Frameworks for quality software process: SEI capability maturity model versus ISO 9000

被引:5
|
作者
Saiedian, H
McClanahan, LM
机构
[1] UNIV NEBRASKA,DEPT COMP SCI,OMAHA,NE 68182
[2] SCI APPLICAT INT CORP,BELLEVUE,NE 68005
关键词
SEI capability maturity model; ISO 9000 software quality standards; management roles; application of metrics; industrial impact;
D O I
10.1007/BF02420941
中图分类号
TP31 [计算机软件];
学科分类号
081202 ; 0835 ;
摘要
With the historical characterization of software development as being costly due to massive schedule delays, incorporation of the ever-changing technology, budget reductions, and missing customer requirements, the trend of the 1990s in establishing a quality improvement or a quality assurance programme has been overwhelming. The two popular models or frameworks for assessment of a quality assurance programme are the US government-sponsored Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and the internationally recognized ISO-9000 quality standards. Both of these two frameworks share a common concern regarding software quality and process management. Since it is not clear which of these two frameworks is most effective in achieving their shared objectives, it is valuable and timely to provide an objective overview of both models and to compare and contrast their features for quality software development. Because there are many legitimate areas for comparison, we have selected the two most important as a basis for comparison: (1) the role of management, and (2) the application of measurements. We also provide a summary of the reported impact of these two models on the organizations adhering to their standards, and include our observations and analysis.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 23
页数:23
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The internal consistency and precedence of key process areas in the capability maturity model for software
    Jung, Ho-Won
    Goldenson, Dennis R.
    [J]. EMPIRICAL SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 2008, 13 (02) : 125 - 146
  • [22] Enhancement of the Capability Maturity Model for Improving the Quality of Software Projects in Developing Countries
    Hou, Li
    Liu, Qi
    Saeed, Kiran
    Haidery, Saqib Ali
    Uddin, M. Irfan
    Khattak, Hizbullah
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMMING, 2021, 2021
  • [23] Software team development in the Capability Maturity Model
    McGuire, EG
    [J]. ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS - PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTH AMERICAS CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS (AMCIS 1999), 1999, : 753 - 755
  • [24] Implementing the capability maturity model for software development
    Lowe, DE
    Cox, GM
    [J]. HEWLETT-PACKARD JOURNAL, 1996, 47 (04): : 6 - 14
  • [25] Transforming software organizations with the capability maturity model
    Arent, J
    [J]. PRODUCT FOCUSED SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT, 2000, 1840 : 103 - 114
  • [26] Remanufacturing Process Capability Maturity Model
    Butzer, Steffen
    Schoetz, Sebastian
    Steinhilper, Rolf
    [J]. 14TH GLOBAL CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE MANUFACTURING, GCSM 2016, 2017, 8 : 715 - 722
  • [27] The Use of Maturity/Capability Frameworks for Healthcare Process Assessment and Improvement
    Soylemez, Mehmet
    Tarhan, Ayca
    [J]. SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT AND CAPABILITY DETERMINATION (SPICE 2016), 2016, 609 : 31 - 42
  • [28] HCI in practice: An empirical study with software process capability maturity model consultants in Brazil
    Goncalves, Taisa Guidini
    de Oliveira, Kathia Marcal
    Kolski, Christophe
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SOFTWARE-EVOLUTION AND PROCESS, 2018, 30 (11)
  • [29] Tailoring software process capability/maturity models for the health domain
    von Wangenheim, Christiane Gresse
    von Wangenheim, Aldo
    McCaffery, Fergal
    Hauck, Jean Carlo R.
    Buglione, Luigi
    [J]. HEALTH AND TECHNOLOGY, 2013, 3 (01) : 11 - 28
  • [30] voice of evidence Creating Software Process Capability/Maturity Models
    von Wangenheim, Christiane Gresse
    Hauck, Jean C. R.
    Zoucas, Alessandra
    Salviano, Clenio F.
    McCaffery, Fergal
    Shull, Forrest
    [J]. IEEE SOFTWARE, 2010, 27 (04) : 92 - 94