A QUESTIONNAIRE BASED METHOD FOR CMMI LEVEL 2 MATURITY ASSESSMENT

  • Fatih Yolcular
  • Şenol Zafer Erdoğan
Keywords: Software Quality, CMMI, Process Improvement, Maturity Models, Process Appraisal

Abstract

CMMI has gained widespread acceptance as a viable software process assessment model. In this study, we take
up CMMI, and consider the first maturity level or level 2 of the model for companies new to CMMI or just
beginning to adopt CMMI in their process improvement efforts. A questionnaire based assessment method was
developed primarily intended to be facilitate quick assessment or self assessment of CMMI maturity level 2 of a
software company. The questionnaire can also be used for process improvement purposes. The paper reports on
the results of conducting the questionnaire at five software companies and discusses its value as an indication of
maturity at level 2 of CMMI and draws conclusions.
 

References

[1] Bieman J., “Editorial: The Illusive Nature of
Quality”, Software Quality Journal, Vol: 11, Number:
1, Pages: 7-8, 2003
[2] Dromey R. G., “Software Quality, Prevention
versus Cure?”, Software Quality Journal, Vol: 11,
Number: 3, Pages: 197-261, 2003.
[3] Pino F., Garcia F., and Piattini M., “Software
process improvement in small and medium software
enterprises: a systematic review”, Software Quality
Journal, Vol: 16, Number: 2, Pages: 237-261, 2008.
[4] Herbsleb J., Carleton A., Rozum J., Siegel J.,
Zubrow D., “Benefits of CMM-Based Software
Process Improvement: Initial Results, Technical
Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-14”, Software Engineering
Institute, Pittsburgh, 1994.
[5] Goldenson D.R., Herbsleb J.D., “After the
Appraisal: A Systematic Survey of Process
Improvement, its Benefits, and Factors that Influence
Success”, Technical Report CMU/SEI-95-TR-009,
Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering
Institute, 1995.
[6] Staples M., Niazi M., Jeffery R., Abrahams A.,
Byatt P., Murphy R., “An exploratory study of why
organizations do not adopt CMMI”, J. System
Software, Elsevier Science Inc., Vol: 80, Number: 6,
Pages: 883-895, New York, NY, USA, 2007.
[7] Hyde W., “Intangible benefits of CMM-based
software process improvement”, Software Process
Improvement and Practice, Vol: 9, Pages: 217-228,
2004.
[8] Jung H. W., Hunter R., Goldenson D., El-
Emam K., “Findings from Phase 2 of the SPICE
Trials”, Software Process Improvement and Practice,
Vol: 6, Number: 4, Pages: 205-242, 2002.
[9] Mary Beth Chrissis, Mike Konrad, Sandy
Shrum: “CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration
and Product Improvement, 2nd Edition”, Addison
Wesley, 2007.
[10] Yoo C., Yoon J., Lee B., Lee C., Lee J., Hyun
S., Wu C., “An Integrated Model of ISO 9001: 2000
and CMMI for ISO Registered Organizations”,
APSEC ’04: Proceedings of the 11th Asia-Pacific
Software Engineering Conference, ISBN: 0-7695-
2245-9, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC,
USA, 2004.
[11] Sun-Jen Huang, Wen-Ming Han: “Selection
priority of process areas based on CMMI continuous
representation”, Inf. Manage., Elsevier Science
Publishers B. V., Vol: 43, Number: 3, Pages: 297-307,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006
[12] Yucalar, F., “Evaluation of companies which
are being in the software sector has an understanding
process focused quality management with the CMMI
staged model (Master Thesis)”, Maltepe University,
Istanbul, Turkey, 2006.
[13] Ekdahl F., Larsson S., Experience Report:
“Using Internal CMMI Appraisals to Institutionalize
Software Development Performance Improvement”,
EUROMICRO ’06: Proceedings of the 32nd
EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering
and Advanced Applications, ISBN: 0-7695-2594-6,
IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA,
2006.
[14] Gray E., Sampaio A., and Benediktsson O., “An
Incremental Approach to Software Process
Assessment and Improvement”, Software Quality
Journal, Vol: 13, Number: 1, Pages: 7-16, 2005
Published
2009-07-20
How to Cite
[1]
F. Yolcular and Şenol Erdoğan, “A QUESTIONNAIRE BASED METHOD FOR CMMI LEVEL 2 MATURITY ASSESSMENT”, JAST, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 39-46, Jul. 2009.
Section
Articles