[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”arp1″]
What follows is a brief overview of the things you should include.
?Chapter 3 Method: The method section includes separate descriptions of the sample, the materials, and the procedures. These are subtitled and may be augmented by further sections, if needed.
Describe your sample with sufficient detail so that it is clear what population(s) the sample represents. A discussion of how the sample was formed is needed for replicability and understanding your study.
A description of your instruments, including all surveys, tests, questionnaires, interview forms, and other tools used to provide data, should appear in the materials subsection. Evidence of reliability and validity should be presented. Since reliability is a property of scores from a specific use of a specific instrument for a specific population, you should provide reliability estimates based on your data.
?The design of the study, whether it is a case study, a survey, a controlled experiment, or some other type of research, is conveyed through the procedures subsection. It is here that the activities of the researcher are described, such as what was said to the participants, how groups were formed, what control mechanisms were employed, et cetera. The description is sufficient if enough detail is present for the reader to replicate the essential elements of the study. It is important for the procedures to conform to ethical criteria for researchers.
?If you are proposing to use inferential statistics, you should determine the power a priori based on your anticipated distribution, design, and definition of practical significance. This information must stem from your related literature and not the data that you are proposing to collect.
?Where appropriate, compute and report effect sizes or, at a minimum, be sure you provide enough information so effect sizes can be computed. Effect sizes provide a common metric for evaluating results across studies and aid in the design of future studies. They will be needed by anyone who attempts a quantitative synthesis of your study along with the others in your area of research.
?Sections possibly could include:
?Purpose of the study.
?Research design.
?Target population and participant selection.
?Procedures.
?Instruments.
?Research questions and hypotheses.
?Data analysis.
?Expected findings.
This is an example of what my teacher wants us to submit:
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Purpose of the Study
Goldenson and Herbsleb (1995) noted that 67% of software development managers want guidance on how to implement improvement activities, not what improvements to implement. Without proven methods of how to proceed with a process improvement initiative there is often little credibility in an organizations planned approach. Hall and Wilson (1997, 1998) suggest that the experiences, opinions and perceptions of software practitioners influence indirectly on the attitude towards process improvement efforts and therefore the success of the improvement program. Research by McDermid and Bennet (1999) pointed out however that the human factors influencing improvement programs have been largely ignored and assigns this oversight to the large failure rate of process improvement.
Despite the importance of implementation strategies for process improvement efforts, little research has been done to date on how to introduce the changes required in becoming compliant to the CMMI. The focus of this research will be to identify the impact the method of executing Process and Product Quality Assurance activities has on the success rate of the process improvement project itself.
Research Design
A non-experimental quantitative research design using a proportional stratified sample was used to determine if the method of execution of Process and Product Quality Assurance audits successfully impact the ability of an organization to achieve a targeted maturity level within the Capability Maturity Model Integration.
The proportional stratified sample was leveraged so the data collected from participants could be grouped into the categories that this research desired to evaluate, specifically maturity level one organizations and organizations satisfying maturity level two requirements. This method allows the evaluation of the two target subpopulations while ignoring any irrelevant subpopulations. This approach provided a balance in the likely event that the two subpopulations vary widely in size.
A causal comparative research method was selected because of the large amount of available data collected by the Software Engineering Institute. The causal comparative method was also selected due to the fact that recollecting this data would be very costly, take an extremely long period of time, and would not produce data different than that which the Software Engineering Institute had already collected.
The study was performed by e-mailing a link to an online survey to organizations that have been focused on compliance to the CMMI. These organizations were identified through two online lists, SEI Published Appraisal Results and Yahoo?s CMMI Process Improvement Group. The e-mail was sent through the CMMI Process Improvement Group list server. The list server is part of a voluntary self-governing online community established to enable communication between members. The e-mail requested that the organization?s process improvement team complete the survey questions about audit methods and current maturity rating as well as an informed consent form. This data was evaluated to determine if the time it takes an organization to achieve compliance to the CMMI is influenced by the execution of the Process and Product Quality
Assurance audits.
The study also considered the impact of the additional variables, organization size, number of employees in the development department, number of projects in the organization, team size, project duration, and senior management involvement in compliance issues.
The web survey module Wufoo was used to develop and deploy the web based survey. Wufoo survey software was rated as one of the most comprehensive packages available for both the development of surveys and the collection of data by TopTenReviews (2009). Wufoo assists in survey design, budgeting, and time considerations.
Questions were entered through the Wufoo survey design program. Each question variable was assigned a label name, value, code, and skip patterns to control data entry. After all the variables had been entered, Wufoo automatically formatted the questionnaire.
The tool will generate a random number table with or without replacement. Data can be manually entered or imported from database formats such as Access, Excel, Paradox, tab and comma delimited files. An analysis of the data was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences v20.0 (SPSS).
The target population was identified through two different lists. The first list is maintained by the steward of the CMMI, the Software Engineering Institute. This list holds the name of the organization, appraisal sponsor, lead appraiser, appraisal date, and maturity level achieved. This list is located on the SEI Published Appraisal Results website (SEI, 2011). The second list is a Yahoo Group list for CMMI Process Improvement located on the Yahoo Group Page (Yahoo Groups, 2011). This list was used to send the e-mail to 4,542 process improvement professionals and practitioners through a blind list server, where no specific e-mail addresses are revealed.
The invitation letter was loaded into the e-mail list manager of Wufoo as well as the survey. Instructions were provided on how to complete the survey and the five day time limit for completing the questionnaire. Wufoo provided information on how many surveys have been completed compared to the number sent. Once the allotted time to complete the surveys had been reached, the data was transferred from Wufoo to SPSS for analysis. Reminders to complete the survey were sent after three days. As an incentive to complete the survey, participants were offered a link to the study results for returning a completed questionnaire.
Target Population and Participant Selection
The population for this study are organizations that have been working on compliance to the CMMI between 6 and 48 months and have attempted or are planning execution of a SCAMPI A appraisal. The SEI collects and publishes SCAMPI appraisal results for all register appraisals which identify this population. Each organization that registers a SCAMPI A appraisal will be given an Appraisal Disclosure Statement (ADS) containing all the findings data at the completion of the appraisal. The ADS will contain data on PPQA and model rating.
The sample for this study was divided into two groups, organizations that have satisfied the goals of CMMI maturity level 2 and organizations that have not, or maturity level 1. The SEI Process Maturity Profile data states that an acceptable duration of time required to achieve maturity level 2 to be between 6 to 48 months (Carnegie Mellon University, 2010). Often organizations that are required to obtain a CMMI maturity rating for business or contractual reasons attempt the SCAMPI appraisal in less time than practical, which could produce a high level of failure results.
According to the SEI there have been 3,458 companies that have executed a SCAMPI A appraisal between April 2002 and June 2010 (Carnegie Mellon University, 2010). However there is no data to determine how many of these organizations meet the study?s sample requirements. A power study using the significance level of 0.05 and power of 0.80 determined that a total sample size of 56 is required, 28 per group. This research used a proportional stratified sample design, dividing the population into two layers. The two layers are organizations that have achieved maturity level 1 or level 2. The only location that CMMI maturity levels are published is on the SEI website. Using information published on the World Wide Web is the only practical method of contacting the majority of organizations that are working on process improvement using the CMMI.
This sample will have undergone a SCAMPI appraisal to determine the maturity level achieved. Organizations that have not successfully completed a SCAMPI A appraisal default to maturity level 1. Causal comparative research requires a large population and this approach provides the opportunity to obtain the desired sample.
Procedures
The sample was collected using an e-mail survey. The web survey module Wufoo was used to develop and deploy the web based survey. Organizations that have been focused on compliance to the CMMI were e-mailed a link to an online survey. These organizations were identified through two online lists, SEI Published Appraisal Results and Yahoo?s CMMI Process Improvement Group. The e-mail responses obtained from these sites were loaded into the list manager of Wufoo as well as the survey.
Questions were entered through the Wufoo survey design program. Each question variable was assigned a label name, value, code, and skip patterns to control data entry. After all the variables were entered, Wufoo automatically formatted the questionnaire. Wufoo also calculated the sample size for any desired confidence interval and margin of error.
The e-mail requested that the organization?s process improvement team complete the survey questions about audit methods and current maturity rating as well as an informed consent form. Instructions were provided on how to complete the survey as well as the five day time limit for completing the questionnaire. Wufoo provided information on how many surveys had been completed compared to the number of sent. Once the allotted time to complete the surveys had been reached the data was transferred from Wufoo to Statistical Package for the Social Sciences v20.0 (SPSS) for analysis.
Instruments
E-mails were sent via a blind list server with a link to an online survey. Survey questions and an informed consent form were then loaded into the tool. The e-mail survey was sent to all addressees on the list with instructions for survey execution. These instructions described the purpose of the survey and the data being requested. The instructions also described the roles within an organization that would be the most appropriate to complete the survey, requesting that the survey be forwarded to the appropriate role, if the survey recipient was not the correct person.
The survey participant began the survey by clicking a hyperlink within the e-mail. Instructions explained that the survey must be completed fully before submitting and submission must occur within five days. Questions were answered online directly into the website. The survey tool required all questions be answered before the submit button can be selected. The first question was acknowledgement of informed consent. Once activated the survey provided status on percent complete. The survey should take no longer than 10 minutes to complete. Once the survey participant had answered all questions the submit button was pressed and the data was loaded into the survey tool database.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Does the method of execution of Process and Product Quality Assurance audits impact the ability of an organization to achieve a maturity level successfully against the Capability Maturity Model Integration? And if so what influences does the organizational variables of organization size, number of employees in the development department, number of projects in the organization, team size, project duration, and senior management involvement have on these audit methods.
There are many approaches to PPQA audits; one of the most distinct differences is whether the audit is performed real time during process execution allowing immediate corrective action or post mortem after corrective action is no longer feasible. This question asks if these variables have an impact on causing the change of behavior and possibly the change of culture required to become compliant to the CMMI.
Hypothesis 1 – Organizations that perform real-time PPQA audits on the execution of process activities will have a greater probability of achieving maturity level 2 of the Capability Maturity Model Integration than organizations that perform post mortem PPQA audits on the execution of process activities.
NULL 1 – There is no difference in the probability of achieving maturity level 2 of the Capability Maturity Model Integration between organizations that perform real-time PPQA audits on the execution of process activities and organizations that perform post mortem PPQA audits on the execution of process activities.
Hypothesis 2 – Organizations that perform real-time PPQA audits on the execution of process activities will achieve maturity level 2 of the Capability Maturity Model Integration in a shorter period than organizations that perform post mortem PPQA audits on the execution of process activities.
NULL 2 – There is no difference in the time required to achieve maturity level 2 of the Capability Maturity Model Integration between organizations that perform real-time PPQA audits on the execution of process activities and organizations that perform post mortem PPQA audits on the execution of process activities.
Hypothesis 3 ? The larger the size of the organization that performs real-time PPQA audits on the execution of process activities, the greater the probability of achieving maturity level 2 of the Capability Maturity Model Integration than smaller sized organizations that perform real-time PPQA audits on the execution of process activities.
NULL 3 ? Organizational size has no effect on the probability of achieving maturity level 2 of the Capability Maturity Model Integration between large organizations that perform real-time PPQA audits on the execution of process activities and small organizations that perform real-time PPQA audits on the execution of process activities.
Hypothesis 4 ? Organizations with higher percentages of compliance issues escalated to upper management achieve their current maturity level of the Capability Maturity Model Integration in a lesser amount of time.
NULL 4 ? There is no significant effect between organizations with higher percentages of compliance issues escalated to upper management and the time required to achieve their current maturity level of the Capability Maturity Model Integration.
Data Analysis
Hypothesis testing included the use of a chi-square test of independence, Fisher?s Exact Test, independent samples t-test and a one-way between groups analysis of variance (ANOVA). Sample groups were defined as follows, ML1 / ML2, and Real Time Audit / Post Mortem Audit.
Due to the fact that no psychometric information is available for all required data, field testing was required. To field test the new survey randomly selected maturity level 1 and 2 organizations from the SEI maturity database were contacted and asked if they were willing to participate in the field test.
Request for participation continued until six organizations had agreed to participate. The survey was then executed following the procedures that were used for the actual study. Additional questions were included to determine if the survey participant was able to follow the instructions on where to obtain the requested data with confidence.
Specifically each of the fifteen survey questions were followed by the question, ?By following the instructions it was easy to locate the requested information.? The answers were based on a four point scale where 4 = strongly agree and 1 = strongly disagree.
Upon completion of the allocated time for completing the survey as documented in the survey procedures, survey data was collected and analyzed. Data was then checked for accuracy using the steps described by the SCAMPI A appraisal method. Corrective action on the survey was based on the results of the study and the process was repeated until the survey had been deemed to be valid.
Expected Findings
Data suggests that senior management must desire and lead change within an organization for a software process improvement program to achieve success. The question is how do they do this, and perhaps the larger question, why is it not already happening?
This study starts with B.F. Skinner?s (1953) reinforcement theory by also suggesting that PPQA must identify and support the correction of undesirable behavior. However this study suggests that in addition to reinforcement consideration must be made for the effect of feedback loops to supply not only feedback on noncompliance but also present a method of corrective action.
The CMMI requires that unresolved compliance issues identified through the Process and Product Quality Assurance (PPQA) audit process be escalated to upper management for consideration projects (Ahern, Clouse, & Turner, 2004). Real time audits allow this information to flow to upper management while corrective action and reinforcement is still feasible, however post mortem audits provide little opportunity for meaningful reinforcement or corrective actions, and thereby diminishes the opportunity for change. The larger the organization, the more detached upper management may be from actual behavior, emphasizing the need for timely compliance data to drive change.
This would lead to the conclusion that the method of execution of PPQA audits has a direct correlation on the maturity level an organization is able to achieve with respect to the CMMI and the time it will take to institutionalize these compliance changes. Real time PPQA audits will allow for greater reinforcement of change and therefore the more predictable organizational behavioral change will be in gaining compliance to the CMMI in a shorter period. Inversely executing post mortem PPQA compliance audits does not allow real-time feedback and therefore will provide diminished motivation for organizational change, reducing the level of compliance to the model and increasing the time required to change the behavior of the organization. The larger an organization is the greater the resistance to change, the greater the need for real time compliance data.
[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”arp2″]
A-Research-Paper.com is committed to deliver a custom paper/essay which is 100% original and deliver it within the deadline. Place your custom order with us and experience the different; You are guaranteed; value for your money and a premium paper which meets your expectations, 24/7 customer support and communication with your writer. Order Now
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]
