereton, O., Budgen, D., et al.: ‘Systematic literature reviews in software
engineering – a systematic literature review’, Inf. Softw. Technol., 2009, 51, pp. 7–15
[13] A.A. Khan, and J. Keung, "Systematic review of success factors and barriers for software process
improvement in global software development," IET software, Vol. 10, no. 5, 2016.
[14] A.A. Khan, J. Keung, S. Hussain, M Niazi, and S. Kieffer, "Systematic literature study for
dimensional classification of success factors affecting process improvement in global software
development: client–vendor perspective," IET Software, Vol 12, no. 4, 2018.
[15] P. Sharma, and A. L. Sangal, "Framework for empirical examination and modeling structural
dependencies among inhibitors that impact SPI implementation initiatives in software
SMEs," Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, Vol. 30, no. 12, 2018.
[16] M. Tuape, and Y. Ayalew, "A roadmap for a comparison framework for an adaptable software
process improvement framework in small software companies," In FedCSIS (Communication
Papers), pp. 133-141. 2019.
[17] Richardson, I. V. Casey, F. McCaffery, J. Burton, and S. Beecham, "A process framework for
global software engineering teams," Information and Software Technology, vol. 54, no. 11, pp.
1175-1191, 2020.
[18] P. Sharma, and A. L. Sangal, "Building a hierarchical structure model of enablers that affect the
software process improvement in software SMEs—A mixed method approach," Computer
Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 66, 2019.
[19] M Jiménez, A. Vizcaíno, and M. Piattini. "Improving distributed software development in small
and medium enterprises," The Open Software Engineering Journal, Vol. 4, no. 1 2010.
[20] S. K. Amer, N. Badr, O. Ibrahim, and A. Hamad, "Empirical study on the effectiveness of
adopting software quality frameworks in the Egyptian software industry," In 2017 Eighth
International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Information Systems (ICICIS), pp. 263-
270. IEEE, 2017.
[21] R. Akbar, M. F. Hassan, and A. Abdullah, "A framework of software process tailoring for small
and medium size IT companies," In 2012 International Conference on Computer & Information
Science (ICCIS), vol. 2, pp. 914-918. IEEE, 2012.
[22] M. A. Alanezi. "The Adoption of Software Process Improvement in Saudi Arabian Small and
Medium Size Software Organizations: An Exploratory Study,” IJACSA) International Journal of
Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 9 no. 3, 2018.

13
[23] A. A. Khan, J. Keung, M. Niazi, S. Hussain, and H. Zhang. "Systematic literature reviews of
software process improvement: A tertiary study," In European Conference on Software Process
Improvement, Springer, Cham, pp. 177-190, 2017.
[24] P. Clarke, and R. V. O’Connor, “The influence of SPI on business success in software SMEs: An
empirical study,” Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 85, no. 10, pp. 2356-2367, 2012.
[25] M. Niazi, “An exploratory study of software process improvement implementation
risks,” Journal of software: Evolution and Process, Vol. 24 no. 8, pp. 877-894, 2012.
[26] K. Liukkunen, K. Lindberg, J. Hyysalo, and J. Markkula, "Supporting collaboration in the
geographically distributed work with communication tools in the remote district SME's," In 2010
5th IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering, pp. 155-164, IEEE, 2010.
[27] Shakir, S. Nadeem, and J. Nørbjerg, "IT Project Management Practices in Very Small Software
Companies: A case of Pakistan," Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information
Systems, 2013.
[28] I. H. J. de Farias, R. R. de Azevedo, H. P. de Moura, and D. S. Martins da Silva, "Elicitation of
communication inherent risks in distributed software development," In 2012 IEEE Seventh
International Conference on Global Software Engineering Workshops, pp. 37-42, IEEE, 2012.
[29] H.-M. Sihvonen, and M. Jäntti, "How does training support software process improvement in
organizational changes?," In The 5th International Conference on New Trends in Information
Science and Service Science, vol. 1, pp. 8-15, IEEE, 2011.
[30] H. Eduardo, J. G. Guzmán, A. de Amescua-Seco, and X. Larrucea, "Gamification for software
process improvement: a practical approach," IET Software, Vol. 13, no. 2, pp.112-121, 2018
[31] A. A. Khan, M. Shameem, R. R. Kumar, S.Hussain, and X.Yan, "Fuzzy AHP based prioritization
and taxonomy of software process improvement success factors in global software
development," Applied Soft Computing, Vol. 83, p. 105648, 2019.
[32] M. Sulayman, and E. Mendes, "An extended systematic review of software process improvement
in small and medium web companies," In 15th Annual Conference on Evaluation & Assessment
in Software Engineering (EASE 2011), pp. 134-143, IET, 2011.

Appendix (If Any):

14
PART II

Recommendation by the Research Supervisor

Name Signature Date

Recommendation by the Research Co-Supervisor

Name Signature Date

Signed by Supervisory Committee

S.# Name of Committee member Designation Signature & Date

Approved by Departmental Advisory Committee

Certified that the synopsis has been seen by members of DAC and considered it suitable for
putting up to BASAR.

Secretary
Departmental Advisory Committee

Name:

Signature:

Date:

Chairman/HoD:

Signature:

Date:

15
PART III

Dean, Faculty of Information Sciences & Technology

Approved for placement before BASAR.

Not Approved on the basis of following reasons

Signature Date

Secretary BASAR

Approved for placement before BASAR.

Not Approved on the basis of following reasons

Signature Date

Dean, Faculty of Information Sciences & Technology

Signature Date

16
 Please provide the list of courses studied
1. Software Costing and Estimation
2. Advanced Software and System Architecture
3. Advanced Requirements Engineering
4. Advanced Software Process Management and Improvement
5. Advanced Software Project Management
6. Advanced Software Quality Assurance
7. Semantic Web
8. Research Methodology in Software Engineering

17