1997
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1670(199703)3:1<47::aid-spip64>3.0.co;2-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evolving improvement paradigms: capability maturity models and ISO/IEC 15504 (PDTR)

Abstract: This paper describes the evolution of the structure and representation of Capability Maturity Modelssm and various components of the ISO/IEC 15504 (PDTR) product set, formerly known as ‘SPICE’ (Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination). ‘15504’ will be used as shorthand for the product set encompassed by the 15504 project. The paper focuses on historical, structural, and conceptual evolution of the two product types. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

1998
1998
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Analysis by Paulk et al [21] and Garcia [22], later adopted as a design strategy for the CMMI [23] established that a Maturity Level in a "Staged Representation" of a process model could be seen as defined through a specified profile of process capability. Given significant interest from users of the Standard in the assessment of organizational maturity, the task of defining a suitable set of requirements was taken on, resulting in a new part of ISO/IEC 15504 -Part 7, Assessment of Organizational Maturity [24].…”
Section: Continuous Improvementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Analysis by Paulk et al [21] and Garcia [22], later adopted as a design strategy for the CMMI [23] established that a Maturity Level in a "Staged Representation" of a process model could be seen as defined through a specified profile of process capability. Given significant interest from users of the Standard in the assessment of organizational maturity, the task of defining a suitable set of requirements was taken on, resulting in a new part of ISO/IEC 15504 -Part 7, Assessment of Organizational Maturity [24].…”
Section: Continuous Improvementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The models and standards provide a set of processes for good (or best) SE, SwE and IS practices, but differs in some items exhibited in Table 1. The Table 2 (derived from Collin, 2004;Garcia, 1998;ISO, 2005;ITGI, 2000;Sheard & Lake, 1998;SEI, 2006;Tantara, 2001;Wright, 1998) shows the history of the main models and standards in SE, SwE, and IS. Table 2 is the lack of models and standards of processes for IS area.…”
Section: History and Aims Of The Main Se Swe And Is Models Of Standamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the case of models and standards of processes, these have been studied individually (Gray, 1996;Garcia, 1998;Humphrey, 1998;Arnold & Lawson, 2004;Curtis, Phillips, & Weszka, 2001;Menezes, 2002) and comparatively (Sheard & Lake, 1998;Johnson & Dindo, 1998;Wright, 1998;Paulk, 1995Paulk, , 1998Paulk, , 1999Halvorsen & Conrado, 2000;Minnich, 2002;Boehm & Vasili, 2005). While both kinds of studies on standards and models of processes have been useful to describe the main categories of processes, contrast directly two or more schemes, identify their focus of application, strengths and weaknesses, similarities and differences, and their fitness with a particular SE or SwE development approach, all of them have not used a normative-generic systemic model of a worldwide organization to estimate their process completeness and process balance constructs, neither to estimate their inherent business process understanding complexity in practitioners.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%