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.

[1]  Félix O. García Rubio.  Fmesp: marco de trabajo integrado para el modelado y la medición de los procesos software , 2004 .

[2]  Terence Patrick Rout,et al.  Measurement and Analysis in Capability Maturity Model Integration Models and Software Process Improvement , 2003 .

[3]  Jean Bézivin,et al.  Applying The Basic Principles of Model Engineering to The Field of Process Engineering , 2004 .

[4]  Boris Mutafelija,et al.  Systematic Process Improvement Using ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI , 2003 .

[5]  Mario Piattini,et al.  An XMI-Based Repository for Software Process Meta-modeling , 2002, PROFES.

[6]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Definition and Empirical Validation of Metrics for Software Process Models , 2004, PROFES.

[7]  Staðlaráð Íslands,et al.  Gæðastjórnunarkerfi : grunnatriði og íðorðasafn = Quality Management Systems : fundamentals and vocabulary. , 2006 .

[8]  Mario Piattini,et al.  A Metric-Based Approach for Predicting Conceptual Data Models Maintainability , 2001, Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng..

[9]  Sergio Luján-Mora,et al.  Empirical Validation of Metrics for Conceptual Models of Data Warehouses , 2004, CAiSE.

[10]  U. S. Army.  Making Measurement Work , 2022 .

[11]  Meliha Handzic,et al.  Managing Software Engineering Knowledge , 2010, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[12]  Coral Calero,et al.  Empirical validation of referential integrity metrics , 2001, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[13]  Antonio Vallecillo,et al.  An Ontology for Software Measurement , 2006, Ontologies for Software Engineering and Software Technology.

[14]  K. Hambridge.  Action research. , 2000, Professional nurse.

[15]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Supporting Software Maintenance in Web Repositories through a Multi-agent System , 2003, AWIC.

[16]  William A. Florac,et al.  Measuring the Software Process: Statistical Process Control for Software Process Improvement , 1999 .

[17]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Integrated Measurement for the Evaluation and Improvement of Software Processes , 2003, EWSPT.

[18]  Mario Piattini,et al.  No-redundant Metrics for UML Class Diagram Structural Complexity , 2003, CAiSE.

[19]  Mark C. Paulk,et al.  A Comparison of ISO 9001 and the Capability Maturity Model for Software , 1994 .

[20]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Using a qualitative research method for building a software maintenance methodology , 2002, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[21]  Marcela Genero.  Metrics For Software Conceptual Models , 2005 .

[22]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Measuring the Quality of Entity Relationship Diagrams , 2000, ER.

[23]  Mario Piattini,et al.  Towards a consistent terminology for software measurement , 2006, Inf. Softw. Technol..