Establishing the State of the Art of Frameworks, Methods and Methodologies Focused on Lightening Software Process: A Systematic Literature Review

  • Juan MiramontesEmail author
  • Mirna Muñoz
  • Jose A. Calvo-Manzano
  • Brisia Corona
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 405)


There are several models used in the software process improvement such as CMMI and ISO/IEC 15504 that provide advantages to software organizations, like their improvement in ability and maturity which is reflected in their competitiveness. However, most of the time they are not properly implemented, demanding too many resources and long-term commitments, hindering its implementation in software organizations. Moreover, a properly implementation of a model or standard, involves not only the definition of processes, but introducing the organizations in the development of a continuous process improvement culture. In this context, a feasible way to achieve continuous process improvement is the optimization of processes through their lightening. This paper presents the results of a systematic review method in order to establish the state of art for lightening software process, focusing on three aspects: (1) frameworks, methods and methodologies; (2) targeted processes; and (3) strategies.


Lightening software process Lightweight software process Software process improvement Systematic literature review 


  1. 1.
    Petersen, K., Wohlin, C.: Software process improvement through the Lean Measurement (SPI-LEAM) method. J. Syst. Softw. 83(7), 1275–1287 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2010.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    CMMI Product Team: CMMI® for Development, Version 1.3. Pittsburgh, PA (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 15504 Information Technology—Process Assessment (Parts 1–5) (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pettersson, F., Ivarsson, M., Gorschek, T., Öhman, P.: A practitioner’s guide to light weight software process assessment and improvement planning. J. Syst. Softw. 81(6), 972–995 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2007.08.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuilboer, J., Ashrafi, N.: Software process and product improvement: an empirical assessment. Inf. Softw. Technol. 42(1), 27–34 (2000). doi: 10.1016/S0950-5849(99)00054-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reifer, D.J.: The CMMI: it’s formidable. J. Syst. Softw. 50(2), 97–98 (2000). doi: 10.1016/S0164-1212(99)00119-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Villalón, J.A.C.M, Agustín, G.C., Gilabert, T.S.F., Seco, A.D.A., Sánchez, L.G., Cota, M.P: Experiences in the application of software process improvement in SMES. Softw. Qual. J. 10, 261–273 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kruchten, P.: A plea for lean software process models. In: Proceedings 2011 International Conference on Software and Systems Process (ICSSP), vol. 1, no.604, pp. 235–236 (2011).
  9. 9.
    Selleri, F., Santana, F., Soares, F., Lima, A., Monteiro, I., Azevedo, D., Meira, D.L.: Using CMMI together with agile software development: a systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 58, 20–43 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2014.09.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garzás, J., Pino, F.J., Piattini, M., Fernández, C.M.: A maturity model for the Spanish software industry based on ISO standards. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 35(6), 616–628 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.csi.2013.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Qureshi, M.R.J., Hussain, S.A.: An adaptive software development process model. Adv. Eng. Softw. 39(8), 654–658 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2007.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Miramontes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mirna Muñoz
    • 1
  • Jose A. Calvo-Manzano
    • 2
  • Brisia Corona
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Investigación en MatematicasGuadalupeMexico
  2. 2.Facultad de Informática Campus de Montegancedo S/NUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations