Efficient Adoption and Assessment of Multiple Process Improvement Reference Models

• Autorzy: Jeners S. , Lichter H. , Rosenkranz C. G.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

A variety of reference models such as CMMI, COBIT or ITIL support IT organizations to improve their processes. These process improvement reference models (IRMs) cover different domains such as IT development, IT Services or IT Governance but also share some similarities. As there are organizations that address multiple domains and need to coordinate their processes in their improvement we present MoSaIC, an approach to support organizations to efficiently adopt and conform to multiple IRMs. Our solution realizes a semantic integration of IRMs based on common meta-models. The resulting IRM integration model enables organizations to efficiently implement and asses multiple IRMs and to benefit from synergy effects.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

reference models; semantic integration; IRM integration model

• Wydawca: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej
• Czasopismo: e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: Vol. 7, nr 1
• Strony: 15--24
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 17 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Jeners S.

• Research Group Software Construction, RWTH Aachen University

autor

Lichter H.

• Research Group Software Construction, RWTH Aachen University

autor

Rosenkranz C. G.

• Research Group Software Construction, RWTH Aachen University

Bibliografia

• [1] “CHAOS summary 2009,” The Standish Group, Boston, Tech. Rep., 2009. [Online]. http://www.statelibrary.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/690719/chaos_summary_2009_pdf
• [2] “CMMI for development, version 1.3,” Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI2010-TR-033, ESC-TR-2010-033, 2010. [Online]. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/10tr033.pdf
• [3] ISO/IEC 15504 Information Technology Process assessment. Part 1: Concepts and vocabulary, Part 2: Performing an assessment, Part 3: Guidance on performing an assessment, Part 4: Guidance on use for process improvement and process capability determination, Part 5: An exemplar Process Assessment Model, ISO/IEC Std., 2007.
• [4] “Control objectives for information and related technology version 4.1,” ISACA, Tech. Rep., 2007. [Online]. https://www.isaca.org/bookstore/Pages/Product-Detail.aspx?Product_code=CB4.1
• [5] IEC 61608 or Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems, IEC Std., Rev. 2, 30 April 2010.
• [6] J. Siviy, P. Kirwan, L. Marino, and J. Morley, “Process architecture in a multimodel environment. white paper,” Software Engineering Institute, Tech. Rep., 2008. [Online]. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/assets/multimodelSeries_wp4_processArch_052008_v1.pdf
• [7] D. Malzahn, “Assessing – learning – improving, an integrated approach for self assessment and process improvement systems,” in ICONS 09, the Fourth International Conference on Systems. Gosier, Guadeloupe, France: IEEE Computer Society Conference Publishing Services, 2009, pp. 126–130.
• [8] Y. Wang, G. King, A. Dorling, and H. Wickberg, “A unified framework for the software engineering process system standards and models,” in 4th IEEE International Software Engineering Standards Symposium and Forum, Curitiba , Brazil, 1999.
• [9] A. Ferreira, L. Machado, and M. C. Paulk, “Quantitative analysis of best procedures models in the software domain,” in 17th Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference, 2010, pp. 433–442.
• [10] Y. Wang, G. King, and H. Duncan, “Deriving personal software processes from current software engineering process models,” in European software process improvement: proceedings of the EuroSPI 2000 Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2000.
• [11] O. Armbrust, A. Ocampo, J. Münch, M. Katahira, Y. Koishi, and Y. Miyamoto, “Establishing and maintaining traceability between large aerospace process standards,” in 5th International ICSE Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering, 18 May 2009, pp. 36–40.
• [12] A. Ferchichi, M. Bigand, and H. Lefèbvre, “An ontology for quality standards integration in software collaborative projects,” in Model Driven Interoperability for Sustainable Information Systems, J.-P. Bourey, Ed., Montpellier, FRANCE, 2008, pp. 17–30. [Online]. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-340/paper02.pdf
• [13] L. Liao, Y. Qu, and H. Leung, “A software process ontology and its application,” in International Workshop on Future Software Technology (IWFST-2005), Shanghai, 2005.
• [14] M. Soto and J. Muench, “Using model comparison to maintain model to standard compliance,” in ICSE Workshop Comparison and Versioning of Software Models (CVSM 2008), Leipzig, Germany, 17 May 2008.
• [15] J.-M. Favre, “Megamodelling and etymology,” in Transformation Techniques in Software Engineering, ser. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, J. R. Cordy, R. Lämmel, and A. Winter, Eds., No. 05161. Dagstuhl, Germany: Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, 2006. [Online]. http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2006/427
• [16] D. Steinberg, EMF : Eclipse Modeling Framework. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley, 2009.
• [17] K. Pohl and C. Rupp, Requirements Engineering Fundamentals A study Guide for the Certified Professional Requirements Engineering Exam Foundation Level IREB compliant. Rocky Nook, Inc, Santa Barbara, 2011.