Health and Technology

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 11–28 | Cite as

Tailoring software process capability/maturity models for the health domain

  • Christiane Gresse von Wangenheim
  • Aldo von Wangenheim
  • Fergal McCaffery
  • Jean Carlo R. Hauck
  • Luigi Buglione
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Software process capability/maturity models Asynchronous store-and-forward telemedicine systems ISO/IEC 15504 Software quality CMMI 

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bashshur RL. Critical issues in telemedicine. Telemed J. 1997;3:5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loane M, Wootton R. A review of guidelines and standards for telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8(2):63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO/IEC 12207:2008, Information technology—Software life cycle processes. Int’l Organization for Standardization, 2008.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO/IEC 15504:2003–2008, Information technology—Software process assessment. Int’l Organization for Standardization. Part 1–Part 7, 2003 to 2008.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ITIL. ITIL v3 Refresh, 2011. Available at: http://www.itil-officialsite.com. Accessed 10 Oct 2012.
  10. 10.
    Beecham S, Hall T, Rainer A. Defining a requirements process improvement model. Softw Qual J. 2005;13(3):247–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cass A et al. SPICE for SPACE Trials, Risk Analysis, and Process Improvement. Softw Process: Improv Pract. 2004; 9(1).Google Scholar
  12. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCaffery F, Dorling A. Medi SPICE development. Softw Process Maint Evol: Improv Pract J. 2010;22(4):255–68.Google Scholar
  15. 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. 16.
    U.S. General Accounting Office. Telemedicine: Federal Strategy is Needed to Guide Investments. Washington, DC: U.S. Senate, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Institute of Medicine. Telemedicine: A Guide to Assessing Telecommunications in Health Care, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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. 20.
    Coiera E. Guide to medical informatics, the internet and telemedicine. 1st ed. London: Chapman & Hall; 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    EHTEL—European Health Telematics Association. Sustainable Telemedicine: Paradigms for future-proof healthcare—A Briefing Paper. Version 1.0, 20 February 2008.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perednia DA, Allen A. Telemedicine technology and clinical applications. J Amer Med Assoc. 1995;273(6):483–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paulk MC. A history of the capability maturity model for software. ASQ Softw Qual Prof. 2009;12(1):5–19.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fuggetta A. Software process: A Roadmap. Proc. of the 22nd Int. Conference on Software Engineering, Limerick/Ireland, 2000, pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  36. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    ISO/IEC. 21827:2008—Information Technology—Security techniques—Systems Security Engineering—Capability Maturity Model (SSE-CMM), 2008.Google Scholar
  40. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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. 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. 44.
    ISO. 18529:2000 Ergonomics—Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Human-centred lifecycle process descriptions. Int’l Organization for Standardization, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IUPESM and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christiane Gresse von Wangenheim
    • 1
  • Aldo von Wangenheim
    • 2
  • Fergal McCaffery
    • 3
  • Jean Carlo R. Hauck
    • 4
  • Luigi Buglione
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Informatics and Statistics—INEFederal University of Santa Catarina—UFSCFlorianópolisBrazil
  2. 2.Brazilian Institute for Digital Convergence—INCoDFederal University of Santa Catarina—UFSCFlorianópolisBrazil
  3. 3.Dundalk Institute of Technology, Regulated Software Research GroupDundalk Institute of TechnologyDundalkIreland
  4. 4.Brazilian Institute for Digital Convergence—INCoDFederal University of Santa Catarina—UFSCFlorianópolisBrazil
  5. 5.Engineering.IT SpARomeItaly

Personalised recommendations