Abstract
Organizations involved on process improvement programs need to deal with different process improvement and assessment models. As not all the process improvement and assessment models have an equivalent scope, the selection of a particular model to guide the improvement strategy may result in a partial, constrained view of the areas where the organization may obtain competitive advantages. As a mitigation strategy, organizations should have a detailed understanding of the differences in the scope of the available models. Whatever the model they adopt, companies should be aware of relevant areas that may be missed or treated with more or less detail in the models under consideration. In addition, the need of dealing with different assessment models is usually found in second- and third-party assessments, when prospects or potential contractors decide to conduct an assessment of the subcontractor’s capabilities using a model that may not be the same as the reference model selected by the target subcontractor. In these situations, companies are at risks of overlooking relevant processes and practices. This paper describes a case study developed for the aerospace industry, based on the mapping of two assessment models widely deployed in this activity sector: CMMI-DEV and SPICE for Space, a variant of ISO/IEC 15504. A detailed gap analysis is provided identifying those aspects that should be considered both as potential improvement areas and as sources of risks. An extended assessment activity methodology is proposed that considers the results of model traceability analysis as a key factor for conducting the assessments.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It needs to be remarked that ESA standards do not forbid the use the CMMI.
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/07tn006.pdf. Last accessed: 12/07/2012.
References
Clarke P, O’Connor RV (2012) The influence of SPI on business success in software SMEs: an empirical study. J Syst Softw 85(10):2356–2367. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.05.024
Lepmets M, McBride T, Ras E (2012) Goal alignment in process improvement. J Syst Softw 85(6):1440–1452. ISSN 0164–1212. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.01.038
Mesquida AL, Mas A, Amengual E, Calvo-Manzano JA (2012) IT service management process improvement based on ISO/IEC 15504: a systematic review. Inf Softw Technol 54(3):239–247. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2011.11.002
Lane S, Richardson I (2011) Process models for service-based applications: a systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 53(5):424–439. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.12.005
CMMI-DEV (2010) CMMI for development, version 1.3: improving processes for developing better products and services. CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033. SEI (CMMI Product Team). http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/10tr033.cfm
Rout T et al (2007) SPICE in retrospect : developing a standard for process assessment. J Syst Softw 80:1483–1493
Eito-Brun Ricardo (2013) Comparing SPICE for space (S4S) and CMMI-DEV: identifying sources of risk from improvement models. Software process improvement and capability determination. Commun Comput Inf Sci 349:84–94
Devic MO, Escorial-Rico D, Richter S (2011) 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)
Völcker A et al (2001) SPICE for SPACE : a process assessment and improvement method for space software development. ESA Bull 107:112–119
ECSS-Q-HB-80-02 (2010) Space product assurance—software process assessment and improvement. ESA-ESTEC Requirements and Standards Division, 16 April 2010
Hwang SM (2009) Process quality levels of ISO/IEC 15504, CMMI and K-model. Int J Softw Eng Appl 3(1):33–42
Peldzius S, Ragaisis S (2011) Comparison of maturity levels in CMMI-DEV and ISO/IEC 15504. In: AMERICAN-MATH’11/CEA’11 Proceedings of the 2011 American conference on applied mathematics and the 5th WSEAS international conference on Computer engineering and applications, pp 117–122
Rout T, Tuffley A, Cahill B (2001) CMMI evaluation: capability maturity model integration mapping to ISO/IEC 15504–2:1998. Version 1.0. Defence Material Organisation; SQI. Available online. http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/88501/CMMIMappingReport.pdf
Ragaisis S, Simenas J (2010) Mapping CMMI-DEV maturity levels to ISO/IEC 15504 capability profiles. In: Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS international conference on TELECOMMUNICATIONS and INFORMATICS, pp 13–18
Trudel S (2006) PEM: the small company-dedicated software process quality evaluation method combining CMMISM and ISO/IEC 14598. Softw Qual J 14(1):7–23. doi:10.1007/s11219-006-5997-8
von Wangenheim ChG et al (2010) Best practice fusion of CMMI-DEV v1.2 (PP, PMC, SAM) and PMBOK 2008. Inf Softw Technol 52:749–757
Thiry M, Zoucas A, Tristao L (2010) Mapping process capability models to support integrated software process assessments. CLEI Electron J 13(1). http://www.clei.cl/cleiej/papers/v13i1p4.pdf. Accessed 02 Jan 2014
Baldassarre MT et al (2012) Harmonization of ISO/IEC 9001:2000 and CMMI-DEV: from a theoretical comparison to a real case application. Softw Qual J 20(2): 309–335. doi:10.1007/s11219-011-9154-7
von Wangenheim ChG et al (2013) Tailoring software process capability/maturity models for the health domain. Health Technol 3(1):11–28. doi:10.1007/s12553-013-0038-7
Salviano CF, Figueiredo AM (2008) Unified basic concepts for process capability models. In: Proceedings of The twentieth international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE’08), pp 173–178
Pardo C et al (2012) An ontology for the harmonization of multiple standards and models. Comput Stand Interf 34:48–59
Ahern DM, Clouse A, Turner R (2004) CMMI distilled: a practical introduction to integrated process improvement, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eito-Brun, R. Mapping of improvement models as a risk reduction strategy: a theoretical comparison for the aerospace industry. Innovations Syst Softw Eng 10, 283–295 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-014-0236-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-014-0236-0