Advertisement

Abstract

Organizations seek to obtain benefit from different process capability frameworks - the most popular ones as ISO/IEC 15504 and CMMI and the new ones as Enterprise SPICE – but every assessment is expensive both financially and time-wise. Furthermore, new assessment is required when a new process assessment model’s version is released. In order to define and/or improve their software process, organizations choose different Software Development Methodologies. It is important for the organization to know what capability/maturity of the process a chosen methodology could ensure. In order to solve these problems, Transitional Process Assessment Model (TPAM) [1] has been proposed. It should enable the transformation of assessment results according to one Process Assessment Model to other models and determines what capability/maturity according to different Process Assessment Models a chosen methodology could ensure. The requirements for TPAM and its implementation principles have been introduced in [1]. This article presents the development of TPAM and supporting tool. The ideas of Enterprise SPICE integration into TPAM are outlined also.

Keywords

CMMI ISO/IEC 15504 Enterprise SPICE Agile methodologies models mapping transitional process assessment model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Peldzius, S., Ragaisis, S.: Framework for Usage of Multiple Software Process Models. In: Mas, A., Mesquida, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2012. CCIS, vol. 290, pp. 210–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferreira, A., Machado, R.: Software Process Improvement in Multimodel Environments. In: Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering Advances, pp. 512–517 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khoshgoftar, M., Osman, O.: Comparison of maturity models. In: 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, pp. 297–301 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcia, I., Pacheco, C., Coronel, N.: Learn from Practice: Defining an Alternative Model for Software Engineering Education in Mexican Universities for Reducing the Breach between Industry and Academia. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Computer Science, Malta, pp. 120–124 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu, C.-H.: An Exploration of the Relationship between Organizational Learning and Software Development Process Maturity. In: Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Applied Computer Science, Hangzhou, China, pp. 301–305 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vanamali, B., Bella, F., Hormann, K.: From CMMI to SPICE – Experiences on How to Survive a SPICE Assessment Having Already Implemented CMMI. In: 32nd Annual IEEE International Computer Software and Applications, COMPSAC 2008, pp. 1045–1052 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang, Y., King, G., Dorling, A., Wickberg, H.: A Unified Framework for the Software Engineering Process System Standards and Models. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Symposium and Forum on Software Engineering Standards, ISESS 1999, pp. 132–141 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rout, T.P., Tuffley, A., Cahill, B.: CMMI Evaluation: Capability Maturity Model Integration Mapping to ISO/IEC 15504-2:1998, Software Quality Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, 16 p. (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peldzius, S., Ragaisis, S.: Investigation Correspondence between CMMI-DEV and ISO/IEC 15504. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies 5(4), 361–368 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soto, M., Münch, J.: Using Model Comparison to Maintain Model-to-Standard Compliance. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International Workshop on Comparison and Versioning of Software Models, CVSM 2008, pp. 35–40 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pricope, S., Lichter, H., Rosenkranz, C.G.: Efficient Adoption and Assessment of Multiple Reference Models. In: 5th IFIP TC2 Central and Eastern European Conference on Software Engineering Techniques, Debrecen, Hungary, August 25-26 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohan, S., Glazer, H.: An Agile Development Team’s Quest for CMMI® Maturity Level 5. In: 2009 Agile Conference, pp. 201–206 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baker, S.: Formalizing Agility, Part 2: How an Agile Organization Embraced the CMMI. In: Proceedings of the Conference on AGILE 2006, pp. 147–154 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mikulenas, G., Butleris, R., Nemuraite, L.: An approach for the metamodel of the framework for a partial agile method adaptation. Information Technology and Control 40(1), 71–82 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schuppenies, R., Steinhauer, S.: Software Process Engineering Metamodel. Components (2006), http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/spem.htm
  16. 16.
    Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model Specification, Version 2.0 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Enterprise SPICE® An Integrated Model for Enterprise-wide Assessment and Improvement. Technical Report – Issue 1, 183 p. (September 2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stasys Peldzius
    • 1
  • Saulius Ragaisis
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Engineering Department, Faculty of Mathematics and InformaticsVilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations