The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.04 - July/August (2010 vol.27)
pp: 92-94
Christiane Gresse von Wangenheim , Federal University of Santa Catarina
Jean Carlo R. Hauck , Dundalk Institute of Technology
Alessandra Zoucas , University of the Valley of Itajaí
Clenio F. Salviano , CTI (Centro de Tecnologia da Informação) Renato Archer
Fergal McCaffery , Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Forrest Shull , Fraunhofer Center for Experimental Software Engineering, Maryland
ABSTRACT
Using maturity levels or capability profiles to assess and improve software processes is a well-established methodology. A wide range of software process capability/maturity models (SPCMMs) have been developed and adapted to specific domains over the past years. Yet knowledge of how to design theoretically sound and widely accepted SPCMMs is still lacking. Results from a systematic literature review and follow-on questionnaire show that, with few exceptions, the processes used to define SPCMMs lack methodological support. A Web Extra provides details of the research methodology, including a full list of the studies used in the literature review.
INDEX TERMS
software engineering, Process Capability/Maturity Models, CMMI, ISO/IEC 15504
CITATION
Christiane Gresse von Wangenheim, Jean Carlo R. Hauck, Alessandra Zoucas, Clenio F. Salviano, Fergal McCaffery, Forrest Shull, "Creating Software Process Capability/Maturity Models", IEEE Software, vol.27, no. 4, pp. 92-94, July/August 2010, doi:10.1109/MS.2010.96
REFERENCES
1. C.F. Salviano and A. Figueiredo, "Unified Basic Concepts for Process Capability Models," Proc. Int'l Conf. Software Eng. and Knowledge Eng., Knowledge Systems Inst., 2008, pp. 173–178.
2. S. Magee and D. Thiele, "Engineering Process Standards: State of the Art and Challenges," IT Professional, vol. 6, no. 5, 2004, pp. 38–44.
3. A. Cass et al., "SPICE for SPACE Trials, Risk Analysis, and Process Improvement," Software Process: Improvement and Practice, vol. 9, no. 1, 2004, pp. 13–21.
4. T. Mettler, A Design Science Research Perspective on Maturity Models in Information Systems, tech. report BE IWI/HNE/03, Universität St. Gallen, 2009; http://eprints.qut.edu.au/cgi/export/25152/ DCquteprints-eprint-25152.txt.
5. S. Matook and M. Indulska, "Improving the Quality of Process Reference Models: A Quality Function Deployment-Based Approach," Decision Support Systems, vol. 47, 2009, pp. 60–71.
6. T. Bruin et al., "Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model," Proc. 16th Australasian Conf. Information Systems, Assoc. Information Systems Electronic Library, 2005, http://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2005109.
7. C.F. Salviano et al., "A Method Framework for Engineering Process Capability Models," Proc. 16th Conf. European Systems and Software Process Improvement and Innovation, Publizon, 2009, pp. 6.25–6.36.
8. F. McCaffery and G. Coleman, "Developing a Configuration Management Capability Model for the Medical Device Industry," Int'l J. Information Systems and Change Management, vol. 2, no. 2, 2007, pp. 139–154.
9. F. McCaffery et al., "Ahaa—Agile, Hybrid Assessment Method for Automotive, Safety Critical SMEs," Proc. 30th Int'l Conf. Software Engineering, ACM Press, 2008, pp. 551-560.
10. C. Gresse von Wangenheim et al., "Helping Small Companies Assess Software Processes," IEEE Software, vol. 23, no. 1, 2006, pp. 91–98.
11. M.H. Cancian et al., "Discovering Software Process and Product Quality Criteria in Software as a Service," to be published in Proc. 11th Int'l Conf. Product Focused Software Development and Process Improvement, Springer, 2010.
12. G. Schreiber et al., Knowledge Engineering and Management: The CommonKADS Methodology, MIT Press, 1999.
13. F. McCaffery, P.S. Taylor, and G. Coleman, "Adept: A Unified Assessment Method for Small Software Companies," IEEE Software, vol. 24, no. 1, 2007, pp. 24–31.
14. S. Beecham et al., "Defining a Requirements Process Improvement Model," Software Quality J., vol. 13, no. 3, 1997, pp. 247–279.
15. L. Ibrahim and A. Pyster, "A Single Model for Process Improvement," IT Professional, vol. 6, no. 3, 2004, pp. 43–49.
46 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool