Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Proposing an ISO/IEC 15504-2 Compliant Method for Process Capability/Maturity Models Customization

  • Conference paper
Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2011)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 6759))

Abstract

The customization of software process capability/maturity models (SPCMMs) to specific domains/sectors or development methodologies represents one of the most discussed and applied trends in ICT organizations. Nonetheless, little research appears to have been performed on how theoretically sound and widely accepted SPCMMs should be developed to high quality. The aim of this paper is therefore to elicit the state-of-the-art regarding the processes adopted to develop such models and to propose a systematic approach to support the customization of SPCMMs. Such an approach is developed based on ISO/IEEE standard development processes integrating Knowledge Engineering techniques and experiences about how such models are currently developed in practice. Initial feedback from an expert panel indicates the usefulness and adequacy of the proposed method.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Salviano, C.F., Figueiredo, A.M.C.M.: Unified Basic Concepts for Process Capability Models. In: 20th Int Conf on Sw. Eng. and Knowledge Eng (SEKE 2008), San Francisco, USA, pp. 173–178 (2008), http://pro2pi.wdfiles.com/local-files/publicacoes-sobre-a-etodologia/SalvianoandFigueiredo-2008-PRO2PI-SEKE-article.pdf

  2. CMMI Product Team. CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV), Version 1.3, Technical Report, CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033, Software Engineering Institute (2010), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/tools/cmmiv1-3/

  3. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) / International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC 15504: Information Technology Process Assessment - Part 1 to 5, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) / International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), ISO/IEC International Standard (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beecham, S., Hall, T., Rainer, A.: Building a Requirements Process Improvement Model, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire, Technical Report 378 (2003), https://uhra.herts.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2299/986/1/S67.pdf

  5. Cass, A., Volcker, C.: SPICE for SPACE: A method of Process Assessment for Space Projects. In: SPICE 2000 Conference (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Torgersson, J., Dorling, A.: Assessing CBD - What’s the Difference? In: 28th Euromicro Conference, Dortmund, Germany, pp. 332–341 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Automotive SIG. The SPICE User Group Automotive Special Interest Group, Automotive SPICE Process Reference Model (2010), http://www.automotivespice.com

  8. Wangenheim, C.G., Hauck, J.C.R., Salviano, C.F., Wangenheim, A.: Systematic Literature Review of Software Process Capability/Maturity Models. In: Proceedings of the 10th SPICE Conference 2010, Pisa, Italy (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Matook, S., Indulska: Improving the quality of process reference models: A quality function deployment-based approach. Decision Support Systems 47, 60–71 (2009), http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:161303/Matook_Indulska_DDS_2009.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, J.: Developing Maturity Models for IT Management – A Procedure Model and its Application. Business & Information Systems Engineering 1(3), 213–222 (2009), http://www.bise-journal.org/index.php,do=show/site=wi/sid=16424296734d2251f9628a7985168360/alloc=17/id=2429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lahrmann, G., Marx, F.: Systematization of maturity model extensions. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 522–525. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Wangenheim, C.G., Hauck, J.C.R., Mccaffery, F., Wangenheim, A.: Creating Software Process Capability/ Maturity Models. IEEE Software 27(4) (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  13. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). How are Standards Developed, http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/processes_and_procedures/how_are_standards_developed.htm

  14. de Bruin, T., Rosemann, M., Freeze, R., Kulkarmi, U.: Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model. In: 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney (2005), http://www.followscience.com/library_uploads/ceba558bded879ccc0b45cd2c657e870/123/understanding_the_main_phases_of_developing_a_maturity_assessment_model.pdf

  15. Mettler, T.: A Design Science Research Perspective on Maturity Models in Information Systems, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland, Technical Report BE IWI/HNE/03 (2009), http://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/export/DL/67708.pdf

  16. Maier, A.M., Moultrie, J., Clarkson, P.J.: Developing maturity grids for assessing organisational capabilities: Practitioner guidance. In: 4th International Conference on Management Consulting, Academy of Management (MCD 2009), pp. 11–13 (2009), http://www.iff.ac.at/oe/full_papers/Maier%20Anja%20M._Moultrie%20James_Clarkson%20P.%20John.pdf

  17. Salviano, C.F., Zoucas, A., Silva, J.V.L., Alves, A.M., von Wangenheim, C.G., Thiry, M.: A Method Framework for Engineering Process Capability Models. In: 16th European Systems and Software Process Improvement and Innovation, Alcala, Spain, pp. 6.25–6.36 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lee, J.-H., Lee, D.H., Kang, S.: An overview of the business process maturity model (BPMM). In: Chang, K.C.-C., Wang, W., Chen, L., Ellis, C.A., Hsu, C.-H., Tsoi, A.C., Wang, H. (eds.) APWeb/WAIM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4537, pp. 384–395. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Beecham, S., et al.: Defining a Requirements Process Improvement Model. Software Quality Journal 13(3), 247–279 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Beecham, S., et al.: Using an Expert Panel to Validate a Requirements Process Improvement Model. Journal of Systems and Software 76(3), 251–275 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Paulk, M.C., et al.:Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1, Technical Report, CMU/SEI-93-TR-024, Software Engineering Institute (February 1993), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/93tr024.pdf

  22. Cass, A., et al.: SPiCE in Action - Experiences in Tailoring and Extension. In: 28th Euromicro Conference, Dortmund, Germany (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bovee, M., et al.: A Framework for Assessing the Use of Third-Party Software Quality Assurance Standards to Meet FDA Medical Device Software Process Control Guidelines. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48(4), 465–478 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Niazi, M., et al.: A Maturity Model for the Implementation of Software Process Improvement: An Empirical Study. Journal of Systems and Software 74(2), 155–172 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. April, A., Coallier, F.: Trillium: A Model for the Assessment of Telecom Software System Development and Maintenance Capability. In: 2nd IEEE Software Engineering Standards Symposium, Montreal, Canada (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Burnstein, I., et al.: Developing a Testing Maturity Model, Part II, Crosstalk (September 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  27. TMMI Foundation, TMMI - Test Maturity Model Integration, http://www.tmmifoundation.org/html/tmmiorg.html

  28. Kyung-A, Y., Seung-Hun, P., Doo-Hwan, B., Hoon-Seon, C., Jae-Cheon, J.: A Framework for the V&V Capability Assessment Focused on the Safety-Criticality. In: 13th IEEE International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 17–24 (2005), http://spic.kaist.ac.kr/~selab/html/Publication/IntJournal/A%20framework%20for%20the%20V&V%20capability%20assessment%20focused%20on%20the%20safety-criticality.pdf

  29. McCaffery, F., Pikkarinan, M., Richardson, I.: AHAA – Agile, Hybrid Assessment Method for Automotive, Safety Critical SMEs. In: Proc: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2008), Leipzig, Germany (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Schreiber, A.T., Wielinga, B.J.: Knowledge Model Construction. In: 11th Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management, Voyager Inn, Banff, Alberta, Canada (1998), http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/KAW/KAW98/schreiber/

  31. Schreiber, G., Akkermans, H., Anjewierden, A., De Hoog, R., Shadbolt, N., Van De Velde, W., Wielinga, B.: Knowledge Engineering and Management - The CommonKADS Methodology. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2000) ISBN 978-0262193009

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gruber, T.R.: Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing, Technical Report, KSL 93-04, Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA (1993), http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/knowledge-sharing/papers/

  33. Noy, N., McGuinness, D.L.: Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 and Stanford Medical Informatics Technical Report SMI-2001-0880 (March 2001), http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/KSL_Abstracts/KSL-01-05.html

  34. Hsieh, S.H., Hsien-Tang, L., Nai-Wen, C., Kuang-Wu, C., Ken-Yu, L.: Enabling the development of base domain ontology through extraction of knowledge from engineering domain handbooks. In: Advanced Engineering Informatics (2010) (in press), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2010.08.004

  35. Government of South Australia. Developing a Thesaurus Guideline Version 1.2, State Records of South Australia (2002), http://www.archives.sa.govol.au/files/management_guidelines_developingthesaurus.pdf

  36. Sikorski, M.: A Framework for developing the on-line HCI Glossary: Technical Report, Technical University of Gdansk (2002), http://www.org.id.tue.nl/IFIP-WG13.1/HCIglossary.PDF

  37. Mongan-Rallis, H.: Guidelines for writing a literature review, http://www.duluth.umn.edu/~hrallis/guides/researching/litreview.html

  38. Galvan, J.: Writing literature reviews: a guide for students of the behavioral sciences, 3rd edn. Pyrczak Publishing, Glendale (2006) ISBN 978-1884585661

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cronin, P., Coughlan, M., Frances, R.: Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing 17(1) (2008), http://lancashirecare.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/2008-undertaking-a-literature-review-a-step-by-step-approach.pdf

  40. Kitchenham, B.A.: Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Version 2.3 Technical report, University of Durham, Keele, UK (2007), http://www.elsevier.com/framework_products/promis_misc/infsof-systematic%20reviews.pdf

  41. Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: The Goal Question Metric Approach, 2nd edn. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1994), http://www.cs.umd.edu/~basili/publications/technical/T89.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wangenheim, C.G., et al.: Software Measurement for Small and Medium Enterprises - A Brazilian-German view on extending the GQM method. In: 7th International Conference on Empirical Assessment ion Software Engineering, Keele, UK (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Okoli, C., Pawlowski, S.D.: The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf. Manage (2004), http://chitu.okoli.org/images/stories/bios/pro/research/methods/OkoliPawlowski2004.pdf

  44. de Bruin, T., Rosemann, M.: Using the Delphi Technique to Identify BPM Capability Areas. In: 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, vol. 42, pp. 15–29 (2007), http://www.acis2007.usq.edu.au/assets/papers/106.pdf

  45. Powell, C.: The Delphi technique: myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing 41(4), 376–382 (2003), http://rachel.org/files/document/The_Delphi_Technique_Myths_and_Realities.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kontio, J., Lehtola, L., Bragge, J.: Using the Focus Group Method in Software Engineering: Obtaining Practitioner and User Experiences. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, pp. 271–280 (2004), http://www.sbl.tkk.fi/jkontio/Papers/FocusGroup_ISESE_web.pdf

  47. Free Management Library. Basics of Conducting Focus Groups, http://managementhelp.org/evaluatn/focusgrp.htm

  48. Mutafelija, B., Stromberg, H.: Process Improvement with CMMI v1.2 and ISO Standards. Auerbach, Boca Raton (2008) ISBN 978-1420052831

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Thiry, M., Zoucas, A., Tristão, L.: Mapeando Modelos de Capacidade de Processo no Contexto de Avaliações Integradas de Processo de Software. In: II Workshop on Advanced Software Engineering, pp. 35–42 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wangenheim, C.G., Thiry, M.: Analyzing the Integration of ISO/IEC 15504 and CMMI-SE/SW, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, São José, Technical Report LQPS001.05E (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wangenheim, C.G., et al.: Best practice fusion of CMMI-DEV v1.2 (PP, PMC, SAM) and PMBOK 2008. Information and Software Technology 52(7), 749–757 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Beel, J., Gipp, B.: Link Analysis in Mind Maps: A New Approach To Determine Document Relatedness. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication (ICUIMC 2010), ACM, New York (2010), http://www.sciplore.org/publications/2010-LAMM-preprint.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  53. Cancian, M.H., Hauck, J.C.R., von Wangenheim, C.G., Rabelo, R.J.: Discovering software process and product quality criteria in software as a service. In: Ali Babar, M., Vierimaa, M., Oivo, M. (eds.) PROFES 2010. LNCS, vol. 6156, pp. 234–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2010), http://www.das.ufsc.br/~maiara/files/profes_maiara.pdf

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Richardson, I.: SPI Models: What Characteristics are Required for Small Software Development Companies. Software Quality Journal, 101–114 (2002), http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=650270

  55. Beecham, S., Hall, T., Rainer, A.: Defining a Requirements Process Improvement Model. Software Quality Journal 13(3), 247–279 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sample, J.A.: Nominal Group Technique: An Alternative to Brainstorming. Journal of Extension 22(2) (1984), http://www.joe.org/joe/1984march/iw2.php

  57. CDC. Gaining Consensus Among Stakeholders Through the Nominal Group Technique. Evaluation Briefs (7) (2006), http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/evaluation/pdf/brief7.pdf

  58. Matook, S., Indulska, M.: Improving the Quality of Process Reference Models: A Quality Function Deployment-Based Approach. Decision Support Systems 47 (2009), http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:161303/Matook_Indulska_DDS_2009.pdf

  59. Basili, V.R., et al.: The Empirical Investigation of Perspective-Based Reading. Empirical Software Engineering, Kluwer Academic Publisher 1, 133–164 (1996), http://www.cs.umd.edu/~basili/publications/journals/J63.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Shull, F., Rus, I., Basili, V.: How perspective-based reading can improve requirements inspections. Computer 33(7), 73–79 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Robbins, B., Carver, J.: Cognitive factors in perspective-based reading (PBR): A protocol analysis study. In: 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2009), pp. 145–155 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  62. McMeekin, D.A., et al.: Checklist Based Reading’s Influence on a Developer’s Understanding. In: 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering (2008), http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/ASWEC.2008.7

  63. Fagan, M.E.: Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Systems Journal 15(3), 182–211 (1976), http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2005/cmsc838p/VandV/fagan.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Behaviour Engineering, http://www.behaviorengineering.org/

  65. Dromey, R.G.: From Requirements to Design: Formalizing the Key Steps. In: 1st International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, Australia (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Tuffley, D., Rout, T.P.: Applying Behavior Engineering to Process Modeling. In: Proceedings of the Improving Systems and Software Engineering Conference, ISSEC (2009), http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/handle/10072/31748

  67. Emam, K.E.: Benchmarking Kappa for Software Process Assessment Reliability Studies. Empirical Software Engineering 4(2), 113–133 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Practical Software and Systems Measurement, http://www.psmsc.com

  69. DoD, Department of Defense & US Army. PSM - Practical Software and System Measurement, A foundation for Objective Project Management, Version 4.0b, Department of Defense & US Army (2003), http://www.psmsc.com

  70. ISO/IEC. ISO/IEC 15939:2007 Systems and software engineering - Measurement process. International Organization for Standardization (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  71. CMMI Change Requests, http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/tools/cr/

  72. Enterprise Spice SPICE Change Request, http://www.enterprisespice.com/page/publication-1

  73. Hauck, J. C. R., Wangenheim, C. G., Wangenheim, A.: A Knowledge Engineering Based Method for SPCMMs customization, Technical Report RT_GQS_0_9, INCoD Software Quality Group (2010), http://www.inf.ufsc.br/~jeanhauck/method/RT_GQS_01_SPCMMs_Dev_Method_v_0_9.pdf

  74. Cancian, M.: Process Reference Model for SaaS. Technical Report. UFSC, Florianopolis/Brazil, http://www.gsigma.ufsc.br/~cancian/guide/

  75. McCaffery, F., Dorling, A.: Medi SPICE Development. Software Process Maintenance and Evolution: Improvement and Practice Journal 22(4), 255–268 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  76. GAO - United States General Accounting Office. Case Study Evaluations, Technical Report GAO/PEMD-91-10.1.9. Program Evaluation and Methodology Division (1990), http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/10_1_9.pdf

  77. McCaffery, F., Dorling, A., Casey, V.: Medi SPICE: An Update. In: Proceedings of the 10th International SPICE Conference, Italy (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  78. European Council. Council Directive 2007/47/EC (Amendment). Official Journal of The European Union, Luxembourg (2007), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:247:0021:0055:en:PDF

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Program in Knowledge Engineering and Management, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil

    Jean Carlo Rossa Hauck

  2. Regulated Software Research Group & Lero, Dundalk Institute of Technology, Ireland

    Jean Carlo Rossa Hauck & Fergal Mc Caffery

  3. Graduate Program in Computer Science (PPGCC), Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil

    Christiane Gresse von Wangenheim

  4. ETS/Engineering.IT, Rome, Italy

    Luigi Buglione

Authors
  1. Jean Carlo Rossa Hauck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christiane Gresse von Wangenheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fergal Mc Caffery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luigi Buglione
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, University of Bari, Via E. Orabona 4, 70126, Bari, Italy

    Danilo Caivano , Maria Teresa Baldassarre  & Giuseppe Visaggio ,  & 

  2. Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 3000, 90014, Oulu, Finland

    Markku Oivo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Hauck, J.C.R., von Wangenheim, C.G., Mc Caffery, F., Buglione, L. (2011). Proposing an ISO/IEC 15504-2 Compliant Method for Process Capability/Maturity Models Customization. In: Caivano, D., Oivo, M., Baldassarre, M.T., Visaggio, G. (eds) Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6759. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21843-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21843-9_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21842-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21843-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation