BOOTSTRAP: Five Years of Assessment Experience

  • Hans Stienen
  • Hartmut Gierszal
Part of the DUD-Fachbeiträge book series (DUD)


The main characteristics of the Bootstrap method are described, i.e. the reference framework, the assessment procedure, the structure of the questionnaires and the rating and scoring mechanisms used. Experiences from over 40 sites and 180 projects are reported. Bootstrap proved to be a very efficient and effective means not only to assess the current status of software process quality but also to initiate appropriate improvement actions. The last part deals with future trends, i.e. the development of a common framework to perform software process assessments.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Dorling, A.: Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, Software Quality Journal, Vol. 2, Nr. 4,1993, pp. 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Engelmann, F.; Schynoll, W.; Stienen, H.: Bootstrap Software Process Assessment - Experiences and Further Developments, Proc. SafeComp ‘95, Belgirate, Italy.1995Google Scholar
  3. Hakes, C.: The Corporate Self-Assessment Handbook. Chapman & Hall, 2nd ed., London 1995.Google Scholar
  4. Koch, G.R.: Process Assessment: the Bootstrap Approach, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 35, Nr. 6/7, 1993, pp. 387–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Koch, G.R.: Quality Improvement as a Multicultural Challenge - The European View, First World Congress of Software Quality, San Francisco, June, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. Kuvaja, P., et al: Bootstrap: Europe’s assessment method, IEEE Software, Vol. 10, Nr. 3 (1993) pp. 93–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kuvaja, P., et al: Software Process Assessment & Improvement - The Bootstrap Approach, Blackwell, 1994, ISBN 0–631-19663–3.Google Scholar
  8. Paulk, M.; Curtis, B.M; Crissis, M.; Weber, C.: Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1, Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-24, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, Febr. 1993.Google Scholar
  9. Paulk, M., et al: The Capability Maturity Model - Guidelines for Improving the Software Process, Addison Wesley, New York 1995Google Scholar
  10. Paulk, M.; Conrad, M.; Garcia, S.: CMM versus Spice architectures, IEEE Software Process Newsletter, Nr. 3, 1995, pp. 7–11.Google Scholar
  11. Stevens, R.: Creating Software the Right Way. Byte, Aug. 1991, pp. 31- 38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Stienen
    • 1
  • Hartmut Gierszal
    • 2
    • 1
  1. 1.SynSpace AGBinningenSwitzerland
  2. 2.SynSpace GmbHFreiburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations