The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.10 - October (2007 vol.40)
pp: 21-28
Hanna Oktaba , National Autonomous University of Mexico
Félix García , Alarcos Research Group
Mario Piattini , Alarcos Research Group
Francisco Ruiz , Alarcos Research Group
Francisco J. Pino , University of Cauca, Colombia
Claudia Alquicira , Ultrasist
ABSTRACT
Competisoft provides the Latin American software industry with a reference framework for improvement and certification of its software processes. The project is based on proven solutions, including the MoProSoft model that four Mexican software companies applied to increase their processes' capacity level. <b>This article includes an authored sidebar "Standards Application in Very Small Enterprises," by Claude Y. Laporte, École de Technologie Supérieure.</b>
INDEX TERMS
Competisoft project, MoProSoft model, software process improvement, standards, WG24
CITATION
Hanna Oktaba, Félix García, Mario Piattini, Francisco Ruiz, Francisco J. Pino, Claudia Alquicira, "Software Process Improvement: The Competisoft Project", Computer, vol.40, no. 10, pp. 21-28, October 2007, doi:10.1109/MC.2007.361
REFERENCES
1. J. Batista and A. Dias de Figueiredo, "SPI in a Very Small Team: A Case with CMM," Software Process: Improvement and Practice, vol. 5, no. 4, 2000, pp. 243–250.
2. Mayer &Bunge Informática, Panorama de la Industria del Software en Latinoamérica, 2004, p. 97.
3. H.K.N. Leung and T.C.F. Yuen, "A Process Framework for Small Projects," Software Process: Improvement and Practice, vol. 6, no. 2, 2001, pp. 67–83.
4. H. Saiedian and N. Carr, "Characterizing a Software Process Maturity Model for Small Organizations," ACM SIGICE Bull., vol. 23, no. 1, 1997, pp. 2–11.
5. P. Maller, C. Ochoa, and J. Silva, "Lightening the Software Production Process in a CMM Level 5 Framework," IEEE Latin America Trans., vol. 3, no. 1, 2005, pp. 14–21.
6. S. Zahran, Software Process Improvement: Practical Guidelines for Business Success, Addison-Wesley, 1998.
7. T. Dyba, "An Empirical Investigation of the Key Factors for Success in Software Process Improvement," IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 31, no. 5, 2005, pp. 410–424.
8. M.B. Chrissis et al., CMMI Interpretive Guidance Project: What We Learned, special report CMU/SEI-2004-SR-008, Software Eng. Institute, 2004; www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/04.reports/ pdf04sr008.pdf.
9. S. García, C. Graettinger, and K. Kost, eds., Proc. 1st Int'l Research Workshop for Process Improvement in Small Settings, special report CMU/SEI-2006-SR-001, Software Eng. Institute, 2006; www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/06.reports/ pdf06sr001.pdf.
10. H. Oktaba, "MoProSoft: A Software Process Model for Small Enterprises," Proc. 1st Int'l Research Workshop for Process Improvement in Small Settings, special report CMU/SEI-2006-SR-001; Software Eng. Institute, 2006, pp. 93–101; www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/06.reports/ pdf06sr001.pdf.
11. M. Oyvind, "Comparación del Modelo de Procesos para la Industria de Software (MoProSoft) con las Normas y Modelos de Referencia," master's thesis, National Autonomous University of Mexico, 2005.
12. G. Rivera and E. Montero, "Mapeo de CMMI Nivel 2 con MoProSoft," internal report, Mexican Ministry of Economy, 2004.
13. M. Polo, M. Piattini, and F. Ruiz, "Using a Qualitative Research Method for Building a Software Maintenance Methodology," Software Practice and Experience, vol. 32, no. 13, 2002, pp. 1239–1260.
14. F. Kurniawati and R. Jeffery, "The Use and Effects of an Electronic Process Guide and Experience Repository: A Longitudinal Study," J. Information and Software Technology, 2005, pp. 1–12.
51 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool