Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Tailoring software process capability/maturity models for the health domain

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Health and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Web-based asynchronous store-and-forward telemedicine systems for diagnostic purposes, which enable the consultation of (one or more) distant health care professional(s) by a locally present health care professional concerning a patient’s diagnosis and treatment can significantly improve healthcare services. Yet, developing high-quality asynchronous store-and-forward telemedicine systems (ASFTSs) remains a challenge. However, there is no globally accepted standard definition that determines what the important quality characteristics for this type of software system are and/or what defines a mature software process for producing high-quality ASTFSs. Through adopting a multi-step research methodology, we define a quality model for ASFTSs, indicating relevant quality characteristics and their priority for this specific type of software system, based upon ISO/IEC 25010. We, then, propose an extended software process capability/maturity model based on ISO/IEC 15504 and ISO/IEC 12207 to meet these particular quality requirements. The resulting model can be used to both guide the development and the evaluation of such systems. We expect that the availability of such a customized model will facilitate the development of high-quality ASFTSs, reducing related risks and improving the quality of telemedicine services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ISO. TR 16056–1:2004 Health informatics—Interoperability of Telehealth Systems and Networks. Part 1: Introductions and definitions. Int’l Organization for Standardization, 2004.

  2. Bashshur RL. Critical issues in telemedicine. Telemed J. 1997;3:5–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. U.S. Congress—Office of Technology Assessment. Bringing Health Care Online: The Role of Information Technologies. Office of Technology Assessment. U.S. Congress, Ed.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995. Available at: http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/9507.pdf Accessed 10 Oct 2012.

  4. LeRouge C et al. Telemedicine Encounter Quality: Comparing Patient and Provider Perspectives of a Socio-Technical System. Proc.of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii/USA, 2004.

  5. Loane M, Wootton R. A review of guidelines and standards for telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8(2):63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. CMMI Product Team. CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV), Version 1.3. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033, Carnegie Mellon University/Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh/Pennsylvania, 2010.

  7. ISO/IEC 12207:2008, Information technology—Software life cycle processes. Int’l Organization for Standardization, 2008.

  8. ISO/IEC 15504:2003–2008, Information technology—Software process assessment. Int’l Organization for Standardization. Part 1–Part 7, 2003 to 2008.

  9. ITIL. ITIL v3 Refresh, 2011. Available at: http://www.itil-officialsite.com. Accessed 10 Oct 2012.

  10. Beecham S, Hall T, Rainer A. Defining a requirements process improvement model. Softw Qual J. 2005;13(3):247–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cass A et al. SPICE for SPACE Trials, Risk Analysis, and Process Improvement. Softw Process: Improv Pract. 2004; 9(1).

  12. Spice User Group. Automotive SPICE® Process Reference Model v4.5. Technical Report, 2012. Available at: http://www.automotivespice.com/ Accessed 10 Oct 2012.

  13. Gresse von Wangenheim C, Hauck JCR, Salviano CF, Wangenheim A. Systematic literature review of software process capability/maturity models. Proc. of 10th International Conference on Software Process. Improvement and Capability dEtermination (SPICE), Pisa/Italy, 2010.

  14. McCaffery F, Dorling A. Medi SPICE development. Softw Process Maint Evol: Improv Pract J. 2010;22(4):255–68.

    Google Scholar 

  15. McCaffery F, Richardson I. MediSPI: a software process improvement model for the medical device industry based upon ISO/IEC 15504. Frankfurt/Germany: Proc. of Int. SPICE Days; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  16. U.S. General Accounting Office. Telemedicine: Federal Strategy is Needed to Guide Investments. Washington, DC: U.S. Senate, 1997.

  17. Institute of Medicine. Telemedicine: A Guide to Assessing Telecommunications in Health Care, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996.

  18. Tulu B, Chatterjee S, Laxminarayan, S. A Taxonomy of Telemedicine Efforts with respect to Applications, Infrastructure, Delivery Tools, Type of Setting and Purpose. Proc. of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Island of Hawaii, 2005.

  19. Maheu MM, Whitten P, Allen A. E-health, telehealth, and telemedicine: a guide to start-Up and success. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Coiera E. Guide to medical informatics, the internet and telemedicine. 1st ed. London: Chapman & Hall; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Glueckauf RL, Whitton JD, Nickelson DW. Telehealth: the New frontier in rehabilitation and health care. In: Scherer MJ, editor. Assistive technology: matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. 1st ed. Washington D.C: American Psychological Association; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Maia RS, von Wangenheim A, Nobre LF. A Statewide Telemedicine Network for Public Health in Brazil. Proc. of 19th IEEE Symposium on Computer Based Medical Systems, Salt Lake City/Utah, 2006.

  23. EHTEL—European Health Telematics Association. Sustainable Telemedicine: Paradigms for future-proof healthcare—A Briefing Paper. Version 1.0, 20 February 2008.

  24. von Wangenheim A, Nobre LF, Tognoli H, Nassar SM, Ho K. User satisfaction with asynchronous telemedicine a study of users of Santa catarina s system of telemedicine and telehealth. Telemed J e-Health. 2012;18:339–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Perednia DA, Allen A. Telemedicine technology and clinical applications. J Amer Med Assoc. 1995;273(6):483–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Staemmler M, Walz M, Weisser G, Engelmann U, Weininger R, Ernstberger A, Sturm J. Establishing End-to-End Security in a Nationwide Network for Telecooperation. Proc. Of the 24th Medical Informatics in Europe Conference. Amsterdam/Netherlands, 2012, pp. 512–516.

  27. Paulk MC. A history of the capability maturity model for software. ASQ Softw Qual Prof. 2009;12(1):5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jung HW, Goldenson DR. Evaluating the relationship between process improvement and schedule deviation in software maintenance. J Inf Softw Technol. 2009;51(2):351–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fuggetta A. Software process: A Roadmap. Proc. of the 22nd Int. Conference on Software Engineering, Limerick/Ireland, 2000, pp. 25–34.

  30. Salviano CF, Figueiredo A. Unified Basic Concepts for Process Capability Models. Proc. of 20th Int. Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, San Francisco/California, 2008, pp. 173–178.

  31. Becker J, Knackstedt R, Pöppelbuß J. Developing maturity models for IT management—a procedure model and its application. J Bus Inf Syst Eng. 2009;1(3):213–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Villalba MT, Fernandez-Sanz L, Martınez JJ. Empirical support for the generation of domain-oriented quality models. J IET Softw. 2010;4(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wallauer J, Macedo D, Andrade R, von Wangenheim A. Creating a statewide public health record starting from a telemedicine network. IT Prof. 2008;10:12–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. von Wangenheim A, Barcellos CL, Wagner HM, Gomes CC. Ways to implement large scale telemedicine: the Santa Catarina experience. Lat Am J Telehealth. 2009;3:364–76.

    Google Scholar 

  35. ISO/IEC. 25010:2011 Systems and software engineering—Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)—System and software quality models. Int’l Organization for Standardization, 2011.

  36. Gresse von Wangenheim C, von Wangenheim A. A Software Quality Model for Asynchronous Store-and-Forward Telemedicine Systems. Technical Report INCoD/UFSC 005/2011-E-GQS, GQS/INCoD/UFSC, Florianópolis/Brazil, 2011. Available at: http://www.incod.ufsc.br/a-software-quality-model-for-asynchronous-store-and-forward-telemedicine-systems/ Accessed 10 Oct 2012.

  37. Hauck JCR, Gresse von Wangenheim C, McCaffery F, Buglione L. Proposing an ISO/IEC 15504–2 Compliant Method for Process Capability/Maturity Models Customization. Proc. of the 12th Int. Conference on Product Focused Software (PROFES), Torre Canne/Italy, 2011.

  38. Buglione L, Gresse von Wangenheim C, Hauck JCR, McCaffery F. The LEGO Maturity & Capability Model Approach. Proc. of the 5th World Congress on Software Quality, Shanghai/China, 2011.

  39. ISO/IEC. 21827:2008—Information Technology—Security techniques—Systems Security Engineering—Capability Maturity Model (SSE-CMM), 2008.

  40. Northrop LM, Clements PC. A Framework for Software Product Line Practice, Version 5.0. SEI, Pittsburgh/Pennsylvania, July 2007, Available at: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/productlines/frame_report Accessed 10 Oct 2012.

  41. Jones LG, Soule AL. Software Process Improvement and Product Line Practice: CMMI and the Framework for Software Product Line Practice, Technical Note CMU/SEI-2002-TN-012, July 2002.

  42. Stallinger F, Neumann R, Schossleitner R, Zeilinger R. Linking software life cycle activities with product strategy and economics: extending ISO/IEC 12207 with product management best practices. Limerick/Irleland: Proc. of the Int Conference SPICE; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hoyer C, Chroust G. Evolving standard process reference models for product line development. Dubrovnik/Croatia: Proc. of Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  44. ISO. 18529:2000 Ergonomics—Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Human-centred lifecycle process descriptions. Int’l Organization for Standardization, 2000.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all experts who participated in the interviews and/or survey for their valuable input to our research. We would also like to thank Adriano Borgatto for his support during data analysis.

This work has been supported by the CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico— www.cnpq.br), an entity of the Brazilian government focused on scientific and technological development, the MCT (Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia)/FINEP (Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos) and FAPESC (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa Catarina). This research is also supported in part by the Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) Stokes Lectureship Programme, grant number 07/SK/I1299, the SFI Principal Investigator Programme, grant number 08/IN.1/I2030 (the funding of this project was awarded by Science Foundation Ireland under a co-funding initiative by the Irish Government and European Regional Development Fund), and supported in part by Lero (http://www.lero.ie) grant 03/CE2/I303_1.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics and Statistics—INE, Federal University of Santa Catarina—UFSC, 88049-200, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil

    Christiane Gresse von Wangenheim

  2. Brazilian Institute for Digital Convergence—INCoD, Federal University of Santa Catarina—UFSC, 88049-200, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil

    Aldo von Wangenheim

  3. Dundalk Institute of Technology, Regulated Software Research Group, Dundalk Institute of Technology, Dundalk, Ireland

    Fergal McCaffery

  4. Brazilian Institute for Digital Convergence—INCoD, Federal University of Santa Catarina—UFSC, 88049-200, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil

    Jean Carlo R. Hauck

  5. Engineering.IT SpA, Via San Martino della Battaglia, 56, 00185, Rome, Italy

    Luigi Buglione

Authors
  1. Christiane Gresse von Wangenheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aldo von Wangenheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fergal McCaffery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean Carlo R. Hauck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luigi Buglione
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christiane Gresse von Wangenheim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gresse von Wangenheim, C., von Wangenheim, A., McCaffery, F. et al. Tailoring software process capability/maturity models for the health domain. Health Technol. 3, 11–28 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0038-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0038-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation