Comparing SPiCE for Space (S4S) and CMMI-DEV: Identifying Sources of Risk from Improvement Models

  • Ricardo Eito-Brun
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 349)


This paper analyses the differences between SPiCE for Space (S4S) snd CMMI-DEV v1.3. S4S (ECSS-Q-HB-80-02) is the software process assessment model used by the European Space Agency (ESA) based on ISO/IEC 15504-2 and the process reference model ISO/IEC 15504-5. CMMI-DEV, widely used in the United States and adopted by companies worldwide, is a requirement for subcontractors working for NASA projects. This means that companies in the aerospace sector need to demonstrate compliance with the requirements and practices described in both models. The objective of this paper is to identify the gap in the base practices proposed in S4S and CMMI-DEV. This analysis of differences is necessary, as long as the gaps between these models can translate into potential risks for those companies focused just on one of the models. European aerospace companies must deal with the need of working and being assessed from two different perspectives: S4S and CMMI-DEV. Getting a detailed picture of the differences between these models may help companies focus their improvement strategies and avoid potential pitfalls when being assessed.


Assessment and improvement models SPiCE for Space S4S CMMI-DEV Model comparison Risk identification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ECSS-Q-HB-80-02, Space product assurance – Software process assessment and improvement. ESA-ESTEC Requirements and Standards Division (April 16, 2010) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Völcker, A., et al.: SPiCE for SPACE: A Process Assessment and Improvement Method for Space Software Development. ESA Bulletin 107, 112–119 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Devic, M.-O., Escorial Rico, D., Richter, S.: Reflecting on ten years of Software Process Assessment and Improvement initiatives by the European Space Agency. In: 18th European Systems and Software Process Improvement and Innovation Conference (EuroSPI 2011) (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CMMI-DEV. CMMI® for Development, Version 1.3: Improving processes for developing better products and services. CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033. SEI (CMMI Product Team), 468 p. (November 2010),
  5. 5.
    Rout, T., et al.: SPICE in retrospect : Developing a standard for process assessment. The Journal of System and Software (80), 1483–1493 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rout, T., Tuffley, A., Cahill, B.: CMMI Evaluation: Capability Maturity Model Integration Mapping to ISO/IEC 15504-2:1998. Version 1.0. Defence Material Organisation; SQI (2001),
  7. 7.
    Hwang, S.M.: Process Quality Levels of ISO/IEC 15504, CMMI and K-Model. International Journal of Software Engineering and its Applications 3(1), 33–42 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peldzius, S., Ragaisis, S.: Comparison of maturity levels in CMMI-DEV and ISO/IEC 15504. In: AMERICAN-MATH 2011/CEA 2011 Proceedings of the 2011 American Conference on Applied Mathematics and the 5th WSEAS International Conference on Computer Engineering and Applications, pp. 117–122 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    von Wangenheim, C.G., et al.: Best practice fusion of CMMI-DEV v1.2 (PP, PMC, SAM) and PMBOK 2008. Information and Software Technology (52), 749–757 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ahern, D.M., Clouse, A., Turner, R.: CMMI Distilled: A Practical Introduction to Integrated Process Improvement, 2nd edn., 305 p. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pardo, C., et al.: An ontology for the harmonization of multiple standards and models. Computer Standards & Interfaces (34), 48–59 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricardo Eito-Brun
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad Carlos III de MadridGetafe MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations