Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

European Workshop on Software Process Technology

EWSPT 2001: Software Process Technology pp 217–235Cite as

A Taxonomy to Compare SPI Frameworks

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2077))

Abstract

The principle behind software process improvement (SPI) is that product quality is strongly influenced by the quality of the associated software process for development and maintenance. A number of SPI frameworks have evolved from this principle. However, these frameworks are comprehensive and differ in a variety of aspects, making them difficult to compare objectively and to select between for a company. This paper discusses four comparison methods that can be used on SPI frameworks. We have explored one of them further and propose a new SPI framework taxonomy. Our taxonomy consists of 25 relevant characteristics, which can be used to point out framework similarities and differences on a high level. An example of how the taxonomy can be applied to six common SPI frameworks is provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ares Juan, Garcia Rafael, Juristo Natalia, López Marta, Moreno Ana M., A more rigorous and comprehensive approach to software process assessment. Software Process-Improvement and Practice. Vol. 5, No. 1 (March 2000), pp 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arthur Lowell J., Improving Software Quality-An Insider’s Guide to TQM. John Wiley, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bamford Robert C., Deibler William J. II, Comparing, contrasting ISO 9001 and the SEI capability maturity model, Computer, Vol. 26, No. 10, Oct. 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Basili Victor R. The Experience Factory and its Relationship to Other Improvement Paradigms. 4th European Software Engineering Conf. (ESEC’93), Springer Verlag LNCS 517, 1993, pp 68–83.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Basili Victor R., Caldiera Gianluigi, Rombach H.-Dieter, Goal Question Metric Approach. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering (John J. Marciniak, Ed.), John Wiley, 1994, Vol. 1, pp. 528–532.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cattaneo F., Fuggetta A. and Sciuto D., Pursuing Coherence in Software Process Assessment and Improvement. Forthcoming in Software Process-Improvement and Practice, 2001, 46 p.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Curtis, Bill, The Global Pursuit of Process Maturity, IEEE Software, Vol. 17, No. 4 (July/Aug. 2000), p. 76–78 (introduction to special issue on SPI results).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Emam Khaled El and Briand Lionel, Chapter 7-Costs and Benefits of Software Process Improvement (part of future book). Fraunhofer IESE, Kaiserslautern, Germany, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Emam Khaled El, Drouin Jean-Normand, Melo Walcélio, SPICE-The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination. IEEE CS-Press, Nov. 1997, 450 p.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Halvorsen Christian P. and Conradi Reidar, A Taxonomy for SPI Frameworks, 24th NASA Software Engineering Workshop, Greenbelt/Washington, USA, 1—2 Dec.1999, 4 p. See http://sel.gsfc.nasa.gov/website/sew/1999/program.html. Also as NTNU SU-report 19/99.

  11. Haase V. H., Software process assessment concepts. Journal of Systems Architecture, Vol. 42, Nr. 8, Dec. 1996, pp 621–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Herbsleb James D. and Goldenson Dennis R., A Systematic Survey of CMM Experience and Results. 18th Int’l Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE’96), Berlin, March1996, IEEE-CS Press, pp 323–330.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Herbsleb James, Carleton Anita, Rozum James, Siegel Jane, Zubrow David, Benefits of CMM-Based Software Process Improvement: Initial Results. Tech. Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-13, Aug. 1994, 53 p.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Humphrey Watts S., Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kautz Karlheinz and Larsen Even Åby, Diffusion and Use of Quality Assurance and Software Process Improvement Approaches in Norway: A Survey-Based Study. (Report no 906, 25 p. Norwegian Computing Center, Oslo, April 1996. ESPITI project.)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kitchenham B. A., Evaluating Software Engineering Methods and Tools. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Løken Cecilie B. and Skramstad Torbjørn, ISO 9000 Certification-Experiences from Europe. 11 p. First World Congress for Software Quality, San Francisco, June 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lonchamp Jacques, A Structured Conceptual and Terminological Framework for Software Process Engineering. Second Int’l Conference on the Software Process. IEEE-CS Press, 1993, pp 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  19. McGarry Frank and Thomas Martyn, Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Process Improvement. IEEE Software, July 1994, pp 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Oskarsson Östen, Glass Robert L., An ISO 9000 Approach to Building Quality Software. Prentice Hall. 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Paulk Mark C., How ISO 9001 Compares with the CMM, IEEE Software, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Jan 1995), pp 74–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Paulk Mark C., Weber Charles V., Curtis Bill, Chrissis Mary Beth et al., The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Software Engineering Institute, Top-Level Standards Map-ISO 12207, ISO 15504 (Jan 1998 TR), Software CMM v1.1 and v2 Draft C. (Internal report Software Engineering Institute, Feb. 28, 1998.)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sørumgård Sivert, Verification of Process Conformance in Empirical Studies of Software Development. IDI doctoral thesis 1997:14, NTNU, 252 p.

    Google Scholar 

  25. SPICE 1998, Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination Web Site. [Online]. Accessible from: http://www.seq.iit.nrc.ca/spice/ [Last accessed: 12.01.2001]

  26. Dybå Tore (ed.): SPIQ-Software Process Improvement for better Quality: Method Handbook (in Norwegian) (SINTEF/NTNU/UiO), Trondheim/Oslo, ISSN 0802-6394, Jan. 2000, ca. 250 p.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tichy Walter F., Should Computer Scientists Experiment More? IEEE Computer, May 1998, pp 32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tingey Michael O., Comparing ISO 9000, Malcolm Baldridge, and the SEI CMM for software: a reference and selection guide. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zahran Sami, Software Process Improvement-Practical Guidelines for Business Success. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zelkowitz Marvin V. and Wallace Dolores, Experimental validation in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, Vol. 39, 1997, pp 735–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Galaxy Republic AS, Drammensveien 211, N-0212, Oslo, Norway

    Christian Printzell Halvorsen

  2. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), N-7491, Trondheim, Norway

    Reidar Conradi

Authors
  1. Christian Printzell Halvorsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Reidar Conradi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa, Corso Italia, 40, 56125, Pisa, Italy

    Vincenzo Ambriola

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Halvorsen, C.P., Conradi, R. (2001). A Taxonomy to Compare SPI Frameworks. In: Ambriola, V. (eds) Software Process Technology. EWSPT 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2077. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45752-6_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45752-6_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42264-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45752-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation