Software or Service? That’s the Question!

  • Luigi BuglioneEmail author
  • Alain Abran
  • Christiane Gresse von Wangenheim
  • Fergal Mc Caffery
  • Jean Carlo Rossa Hauck
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 230)


In Information and Communication Technology (ICT) a ‘deliverable’ may be either software (perceived as an ‘output’) or a service (perceived as an ‘outcome’). On the one hand, the differences between software and service have led to the design of parallel models and lifecycles with more commonalities than differences, thereby not supporting the adoption of different frameworks. For instance, a software project could be managed applying best practices for services (e.g. ITIL), while some processes (e.g. Verification & Validation) are better defined in models of the Software Management domain. Thus, this paper aims at reconciling these differences and provides suggestions for a better joint usage of models/frameworks. To unify existing models we use the LEGO approach, which aims at keeping the element of interest from any potential model/framework for being inserted in the process architecture of the target Business Process Model (BPM) of an organization, strengthening the organizational way of working. An example of a LEGO application is presented to show the benefit from the joint view of the ‘software + service’ sides as a whole across the project lifecycle, increasing the opportunity to have many more sources for this type of improvement task.


Software management Service management ISO 20000 CMMI-DEV CMMI-SVC ITIL 


  1. 1.
    CMMI Product Team, CMMI for Development, Version 1.3, CMMI-DEV v1.3, Continuous Representation, CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033, Technical report, Software Engineering Institute, November 2010Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO/IEC, IS 15504-2: 2003, Information technology – Process assessment – Part 2: Performing an assessment, October 2003Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ITIL v3 Refresh 2011 suite, AXELOS (2011).
  4. 4.
    Microsoft, Microsoft Operation Framework (MOF) v4.0 (2012).
  5. 5.
    CMMI Product Team, CMMI for Service, Version 1.3, CMMI-SVC v1.3, CMU/SEI-2010-TR-034, Technical report, Software Engineering Institute, November 2010Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    TM Forum, Business Process Framework (eTOM), v14.5 (2015).
  7. 7.
    ISO/IEC IS 25010:2011, Systems and software engineering – Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – System and software quality models, Geneve (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buglione, L., Gresse von Wangenheim, C., Hauck, J.C.R., McCaffery, F.: The LEGO maturity & capability model approach. In: Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Software Quality, Shanghai (China), October 2011Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO/IEC IS 20000-1:2011, Information technology – Service management – Part 1: Service management system requirements, Geneve (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO, IS 9001:2008, Quality management systems – Requirements, Geneve (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schwaber, K.: Agile Project Management with Scrum, Microsoft Press (2004). ISBN 978-0735619937Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buglione L.: Agile-4-FSM. Improving estimates by a 4-pieces puzzle, Webinar, IFPUG Agile Interest Group, 17 May 2012.
  13. 13.
    Buglione, L., Abran, A.: Improving the user story agile technique using the INVEST Criteria, IWSM-MENSURA 2013. In: 23th International Workshop on Software Measurement and 8th International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement. IEEE/CS Proceedings, Ankara (Turkey), 23–26 October 2013, pp. 49–53 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.: The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies create the Dynamics of Innovation, OUP USA (1995). ISBN 978-0195092691Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buglione, L., Hauck, J.C.R., Gresse von Wangenheim, C., Mc Caffery, F.: Hybriding CMMI and requirement engineering maturity & capability models: Applying the LEGO approach for improving estimates. In: ICSOFT 2012, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Paradigm Trends, Rome (Italy), 24–27 July 2012Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buglione, L., Lami, G., von Wangenheim, C.G., Caffery, F.M., Hauck, J.C.R.: Leveraging reuse-related maturity issues for achieving higher maturity and capability levels. In: Favaro, J., Morisio, M. (eds.) ICSR 2013. LNCS, vol. 7925, pp. 343–355. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hubert, C., Lemons, D.: A Knowledge Management Maturity Model – APQC’s Stages of Implementation (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Langen, M.: Holistic development of KM with the KM maturity model (KMMM). In: APQC Conference, 7–8 Dec 2000Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hefke, M., Kleiner, F.: An ontology-based software infrastructure for retaining theoretical Knowledge Management Maturity Models. In: 1st Workshop on Formal Ontologies Meet Industry, FOMI 2005, Verona, Italy (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pee1, L.G., Teah, H.Y., Kankanhalli, A.: Development of a general knowledge management maturity model. In: Proceedings of the 10th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), 6–9 July, pp. 401–416. Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    KPMG, Knowledge Management Assessment Exercise (1999).
  22. 22.
    WisdomSource, Knowledge Management Maturity (K3 M). WisdomSource News 2(1), 31, May 2004.
  23. 23.
    Freeze, R., Kulkami, U.: Knowledge management capability assessment: validating a knowledge assets measurement instrument. In: HICSS 2005 Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 08, p. 251.1 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ISACA, COBIT v4.1 (2007).
  25. 25.
    Kochikar, V.P.: The knowledge management maturity model: a staged framework for leveraging knowledge. In: KM World 2000, Santa Clara, CA (2000).
  26. 26.
    Mutafeljia, B., Stromberg, H.: Process Improvement with CMMI v1.2 and ISO Standards, Auerback Publications (2008).
  27. 27.
    ISO JTC1/SC7/WG10 Study Group, EnterpriseSPICE - An Integrated Model for Enterprise-wide Assessment and Improvement Technical report Issue 1 - September (2010).
  28. 28.
    Ibrahim, L., Bradford, B., Cole, D., LaBruyere, L., Leinneweber, H., Piszczech, D., Reed, N., Rymond, M., Smith, D., Virga, M., Wells, C.: The Federal Aviation Administration Integrated Capability Maturity Model-, (FAA-iCMM), Version 2.0. An Integrated Capability Maturity Model for Enterprise-wide Improvement, FAA, September 2001Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peldzius, S., Ragaisis, S.: Investigation correspondence between CMMI-DEV and ISO/IEC 15504. Int. J. Educ. Inf. Technol. 5(4), 361–368 (2011).
  30. 30.
    IIBA, A Guide to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge (BABOK) v3, International Institute of Business Analysis (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pipkin, J., Lunsford, G.H.: Synergism of the CMMI development and services constellations in an hybrid organization. In: CMMI Conference North America, May 2014.
  32. 32.
    BSI, PAS 99:2012 – Specification of common management system requirements as a framework for integration – Publicly Available Specification (2012). (working draft)
  33. 33.
    SEI, PrIME project, Process Improvement in Multiple Envinronment.
  34. 34.
    Jeners, S., Lichter, H., Dragomir, A.: Towards an integration of multiple process improvement reference models based on automated concept extraction. In: Winkler, D., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2012. CCIS, vol. 301, pp. 205–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Andelfinger, U., Heijstek, A., Kirwan, P.: A Unified Process Improvement Approach for Multi-Model Improvement Environments, News @ SEI, 1 Apr 2006.
  36. 36.
    Andelfinger, U., Heijstek, A., Kirwan, P.: DevOps, Wikipedia.
  37. 37.
    Stall, A., Forrester, E.: Using CMMI-DEV and CMMI-SVC Together – Where ‘Build Stuff’ Happens in CMMI-SVC, 2012 SEPG NA, Presentation, March 2012.
  38. 38.
    Gonzales, R.M.: CMMI®-DEV versus CMMI®-SVC analysis. In: 11th Annual CMMI Technology Conference and User Group, Denver (USA), 15 Nov 2011.
  39. 39.
    Buglione, L., Gresse von Wangenheim, C., Mc Caffery, F., Hauck, J.C.R.: The LEGO strategy: guidelines for a profitable deployment. Comput. Standard Interfaces 36(1), 10–20 (2013). ElsevierGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luigi Buglione
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Alain Abran
    • 2
  • Christiane Gresse von Wangenheim
    • 3
  • Fergal Mc Caffery
    • 4
  • Jean Carlo Rossa Hauck
    • 3
  1. 1.Engineering Ingegneria Informatica SpaRomeItaly
  2. 2.Ecole de Technologie Supérieure (ETS)MontréalCanada
  3. 3.Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC)FlorianópolisBrazil
  4. 4.Regulated Software Research Group & LeroDundalk Institute of TechnologyDundalkIreland

Personalised recommendations