Constructing Process Measurement Scales Using the ISO/IEC 330xx Family of Standards

The emerging International Standard ISO/IEC 330xx family can be utilized to assess process quality characteristics, i.e., properties of processes such as process safety, efficiency, effectiveness, security, integrity and sustainability as well as capability like in ISO/IEC 15504. For development of scientific and consistent measurement framework for process quality characteristics, ISO/IEC 33003 defines requirements for a measurement framework in accordance to composite measure development steps. This study addresses some important principles of composite measures, identifies aggregation locales for process quality level (e.g., capability level in ISO/IEC 33020), and defines two types of aggregation methods. The aim is to improve understandability of process measurement frameworks of process quality characteristics.

[1]  Donald R. Cooper,et al.  Business Research Methods , 1980 .

[2]  Ho-Won Jung,et al.  Investigating measurement scales and aggregation methods in SPICE assessment method , 2013, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[3]  T. Saaty.  How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .

[4]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Multiple attribute decision making : an introduction , 1995 .

[5]  Jeffrey R. Edwards,et al.  The Fallacy of Formative Measurement , 2011 .

[6]  Ho-Won Jung.  Rating the process attribute utilizing AHP in SPICE-based process assessments , 2001, Softw. Process. Improv. Pract..

[7]  Stefano Tarantola,et al.  Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide , 2005 .

[8]  J. Edwards.  Multidimensional Constructs in Organizational Behavior Research: An Integrative Analytical Framework , 2001 .

[9]  P. Fayers,et al.  Quality-of-Life Measurement in Clinical Trials—The Impact of Causal Variables , 2004, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[10]  Adamantios Diamantopoulos,et al.  Dynamic and Competitive Effects of Direct Mailings Dynamic and Competitive Effects of Direct Mailings Dynamic and Competitive Effects of Direct Mailings , 2006 .

[11]  Chu Hsiang Chang,et al.  To Aggregate or Not to Aggregate: Steps for Developing and Validating Higher-Order Multidimensional Constructs , 2011 .

[12]  David J. Hand,et al.  Causal variables, indicator variables and measurement scales: an example from quality of life , 2002 .

[13]  Edward G. Carmines,et al.  Reliability and Validity Assessment , 1979 .

[14]  Stefano Tarantola,et al.  Tools for Composite Indicators Building , 2005 .

[15]  Ho-Won Jung,et al.  A STUDY ON THE UTILIZATION OF COMPATIBILITY METRIC IN THE AHP: APPLYING TO SOFTWARE PROCESS ASSESSMENTS , 2005 .

[16]  Judy A. Siguaw,et al.  Formative versus Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure Development: A Comparison and Empirical Illustration , 2006 .

[17]  William M. K. Trochim,et al.  Research methods knowledge base , 2001 .

[18]  Khaled El Emam,et al.  Findings from Phase 2 of the SPICE trials , 2001, Softw. Process. Improv. Pract..

[19]  David W. Gerbing,et al.  An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment , 1988 .

[20]  R. Lennox,et al.  Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. , 1991 .