Advertisement

Towards the Harmonization of Process and Product Oriented Software Quality Approaches

  • Gabriel Alberto García-Mireles
  • Ma Ángeles Moraga
  • Félix García
  • Mario Piattini
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 301)

Abstract

Software organizations are currently required to implement more than one software process improvement model concurrently. Several multimodel initiatives have appeared to support this situation, and existing proposals address integration from the process perspective, considering models such as CMMI, ISO 90003, ISO/IEC 12207, and ISO/IEC 15504. These efforts attempt to understand how to integrate process focused models in order to optimize resources and obtain the expected benefits. However, as the eventual aim of process improvement is to improve software product quality, it is also important to consider product quality models in harmonization efforts. In this paper, the result of mapping models based on both, (process and product) quality perspectives, is presented. The method used is also briefly described and applied to map ISO/IEC 25010 onto CMMI-DEV and ISO/IEC 12207. The result shows that process oriented improvement models consider product quality characteristics during the early stages of the software development life cycle, and that process improvement initiatives can therefore be driven by product quality improvement goals.

Keywords

product oriented quality approach process oriented quality approach harmonization mapping CMMI-DEV ISO/IEC 12207 ISO/IEC 25010 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Siviy, J., Kirwan, P., Morley, J., Marino, L.: Maximizing your Process Improvement ROI trhough Harmonization. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon (2008) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kelemen, Z., Kusters, R., Trienekens, J.: Identifiyng criteria for multimodel software process improvement solutions - based on a review of current problems and initiatives. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice (2011), doi:10.1002/smr.549Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pardo, C., et al.: An ontology for the harmonization of multiple standards and models. Computer Standards & Interfaces 34(1), 48–59 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pardo, C., Pino, F.J., García, F., Piattini, M., Baldassarre, M.T., Lemus, S.: Homogenization, Comparison and Integration: A Harmonizing Strategy for the Unification of Multi-models in the Banking Sector. In: Caivano, D., Oivo, M., Baldassarre, M.T., Visaggio, G. (eds.) PROFES 2011. LNCS, vol. 6759, pp. 59–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pardo, C., Pino, F.J., García, F., Piattini Velthius, M., Baldassarre, M.T.: Trends in Harmonization of Multiple Reference Models. In: Maciaszek, L.A., Loucopoulos, P. (eds.) ENASE 2010. CCIS, vol. 230, pp. 61–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allen, J., Kitchenham, B., Konrad, M.: Theme Q. The relationships between processes and product qualities. In: Forrester, E. (ed.) A Process Research Framework, pp. 19–28. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Voas, J., Laplante, P.: Standards confusion and harmonization. Computer 40(7), 94–96 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halvorsen, C.P., Conradi, R.: A Taxonomy to Compare SPI Frameworks. In: Ambriola, V. (ed.) EWSPT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2077, pp. 217–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferreira, A., Machado, R., Paulk, M.: Quantitative Analysis of Best Practices Models in the Software Domain. In: Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, APSEC, pp. 433–442 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO, ISO/IEC FCD 25010: Systems and software engineering - system and software product quality requirements and evaluation (SQauRE) - System and software quality models (2010) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO, ISO/IEC FDIS 12207 Systems and software engineering - software life cycle processes (2007) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    SEI. CMMI-DEV, V1.3, Improving processes for developing better products and services. Technical Report, CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033, ESC-TR-2010-033 (2010) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Järvinen, J., Komi-Sirviö, S., Ruhe, G.: The PROFES Improvement Methodology - Enabling Technologies and Methodology Design. In: Bomarius, F., Oivo, M. (eds.) PROFES 2000. LNCS, vol. 1840, pp. 257–270. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Trienekens, J., Kusters, R., van Solingen, R.: Product focused software process improvement: concepts and experiences from industry. Software Quality Journal 9, 269–281 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Latum, F., van Uijtregt, A.: Product Driven Process Improvement PROFES Experiences at Dräger. In: Bomarius, F., Oivo, M. (eds.) PROFES 2000. LNCS, vol. 1840, pp. 232–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Balla, K., Bemelmans, T., Kusters, R., Trienekens, J.: Quality through Managed Imprvement and Measurement (QMIM): Towards a Phased Development and Implementation of a Quality Management System for a Software Company. Software Quality Journal 9, 177–193 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ashrafi, N.: The impact of software process improvement on quality: in theory and practice. Information and Management 40, 677–690 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pardo, C., Pino, F., García, F., Piattini, M.: Harmonizing Quality Assurance Processes and Product Characteristics. IEEE Computer 44(6), 94–96 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Al-Qutaish, R.: Measuring the Software Product Quality Durng the Software Development Life-Cycle: an International Organization for Standardization Standards Perspective. Journal of Computer Science 5(5), 392–397 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yoo, C., et al.: A unified model for the implementation of both ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI by ISO-certified organizations. Journal of Systems and Software 79, 954–961 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kirwan, P., Siviy, J., Marino, L., Morley, J.: Improvement Technology Classification and Composition in Multimodel Environments. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon (2008) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pino, F., Baldassarre, M.T., Piattini, M., Visaggio, G.: Harmonizing maturity levels from CMMI-DEV and ISO/IEC 15504. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 22, 279–296 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Montangero, C., Derniame, J.-C., Kaba, B.A., Warboys, B.C.: The Software Process: Modelling and Technology. In: Derniame, J.-C., Kaba, B.A., Wastell, D. (eds.) Promoter-2 1998. LNCS, vol. 1500, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.: Software quality: the elusive target. IEEE Software 13(1), 112–121 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel Alberto García-Mireles
    • 1
  • Ma Ángeles Moraga
    • 2
  • Félix García
    • 2
  • Mario Piattini
    • 2
  1. 1.Departmento de MatemáticasUniversidad de SonoraHermosilloMéxico
  2. 2.Instituto de Tecnologías y Sistemas de InformaciónUniversidad de Castilla-La ManchaCiudad RealEspaña

Personalised recommendations