Advertisement

A Self-assessment Framework for Finding Improvement Objectives with ISO/IEC 29119 Test Standard

  • Jussi Kasurinen
  • Per Runeson
  • Leah Riungu
  • Kari Smolander
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 172)

Abstract

One of the latest additions in defining the test process is the upcoming ISO/IEC 29119 standard, which aims to define a universally applicable generic test process model. However, currently the standard does not offer any support for the adoption process of the model. In this paper, we present our framework, which aims to combine a maturity level-based approach with the standard process. Our objective was to create an easy-to-use framework for organizations to assess how closely their existing test process follows the standard, and give feedback on improvement objectives. Our results indicate that combining maturity levels with the standard is a viable approach to assess the implementation of the standard in practice.

Keywords

ISO/IEC 29119 self-assessment framework test process maturity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Myers, G.J.: The Art of Software Testing, 2nd edn. Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kit, E.: Software Testing in the Real World: Improving the Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huang, L., Boehm, B.: How Much Software Quality Investment Is Enough: A Value-Based Approach. IEEE Software 23(5), 88–95 (2006), doi:10.1109/MS.2006.127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC WD 29119-2, Software and Systems Engineering - Software Testing - Part 2: Test Process (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ericson, T., Subotic, A., Ursing, S.: TIM - A Test Improvement Model. Software Testing, Verification & Reliability (STVR) 7(4), 229–246 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Test Maturity Model integration (TMMi), Version 3.1, TMMi Foundation, Ireland (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    CMMi Product Team: CMMI for Development, Version 1.3, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, (2010), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/
  8. 8.
    Jung, E.: A Test Process Improvement Model for Embedded Software Developments. In: Proc. of the 9th Internatinal Conference on Quality Software, Jeju, South Korea, August 24-25 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oh, H., Choi, B., Han, H., Wong, W.E.: Optimizing Test Process Action Plans by Blending Testing Maturity Model and Design of Experiments. In: Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Quality Software, Oxford, UK, pp. 57–66 (2008), doi:10.1109/QSIC.2008.19 12.-13.8.2008Google Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Karlström, D., Runeson, P., Nordén, S.: A minimal test practice framework for emerging software organizations. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability (STVR) 15(3), 145–166 (2005), doi:10.1002/stvr.317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 15504-1, Information Technology - Process Assessment - Part 1: Concepts and Vocabulary (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kasurinen, J., Taipale, O., Smolander, K.: Software Test Automation in Practice: Empirical Observations. In: Advances in Software Engineering, Special Issue on Software Test Automation. Hindawi Publishing Co. (2010), doi: 10.1155/2010/620836 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kasurinen, J., Taipale, O., Smolander, K.: Test Case Selection and Prioritization: Risk-based or Design-based? In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), Bolzano-Bozen, Italy, September 16-17 (2010), doi:10.1145/1852786.1852800Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burnstein, I., Suwanassart, T., Carlson, R.: Developing a testing maturity model for software test process evaluation and improvement. In: International Test Conference 1996 (ITC 1996) (1996), doi: /10.1109/TEST.1996.557106Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jussi Kasurinen
    • 1
  • Per Runeson
    • 2
  • Leah Riungu
    • 1
  • Kari Smolander
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Engineering LaboratoryLappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland
  2. 2.Software Engineering Research GroupLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations