Advertisement

Critical Design Decisions in the Development of the Standard for Process Assessment

  • Terence P. Rout
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 349)

Abstract

The development of an International Standard for Process Assessment commenced in 1993. Over the past 20 years, the standard suite has moved through three formal releases, and multiple drafts; during this time, several key design issues have been addressed, and in many cases reconsidered. This paper identifies key issues in the design of the Standard, and discusses decisions taken and their impact on the Standard, and on the theory and practice of process assessment.

Keywords

Process assessment standardization process improvement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Radice, R.A., Harding, J.T., Munnis, P.E., Phillips, R.W.: A Programming process study. IBM Systems Journal 24(2), 91–101 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Humphrey, W.S.: Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paulk, M., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V.: Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1. Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-24, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh (February 1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7, The Need and Requirements for a Software Process Assessment Standard, Study Report, Issue 2.0, JTC1/SC7 N944R (June 11, 1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO/IEC TR 15504: 1998 – Information Technology – Software Process Assessment, Parts 1 – 9 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/IEC 15504: 2003 - 2012 – Information Technology – Process Assessment, Parts 1 – 10 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Automotive, S. I. G. Automotive SPICE Process Assessment Model. Final Release, v4 4, 46 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Enterprise SPICE. An enterprise integrated standards-base model (2008), http://www.enterprisespice.com/
  9. 9.
    ISACA, COBIT Process Assessment Model (PAM), Using COBIT 4.1 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jung, H.-W., Hunter, R., Goldenson, D.R., El-Emam, K.: Findings from Phase 2 of the SPICE Trials. Softw. Process Improve. Pract. 6, 205–242 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rout, T.P., El Emam, K., Fusani, M., Goldenson, D., Jung, H.-W.: SPICE in retrospect: Developing a standard for process assessment. Journal of Systems and Software 80(9) (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terence P. Rout
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Quality Institute, Institute for Integrated and Intelligent SystemsGriffith UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations