Advertisement

Towards a Systemic Maturity Model for Public Software Ecosystems

  • Angela M. Alves
  • Marcelo Pessoa
  • Clênio F. Salviano
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 155)

Abstract

Brazilian Public Software (BPS) is an innovative experience in public administration. It combines features of the free software production model with the concept of public goods and is delivered by a portal that links different people and interests. The evolution of BPS as a Public Software Ecosystem (PSE) can be best understood using Complex Thinking Theory (CTT). The papers describes how methodologies based on System Thinking, were used to obtain empirical evidence that the BPS ecosystem evolves in learning cycles and concludes that this could result in a systemic maturity model for BPS, provide a reference for understanding and improving BPS and others PSE. This maturity model has been developed using an analogy with ISO/IEC 15504 (SPICE) references for capability maturity models. The System Thinking however indicated different path for maturity other than the one based on capability. This finding is consistent with the current evolution of SPICE (ISO/IEC 33000 series) towards other path for maturity in addition to capability.

Keywords

Reference Model Critical Variable Maturity Model System Thinking Maturity Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Freitas, C.S., Meffe, C.: FLOSS in an Open World: best practices from Brazil. In: 2020 FLOSS Roadmap, 01st edn. vol. 01, pp. 69–73. Creative Commons, Paris (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sistema de Inventário CACIC, http://www.softwarepublico.gov.br/dotlrn/clubs/cacic, (last access MAI/2010)
  3. 3.
    Meffe, Corinto: O avanço do Software Público Brasileiro Experiência Brasileira Linux Magazine 49, 28-32 (December 2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CMMI Product Team, CMMI® for Development, Version 1.3, Improving processes for developing better products and services. TECHNICAL REPORT, CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033, ESC-TR-2010-033, Software Engineering Process Management Program (November 2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coughlan, P., Coghlan, D.: Action research for operations management. International Journal of Operations& Production Management 22(2), 220–240 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thiollent, M.: Metodologia da pesquisa-ação, 14a edn. São Paulo, Cortez (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castells, M.: The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, U.S (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Briscoe, G., De Wilde, P.: Digital Ecosystems:Self-Organisation of Evolving Agent Populations. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital Ecosystems International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital Eco Systems. ACM, Nova Iorque (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alves, A.M., et al.: Learning path to an emergent ecosystem: the Brazilian public software experience. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems, Lion, França. ACM, Nova Iorque (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alves, A.M., Pessôa, et al.: Systemic Maturity Model and Brazilian Public Software. IEEE/PIC-2010 - International Conference on Progress in Informatics and Computing – Shanghai, China, de dezembro 10-13 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Senge, P.M.: The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of Learning Organization. Doubleday, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morin, E.: Introduction à la pensée complexe. Est Editeurs, Paris (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maturana, H.R., Varela, F.J.: Autopoiesis: The organization of the living. In: Maturana, H.R., Varela, F.J. (eds.) Autopoiesis and cognition. Reidel, Boston (1973)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Andrade, A., Seleme, A., Rodrigues, L., Souto, R.: Pensamento Sistêmico – Caderno de Campo. Bookman, Porto Alegre (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alves, A.M., Pessoa, M.: Brazilian Public Software: beyond Sharing. In: ACM/MEDES 2010: The International ACM Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems –Bangkok, Tailândia, outubro 26– 29, pp. 73–80. ACM Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm?fuseaction=usersite.FP7DetailsCallPage&call_id =377Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO/IEC 15504, composed of seven parts (15504-1 to 15504-7) parts. under the general title Information technology — Process assessment(2004-2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dorling, A.: Next Generation 15504 - the 33001 series of Standards – UPDATE, August 24 (2009), http://www.spiceusergroup.org
  19. 19.
    Humphrey, W.S.: Three Process Perspectives: Organizations, Teams, and People. In: Annals of Software Engineering, vol. 14, pp. 39–72. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    von Wangenheim, C.G., et al.: Creating Software Process Capability/Maturity Models. IEEE Software 27(4), 92–94 (2010), doi:10.1109/MS.2010.96CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela M. Alves
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marcelo Pessoa
    • 2
  • Clênio F. Salviano
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Tecnologia da Informação Renato ArcherCampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Universidade São Paulo (USP)São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations