This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
The Impact of Institutional Forces on Software Metrics Programs
August 2005 (vol. 31 no. 8)
pp. 679-694
Software metrics programs are an important part of a software organization's productivity and quality initiatives as precursors to process-based improvement programs. Like other innovative practices, the implementation of metrics programs is prone to influences from the greater institutional environment the organization exists in. In this paper, we study the influence of both external and internal institutional forces on the assimilation of metrics programs in software organizations. We use previous case-based research in software metrics programs as well as prior work in institutional theory in proposing a model of metrics implementation. The theoretical model is tested on data collected through a survey from 214 metrics managers in defense-related and commercial software organizations. Our results show that external institutions, such as customers and competitors, and internal institutions, such as managers, directly influence the extent to which organizations change their internal work-processes around metrics programs. Additionally, the adaptation of work-processes leads to increased use of metrics programs in decision-making within the organization. Our research informs managers about the importance of management support and institutions in metrics programs adaptation. In addition, managers may note that the continued use of metrics information in decision-making is contingent on adapting the organization's work-processes around the metrics program. Without these investments in metrics program adaptation, the true business value in implementing metrics and software process improvement will not be realized.

[1] J.C. Anderson and D.W. Gerbing, “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach,” Psychological Bull., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 411-423, 1988.
[2] G.H. Anthes and J. Vijayan, “Lessons from India Inc,” Computerworld, vol. 35, no. 14, pp. 40-42, 2001.
[3] M. Berry and R. Jeffery, “An Instrument for Assessing Software Measurement Programs,” Empirical Software Eng., vol. 5, pp. 183-200, 2000.
[4] M. Berry and M.F. Vandenbroek, “A Targeted Assessment of the Software Measurement Process,” Proc. Seventh Software Metrics Symp., pp. 222-235, 2001.
[5] A. Binstock, “Outside Development Partners,” InformationWeek, pp. 133-140, Oct. 1999.
[6] K.A. Bollen and B.H. Barb, “Pearson's R and Coarsely Categorized Measures,” Am. Sociological Rev., vol. 46, pp. 232-239, 1981.
[7] L.C. Briand, C.M. Differding, and H.D. Rombach, “Practical Guidelines for Measurement-Based Process Improvement,” Software Process— Improvement and Practice, vol. 2, pp. 253-280, 1996.
[8] R.B. Cooper and R.W. Zmud, “Information Technology Implementation Research: A Technological Diffusion Approach,” Management Science, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 123-139, 1990.
[9] P.J. Curran, S.G. West, and J.F. Finch, “The Robustness of Test Statistics to Nonnormality and Specification Error in Confirmatory Factor Analysis,” Psychological Methods, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 16-29, 1996.
[10] M. Daskalantonakis, “A Practical View of Software Measurement and Implementation Experiences Within Motorola,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 998-1010, Nov. 1992.
[11] P.J. DiMaggio and W.W. Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” Am. Sociological Rev., vol. 48, pp. 147-160, 1983.
[12] S. Fenick, “Implementing Management Metrics: An Army Program,” IEEE Software, Mar. 1990.
[13] N.E. Fenton and S.L. Pfleeger, Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach. London, U.K.: Int'l Thompson Publishers, 1998.
[14] A. Gopal, T. Mukhopadhyay, M.S. Krishnan, and D.R. Goldenson, “Measurement Programs in Software Development: Determinants of Success,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 863-875, 2002.
[15] T. Hall and N. Fenton, “Implementing Effective Software Metrics Programs,” IEEE Software, pp. 55-65, 1997.
[16] T. Hall, N. Baddoo, and D. Wilson, “Measurement in Software Process Improvement Programmes: An Empirical Study,” Proc. Int'l Workshop Software Measurement (IWSM 2000), pp. 73-82, 2000.
[17] M. Hayes, “Precious Connection,” InformationWeek, pp. 34-50, Oct. 2003.
[18] L. Hu and P.M. Bentler, “Evaluating Model Fit,” Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications, 1995.
[19] S.W. Humphrey, Discipline for Software Engineering. Addision-Wesley, 1995.
[20] R. Jeffery and M. Berry, “A Framework for Evaluation and Prediction of Metrics Programs Success,” Proc. First Int'l Software Metrics Symp., 1993.
[21] D.R. Johnson and J.C. Creech, “Ordinal Measures in Multiple Indicator Models: A Simulation Study of Categorization Error,” Am. Sociological Rev., vol. 48, pp. 398-407, 1993.
[22] B. Kitchenham, S.L. Pfleeger, and N. Fenton, “Toward a Framework for Software Measurement Validation,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 929-944, Dec. 1995.
[23] B.A. Kitchenham, R.T. Hughes, and S. Linkman, “Modeling Software Measurement Data,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 788-804, Sept. 2001.
[24] R.E. Kraut and L.A. Streeter, “Coordination in Large Scale Software Development,” Comm. ACM, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 69-81, 1995.
[25] M.S. Krishnan, C.H. Kriebel, S. Kekre, and T. Mukhopadhyay, “An Empirical Analysis of Productivity and Quality of Software Products,” Management Science, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 745-759, 2000.
[26] J.W. Meyer and B. Rowan, “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony,” Am. J. Sociology, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 340-363, 1983.
[27] R.E. Nusenoff and D.C. Bunde, “A Guidebook and A Spreadsheet Tool for a Corporate Metrics Program,” J. Systems and Software, vol. 23, pp. 245-255, 1993.
[28] R.J. Offen and R. Jeffery, “Establishing Software Measurement Programs,” IEEE Software, pp. 45-53, Mar./Apr. 1997.
[29] F. O'Hara, “European Experiences with Software Process Improvement,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Software Eng. (ICSE 2000), 2000.
[30] M.C. Paulk, B. Curtis, M.B. Chrissis, and C.V. Weber, “Capability Maturity Model for Software Version 1.1,” Technical Report SEI-93-TR-24, Software Eng. Inst., Pittsburgh, Penn., 1993.
[31] M.C. Paulk, “Analyzing the Conceptual Relationship between ISO/IEC 15504 and the Capability Maturity Model for Software,” Proc. Int'l Conf. Software Quality, 1999.
[32] P.M. Podsakoff and D. Organ, “Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects,” J. Management, vol. 12, pp. 531-543, 1986.
[33] O. Port, “Will Bugs Eat Up the US Lead in Software?” Business Week, Dec. 1999.
[34] S.L. Pfleeger, “Lessons Learned in Building a Corporate Metrics Program,” IEEE Software, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 67-74, 1993.
[35] A. Rainer and T. Hall, “A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Factors Affecting Software Processes,” J. Systems and Software, vol. 66, pp. 7-21, 2003.
[36] L.H. Rosenberg and L. Hyatt, “Developing a Successful Metrics Program,” Proc. 1996 Software Technology Conf., 1996.
[37] I. Rozman, R.V. Horvat, and J. Gyorkos, “United View on ISO 9001 Model and SEI CMM,” Proc. IEEE Int'l Eng. Management Conf., pp. 56-63, 1994.
[38] V.L. Saga and R.W. Zmud, “The Nature and Determinants of IT Acceptance, Routinization and Infusion,” Diffusion, Transfer and Implementation of Information Technology, 1994.
[39] R.E. Schumacker and R.G. Lomax, A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1996.
[40] C. Seddio, “Integrating Test Metrics within a Software Engineering Measurement Program at Eastman Kodak Company: A Follow-Up Case Study,” J. Systems and Software, vol. 20, 1993.
[41] P. Thibodeau and L. Rosencrance, “Users Losing Billions Due to Bugs,” Computerworld, vol. 36, no. 27, pp. 1-2, 2002.
[42] S.G. West, J.F. Finch, and P.J. Curran, “Structural Equation Models with Non-Normal Variables: Problems and Remedies,” Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications, 1995.
[43] J.D. Westphal, R. Gulati, and S.M. Shortell, “Customization or Conformity? An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption,” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 42, pp. 366-394, 1997.

Index Terms:
Index Terms- Product metrics, process metrics, software engineering, metrics programs, software development, institutional forces, metrics adaptation, metrics acceptance.
Anandasivam Gopal, Tridas Mukhopadhyay, M.S. Krishnan, "The Impact of Institutional Forces on Software Metrics Programs," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 679-694, Aug. 2005, doi:10.1109/TSE.2005.95
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.