能力成熟度模型探讨与分析

成熟度模型(CMM)是当前国内外研究的热点。首先阐述了CMM的产生、研究现状和发展趋势，然后说明了CMM中所涉及的基本概念，给出了CMM的框架和内部结构，重点对CMM的每一级别进行了详细分析，最后进行了相关总结。     

软件能力成熟度模型CMM的框架与内容

首先介绍了软件能力成熟度模型的起因、历史、发展和一些基本概念。然后,对模型的五级结构、内容和不同成熟度等级间的关系,以及各成熟度等级的行为特征等进行了描述。最后,论文指出了该模型尚存在的一些问题。     

The capability maturity model and CASE

Abstract. Many software organizations face serious problems in their attempts to make expectations and realities meet in introducing CASE technology. One promising approach to understanding CASE introduction better and to managing it more effectively has been developed by relating CASE introduction to the Capability Maturity Model (CMM). This paper reviews software process maturity as a framework for CASE introduction. The relevance of the framework is discussed and three critical questions are explored: 1) What is the role of organizational experiments in CASE introduction? 2) How do the functional characteristics of CASE technology influence CASE introduction? and 3) How does the organizational context influence CASE introduction? The aim of the paper, by way of this discussion, is to explicate the strengths and limits of software process maturity as a framework for CASE introduction, and to identify the most important supplementary issues     

信息系统监理能力成熟度模型研究

信息系统监理企业要想高效率、高质量和低成本地按合同完成监理任务,必须以改善监理过程为中心,全面实施监理工程和质量管理手段.论文提出ISS-CMM模型,初步划分为5个等级:初始级、重用级、定义级、控制级和优化级;并提出每一等级组成元素,包括:关键过程、目标和关键活动,并初步给出关键过程、目标和关键活动的定义.ISS-CMM模型可以作为监理过程的标准,因为它结合质量管理和监理工程的双重经验,专门针对监理过程制订的一套规范.     

Processes versus people: How should agile software development maturity be defined?

Maturity in software development is currently defined by models such as CMMI-DEV and ISO/IEC 15504, which emphasize the need to manage, establish, measure and optimize processes. Teams that develop software using these models are guided by defined, detailed processes. However, an increasing number of teams have been implementing agile software development methods that focus on people rather than processes. What, then, is maturity for these agile teams that focus less on detailed, defined processes? This is the question we sought to answer in this study. To this end, we asked agile practitioners about their perception of the maturity level of a number of practices and how they defined maturity in agile software development. We used cluster analysis to analyze quantitative data and triangulated the results with content analysis of the qualitative data. We then proposed a new definition for agile software development maturity. The findings show that practitioners do not see maturity in agile software development as process definition or quantitative management capabilities. Rather, agile maturity means fostering more subjective capabilities, such as collaboration, communication, commitment, care, sharing and self-organization.     

Experiences from using ICMM in inspection process assessment

Inspection Capability Maturity Model (ICMM) is a new tool for the assessment and improvement of software inspection practices in an organization. This paper presents the first experiences in using ICMM. The model structure and usability is evaluated based on the data collected from eight case organizations. The major findings support the conclusion that ICMM worked well in identifying weaknesses in the current inspection practices. First, the perceived inspection quality in the organizations was compared with the assessment results. Second, the identified weaknesses appear to be related to the problems faced in inspection practices. Finally, the collected experiences provided some useful improvement suggestions for ICMM.

Defining a Requirements Process Improvement Model

Both software organisations and the academic community are aware that the requirements phase of software development is in need of further support. We address this problem by creating a specialised Requirements Capability Maturity Model (R-CMM¹). The model focuses on the requirements engineering process as defined within the established Software Engineering Institute’s (SEI’s) software process improvement framework. Our empirical work with software practitioners is a primary motivation for creating this requirements engineering process improvement model. Although all organisations in our study were involved in software process improvement (SPI), they all showed a lack of control over many requirement engineering activities.This paper describes how the requirements engineering (RE) process is decomposed and prioritised in accordance with maturity goals set by the SEI’s Software Capability Maturity Model (SW CMM). Our R-CMM builds on the SEI’s framework by identifying and defining recommended RE sub-processes that meet maturity goals. This new focus will help practitioners to define their RE process with a view to setting realistic goals for improvement.Sarah Beecham is a research fellow in the Department of Maths and Computing in The Open University in the UK. She is currently working on the EPSRC funded CRESTES project () looking into modelling resource estimation for long-lived software. She has recently completed her PhD for a program of work entitled “A Requirements-based Software Process Maturity Model”. Current research interests are in estimation for software evolution and maintenance and in the general areas of software process improvement. Her particular research interests are in empirical methods in software engineering and requirements engineering.Tracy Hall leads the Systems & Software Research Group in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Hertfordshire. She specialises in the empirical investigation of technical and non-technical issues within software engineering. During the past ten years Tracy has successfully collaborated with many companies on a variety of research projects. She is very active in the Empirical Software Engineering community and is regularly invited to talk about empirical methods both in the UK and abroad. Tracy is an accomplished researcher having published over twenty high quality journal papers.Austen Rainer Austen Rainer is a senior lecturer at the University of Hertfordshire. He studied for his PhD at Bournemouth University, in conjunction with IBM Hursley Park. His current research interests include open source software development, longitudinal case study research, and the credibility of empirical evidence for researchers and software practitioners.     

Evaluating the service quality of software providers appraised in CMM/CMMI

Recently, several companies have decided to adopt maturity models such as the CMM/CMMI to ensure quality software processes. The state year report of the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) showed that more than three thousand CMMI appraisals have been conducted since 2002. Many of these were performed at software providers, i.e. companies that develop software for other companies. Although the costs of the implementation and appraisal of CMM/CMMI are high for the software providers, there is no formal study investigating whether this investment pays off or, in other words, whether their customers are measurably satisfied with the quality of the service provided. This article presents the results of a formal evaluation of customer perception of the service quality offered by the software providers appraised in CMM/CMMI. We developed an instrument based on a widely used service quality evaluation model (SERVQUAL) and applied this instrument to several customers of software providers appraised in CMM/CMMI. The results show a considerable discrepancy between customers’ expectations and their perceptions of the services provided.     

BOOTSTRAP — a European assessment methodology

During the last three years an ESPRIT project BOOTSTRAP has assessed the capability of examples of the European software industry using a European process assessment and improvement methodology that was developed in the project. The BOOTSTRAP assessment methodology was developed by applying the original SEI model as the main background model. The original SEI approach was adopted in the methodology, and extended with features based on the guidelines from ISO 9000 quality standards and ESA (European Space Agency) process model standards. The extensions were made in order to fit the methodology into the European context, and to attain more detailed capability profiles in addition to maturity levels, separately for both organizations and projects. Although the BOOTSTRAP approach was formed by extending the original SEI model with new and reshaped features, it is still possible to distinguish the maturity levels that are equivalent to the SEI model. The methodology includes a guided assessment process, questionnaires and an algorithm for maturity and capability determination, guidelines for process improvement, an assessor training programme and licensing policy, and computer-based tools and a European database that support the consultancy activities.     

Choosing the right business process maturity model

We have built and tested a decision tool which will help organisations properly select one business process maturity model (BPMM) over another. This prototype consists of a novel questionnaire with decision criteria for BPMM selection, linked to a unique data set of 69 BPMMs. Fourteen criteria (questions) were elicited from an international Delphi study, and weighed by the analytical hierarchy process. Case studies have shown (non-)profit and academic applications. Our purpose was to describe criteria that enable an informed BPMM choice (conform to decision-making theories, rather than ad hoc). Moreover, we propose a design process for building BPMM decision tools.     

Data-driven manufacturing: An assessment model for data science maturity

Today, data science presents immense opportunities by turning raw data into manufacturing intelligence in data-driven manufacturing that aims to improve operational efficiency and product quality together with reducing costs and risks. However, manufacturing firms face difficulties in managing their data science endeavors for reaping these potential benefits. Maturity models are developed to guide organizations by providing an extensive roadmap for improvement in certain areas. Therefore, this paper seeks to address this problem by proposing a theoretically grounded Data Science Maturity Model (DSMM) for manufacturing organizations to assess their existing strengths and weaknesses, perform a gap analysis, and draw a roadmap for continuous improvements in their progress towards data-driven manufacturing. DSMM comprises six maturity levels from “Not Performed” to” Innovating” and twenty-eight data science processes categorized under six headings: Organization, Strategy Management, Data Analytics, Data Governance, Technology Management, and Supporting. The applicability and usefulness of DSMM are validated through multiple case studies conducted in manufacturing organizations of various sizes, industries, and countries. The case study results indicate that DSMM is applicable in different settings and is able to reflect the organizations’ current data science maturity levels and provide significant insights to improve their data science capabilities.     

Evolution of a maturity model – critical evaluation and lessons learned

A system documentation process maturity model and assessment procedure were developed and used to assess 78 projects at 28 different companies over a five year period. During this time the original version evolved into second and third versions based on feedback from industry and the experience gained from the assessments. The changes to the model, maturity levels, key practices, scoring scheme and assessment report, and the reasons behind these changes are analyzed in this paper. The biggest lesson learned is that the key practices' degree of satisfaction and not the maturity levels drive the assessment and provide the key information needed for process improvement.     

Applying a framework for the improvement of software process maturity

This article presents the results and lessons learned in the application of the Framework for the Modelling and Measurement of Software Processes (FMESP) in a software company dedicated to the development and maintenance of software for information systems. The aim of FMESP is to provide companies with a conceptual and technological framework for the management of their process models and measurement models in an integrated way. Modelling and measurement are two key factors to promote continuous process improvement. As a result, important benefits were obtained. The company improved the maturity of its processes which allowed it to obtain the ISO 9000 certification. From a research point of view, Action‐Research was successfully applied and as a result the framework was improved and important feedback was obtained, bringing to light new important issues which will be tacked in future work. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Experiences in the Application of Software Process Improvement in SMES

During the last few years, many Software Process Improvement methods (SPI) have been presented to increase the quality of products and services provided by a software organization. Current Software Process Improvement (SPI) methods (i.e. ISO 15504, CBA-IPI,...), are difficult to apply to Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMES) due to the costs (financial, time, and resource) associated with their application. Also, these methods are principally focused on the assessment stage. This paper presents a new SPI method, called MESOPYME, which main focus is to reduce effort and time on the SPI implementation. This method focuses on the improvement implementation stage, which is based on a concept called Action Package, whose components are described (in Section 2.1.). The results obtained in the application of a Requirements Engineering Action Package in three organizations are also presented.     

On the limitations of software process assessment and the recognition of a required re-orientation for global process improvement

Through the years many techniques and tools have been tried and failed to deliver substantial global improvements to the software evolution process. The flavour of the early 1990s has been: attempted improvement using software process assessment methods such as CMM, BOOTSTRAP, etc. This paper represents a considerable and coherent critique of software process assessment as a process improvement driver, focusing on the concerns and perceived shortcomings present. A call is made to re-direct attention and resources towards understanding the true nature of software evolution and the software evolution process towards an adequate theory and practice for process improvement, all in order to save us from the computer. The important, possibly crucial role of feedback at many levels of the organizations that follow the processes that implement software development and maintenance is discussed. Utilizing some empirical findings in relation to software system evolution, it is suggested that the ignoring of feedback may be a major reason why the software process is so difficult to improve. It is argued that the clarification of such an important issue will help to achieve a significant step forward in process improvement, and through its exploitation, lead to significant improvements in quality, satisfaction and performance as well as more relevant education and training on process improvement.     

中小型企业软件过程改进方法研究

软件质量很大程度上取决于生产和维护软件的过程的质量,这一结论已被广泛认可。我国自20世纪90年代开始关注软件过程改进,先后引入ISO9000、CMM/CMMI等过程模型。但这些模型主要源于大型组织的过程经验,在中小型企业中实施起来存在诸多困难。中小型企业如何实施软件过程改进这一问题在业界和学术界一直倍受关注。结合一个典型中小型企业的软件过程改进实践提出了一个持续的、迭代增量的软件过程改进方法,可满足中小型企业希望以较低成本达到良好改进效果的需求。     

Comparing ISO 9001 and the Capability Maturity Model for Software

The Capability Maturity Model for Software developed by the Software Engineering Institute and the ISO 9000 series of standards developed by the International Standards Organization share a common concern with quality and process management. The two are driven by similar concerns and are intuitively correlated. The purpose of this paper is to compare the CMM and ISO 9001. The results of the analysis indicate that, although an ISO 9001 compliant organization would not necessarily satisfy all of the level 2 key process areas, it would satisfy most of the level 2 goals and many of the level 3 goals.     

An open source usability maturity model (OS-UMM)

User satisfaction has always been a major factor in the success of software, regardless of whether it is closed proprietary or open source software (OSS). In open source projects, usability aspects cannot be improved unless there are ways to test and measure them. Hence, the increasing popularity of open source projects among novice and non-technical users necessitates a usability evaluation methodology. Consequently, this paper presents a usability maturity model specifically aimed at usability-related issues for open source projects. In particular, the model examines the degree of coordination between open source projects and their usability aspects. The measuring instrument of the model contains factors that have been selected from four of our empirical studies, which examine the perspectives of OSS users, developers, contributors and the industry. In addition to presenting the usability maturity model, this paper discusses assessment questionnaires, a rating methodology and two case studies.     

A measurement maturity model

Existing process assessment methods are inherently limited as a tool for evaluation of any specific technical area of software development. A review of the coverage of software measurement within two examples of existing process assessment methods is presented. A model of the software measurement process is presented and discussed. The model has been used as the basis for development of a targeted assessment method for the evaluation of the maturity of the software measurement process.