MiniDMAIC: An Approach for Causal Analysis and Resolution in Software Development Projects

  • Márcia G. S. Gonçalves


Handling problems and defects in software development projects is still a difficult matter in many organizations. The problems analyses, when performed, usually do not focus on the problems sources and root causes. As a result, bad decisions are taken and the problem is not solved or can even be aggravated by rework, dissatisfaction and cost increase due to lack of quality. These difficulties make it hard for organizations that adopt the CMMI model to implement the Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR) process area in software projects, as projects usually have to deal with very limited resources. In this context, this work proposes an approach, called MiniDMAIC, for analyzing and resolving defect and problem causes in software development projects. The MiniDMAIC approach is based on Six Sigma’s DMAIC methodology and the Causal Analysis and Resolution process area from CMMI Level 5.


Software Project Causal Analysis Specific Practice Process Area Problem Source 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    CMMI-DEV. “CMMI for Development”, V1.2 model, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008, Software Engineering Institute, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Tayntor, C. B., “Six Sigma Software Development”, Flórida, Auerbach, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Smith, B.; Adams, E., “LeanSigma: advanced quality”, Proc. 54th Annual Quality Congress of the American Society for Quality, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Blauth, R., “Seis Sigma: uma estratégia para melhorar resultados”, Revista FAE Business, nˆ 5, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Watson, G. H., “Cycles of learning: observations of Jack Welch”, ASQ Publication, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Cabrera, Á., “Dificuldades de Implementação de Programas Seis Sigma: Estudos de casos em empresas com diferentes níveis de maturidade”, MsC dissertation, USP-SP, São Carlos, 2006.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Rotondaro, G. R., Ramos, A. W., Ribeiro, C. O., Miyake, D. I., Nakano, D., Laurindo, F. J. B, Ho, L. L., Carvalho, M. M., Braz, A. A., and Balestrassi, P. P., “Seis Sigma: Estratégia Gerencial para Melhoria de Processos, Produtos e Serviços”, São Paulo, Atlas, 2002.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Pande, S. “Estratvgia Six Sigma: como a GE, a Motorola e outras grandes empresas estão aguçando seu desempenho”. Rio de Janeiro, Qualitymark, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Chrissis, M. B., Konrad, M., and Shrum, S., “CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement”, 2nd edition, Boston, Addison Wesley, 2006.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Kulpa, M. K., and Johnson, K. A., “Interpreting the CMMI: a process improvent approach” Florida, Auerbach, 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Márcia G. S. Gonçalves

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations