Implementing the Modeling-Based Approach for Supporting the Software Process Assessment in SPI Initiatives Inside a Small Software Company

  • I. Garcia
  • C. Pacheco
  • D. Cruz
  • J. A. Calvo-Manzano
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 377)


Software Process Improvement (SPI) has become more and more important during the past ten years, since competition is increasingly determined by the proportion of software products and services. Over the years, many different SPI approaches have been developed; most of them are either best-practice-oriented approaches or continuous improvement approaches, which require an accurate assessment process as a basis from which to begin the improvement. Usually, almost all research is focused on a questionnaire-based approach for process’ assessment. However, without the organizational commitment it is too difficult obtain realistic and accurate results. The main achievement of this paper, lies in the development of an integrated mechanism for assessing software processes, using a hybrid mechanism that incorporates modeling-based assessment. This mechanism was evaluated using the EvalProSoft framework and descriptive concepts, to facilitate establishing SPI initiatives in a small Mexican software company.


Software Development Process Software Process Improvement Hybrid Mechanism Assessment Mechanism Capability Maturity Model Integration 
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.
    Calvo-Manzano, J.A., Cuevas, G., San-Feliu, T., De-Amescua, A., Arcilla, M.M., Cerrada, J.A.: Lessons Learned in Software Process Improvement. The European Journal for the Informatics Professional 4, 26–29 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cuevas, G., Serrano, A., Serrano, A.: Assessment of the Requirements Management Process using a Two-Stage Questionnaire. In: Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC 2004), pp. 110–116. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chrissis, M., Wemyss, G., Goldenson, D., Konrad, M., Smith, K., Svolou, A.: CMMI Interpretive Guidance Project: Preliminary Report (CMU/SEI-2003-SR-007). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CMMI Product Team: CMMI for Systems Engineering, Software Engineering, Integrated Product and Process Development, and Supplier Sourcing (CMMISE/SW/IPPD/SS, V1.1). Continuous Representation. CMU/SEI-2002-TR-011, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    CMMI Product Team.: CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV, V1.2). CMU/SEI-2006 TR-008, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dunaway, D.K., Masters, S.: CMM-based appraisal for internal process improvement (CBA-IPI). Method description. Technical Report. CMU/SEI-96-TR-007, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flores, B., Astorga, M., Olguín, J., Andrade, M.C.: Experiences on the Implementation of MoProSoft and Assessment of Processes under the NMX-I-059/02-NYCE-2005 Standard in a Small Software Development Enterprise. In: Proc. of the 2008 Mexican International Conference on Computer Science, pp. 323–328. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fowler, P., Middlecoat, B., Yo, S.: Lessons Learned Collaborating on a Process for SPI at Xerox (CMU/SEI-99-TR-006, ADA373332), Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galliers, R.: Information Systems Research. Issues, Methods and Practical Guideline. Alfred Waller Ltd., Wiltshire, Chippenham. England (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garcia, I., Calvo-Manzano, J.A., Cuevas, G., San Feliu, T.: Determining Practice Achievement in Project Management Using a Two-Phase Questionnaire on Small and Medium Enterprises. In: Abrahamsson, P., Baddoo, N., Margaria, T., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4764, pp. 46–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Humphrey, W.S.: Managing the Software Process. Addison Wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO/IEC 12207: 2008, Systems and software engineering – Software life cycle processes, Geneva (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO/IEC TR 15504:1998(E): Information Technology – Software Process Assessments. Parts 1-9. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO/IEC 15504:2003/Cor.1:2004(E): Information Technology – Process Assessment. Parts 1-5. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koch, N., Knapp, A., Zhang, G., Baumeister, H.: UML-Based Web Engineering: An Approach Based on Standards. In: Rossi, G., Pastor, O., Schwabe, D., Olsina, L. (eds.) Web Engineering: Modeling and Implementing Web Applications. HCI Series, pp. 157–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuvaja, P., Simila, J., Krzanik, L., Bicego, A., Koch, G., Saukonen, S.: Software Process Assessment and Improvement: The BOOTSTRAP Approach. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Linaje, M., Preciado, J.C., Sanchez-Figueroa, F.: Engineering Rich Internet Application User Interfaces over Legacy Web Models. Internet Computing Magazine IEEE 11, 53–59 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marciniak, J.J., Sadauskas, T.: Use of Questionnaire-Based Appraisals in Process Improvement Programs. In: Proc. of the Second Annual Conference on the Acquisition of Software-Intensive Systems, Arlington, Virginia, USA, p. 22 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McCaffery, F., Taylor, P., Coleman, G.: Adept: A Unified Assessment Method for Small Software Companies. IEEE Software 24, 24–31 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    NMX-I-059/01-NYCE-2005. Information Technology Software Process and Assessment Model to Software Development and Maintain Part 02: Processes requirements (MoProSoft). NMX-NYCE (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    NMX-I-059/04-NYCE-2005. Information Technology Software Process and Assessment Model to Software Development and Maintain Part 04: Guidelines for processes assessment (EvalProSoft). NMX-NYCE (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Notkin, D.: Software, software engineering and software engineering research: some unconventional thoughts. Journal of Computer Science and Technology 24, 189–197 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Members of the Assessment Method Integrated Team: Standard CMMI® Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI), Version 1.1. CMU/SEI 2001-HB-001. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Preciado, J.C., Linaje, M., Morales-Chaparro, R., Sanchez-Figueroa, F., Zhang, G., Kroi, C., Koch, N.: Designing Rich Internet Applications Combining UWE and RUXMethod. In: Proc. of the Eighth International Conference on Web Engineering (ICWE 2008), pp. 148–154. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pries-Heje, J., Johansen, J., Christiansen, M., Korsaa, M.: The ImprovAbility Model. CrossTalk - The Journal of Defense Software Engineering 20, 23–28 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Santos, G., Montoni, M., Vasconcellos, J., Figuereido, S., Cabral, R., Cerdeiral, C., Katsurayama, A., Lupo, P., Zanetti, D., Rocha, A.: Implementing Software Process Improvement Initiatives in Small and Medium-Size Enterprises in Brazil. In: Proc. of the 6th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC 2007), pp. 187–196. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weber, K.C., Araújo, E.E.R., da Rocha, A.R.C., Machado, C.A.F., Scalet, D., Salviano, C.F.: Brazilian Software Process Reference Model and Assessment Method. In: Yolum, p., Güngör, T., Gürgen, F., Özturan, C., et al. (eds.) ISCIS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3733, pp. 402–411. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zubrow, D., Hayes, W., Siegel, J., Goldenson, D.: Maturity Questionnaire (CMU/SEI-94-SR-7). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Garcia
    • 1
  • C. Pacheco
    • 1
  • D. Cruz
    • 2
  • J. A. Calvo-Manzano
    • 3
  1. 1.Technological University of the Mixtec RegionMexico
  2. 2.Cañada UniversityCanada
  3. 3.Technical University of MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations