Software Process Maturity And Capability Evaluation

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

NAME ETC.,

ABSTRACT

Literature review revealed that many project management and software engineering activities in IT organizations do not follow the conventional and scientific methods. Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is a recognized model for installing process maturity and capability in software project and engineering initiatives. The objective of the present paper is to review the extent to which IT organizations make use of organized software process capability models in performing their software development activities. This also include reviewing the extent to which software products are developed and documented as well as level of adherence to existing defined organizational software specific processes. The review revealed that the IT organizations do not have adequate documentation of their organizational software processes. Further most of them perform the software development activities by means of in-house established methods. The present review paves way for the development of a conventional system for performing software process maturity and capability evaluation model in software organizations.

KEYWORDS: Maturity model, level of adherence, geographical distribution, in house methods, software products

1.0. INTRODUCTION

Outcome of software development is expected to be repeatable if the team involved is to be described as dependable. Dependability in software development can only be achieved through rigorous software development processes and project management practices. The present review focuses on knowing the current state of software process maturity level of the software industry.

The specific objectives of the review include;

Survey the software practices adopted by a good number of software companies;

Apply the Software Engineering Institution (SEI) Maturity Questionnaire to further gather data;

Properly summarize and document the data collected;

Evaluate the practices in the industry based on key process areas.

Apply Capability Maturity Model Integration Methods to determine the maturity and capability levels of the industry.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Majed Alyahya [3] described the characteristics of projects to include bringing about a change of state in entities of concern within well planned time frames. This indicates a strong relationship between projects and processes.

A prior study comparing CMMI using Standard CMMI on Process Improvement Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) appraisals for different countries have been reported by Amescua [5]. Their study revealed the observed trends in CMM to include the following: Higher maturity levels seen mostly outside the USA and India are the leading in SW-CMM.

China and Korea are emerging as outsourcing centers. Increasing number of high maturity companies in Canada, Ireland, Australia considered for outsourcing due to native English starting to report lower levels of SW-CMM.

The number of companies each year using CMM to assess their software management practices more than doubles every five years According to Dr. Reena Dadhich [1, 3], production of software provides many potential benefits for developing countries, including creation of jobs, skills and income. According to him also, selling software services to the domestic market is the choice of most developing countries software enterprises, but it typically represents a survival strategy more than a development strategy. He further iterated that most information systems in developing countries fail either totally or partially due to the notion he described as design-reality gaps. Heeks [6] gave a very descriptive view of the Nigerian software industry. According to him, 43.7% of the companies had 1-5 IT professionals, 27.2% had 6-15, 23.3% had 16-50, and only 5.8% of firms had more than 50 IT professionals. Also, 51% of the companies were involved with servicing imported applications, 25% were involved with Developing and servicing local applications, while 24% were involved with servicing and developing local and imported applications. This basically reveals that most of the software companies in the industry are small, and not as much attention as expected is given to developing and servicing local applications. Virtually no attention is given to the development of software tool. Also, their work revealed that Nigerian software industry showed significant use of formal methods but with a strong tendency to rely on in-house-developed methods rather than industry standards. The work of Erdogan etal [9] produced the Maturity Questionnaire which formed the major instrument of information elicitation during the course of the study discussed in this paper. According to Yucalar etal [9], Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement appraisals can help organizations identify the strengths and weaknesses of their current processes, reveal crucial development and acquisition risks, set priorities for improvement plans, derive capability and maturity level ratings, and even perform realistic benchmarking.

CMMI is a model for evaluating the maturity of software engineering and project management processes. It is a model to evaluate and measure the maturity of the software development process of an organization. It measures the maturity of the software development process on a scale of levels 1 to 5.

A maturity level can be said to be a well-defined evolutionary plateau toward achieving a mature software process. Each maturity level provides a layer in the foundation for continuous process improvement. In CMMI models, there are five maturity levels designated by the numbers 1 through 5. Maturity levels consist of a predefined set of process areas. The maturity levels are measured by the achievement of the specific and generic goals that apply to each predefined set of process areas. The following sections describe the characteristics of organizations at each maturity level.

Maturity Level 1 – Initial: Processes are usually ad hoc and chaotic. They do not provide stable work environment. Success depends on the competence and heroics of the people in the organization and not on the use of proven processes.

Maturity Level 2 – Managed: The projects of the organization have ensured that requirements are managed and that processes are planned performed, measured, and controlled. They ensure that existing practices are retained during times of stress.

Maturity Level 3 – Defined: Processes are well characterized and understood, and are described in standards, procedures, tools, and methods.

Maturity Level 4 - Quantitatively Managed: At maturity level 4 sub-processes are selected that significantly contribute to overall process performance. These selected sub-processes are controlled using statistical and other quantitative techniques.

Maturity Level 5 – Optimizing: Processes are continually improved based on a quantitative understanding of the common causes of variation inherent in processes. Maturity level 5 focuses on continually improving process performance.

Maturity levels cannot be skipped. Each maturity level provides a necessary foundation for effective implementation of processes at the next level.

Higher level processes have less chance of success without the discipline provided by lower levels.

Higher maturity level processes may be performed by organizations at lower maturity levels, with the risk of not being consistently applied in a crisis [4].

Another important area is capability level. A capability level is a well-defined evolutionary plateau describing the organization's capability relative to a process area [2][4]. Capability levels are cumulative, i.e., a higher capability level includes the attributes of the lower levels. In CMMI models with a continuous representation, there are six capability levels designated by the numbers 0 through 5.

Capability Level 0 – Incomplete: An "incomplete process" is a process that is either not performed or partially performed. One or more of the specific goals of the process area are not satisfied and no generic goals exist for this level.

Capability Level 1 – Performed: This is a process that is expected to perform all of the Capability Level 1 specific and generic practices. Performance may not be stable and may not meet specific on continuous process improvement [7].

Process measured and controlled Process characterized for the organization and is characterized for projects and is often unpredictable, poorly controlled, and objectives such as quality, and cost, but useful work can be done. It means that you are doing something but you cannot prove that it really works for you.

Capability Level 2 – Managed: A managed process is planned, performed, monitored, and controlled for individual projects, groups, or stand-alone processes to achieve a given purpose. Managing the process achieves both the model objectives for the process as well as other objectives, such as cost, schedule, and quality.

Capability Level 3 – Defined: A defined process is a managed (capability level 2) process that is tailored from the organization's set of standard processes according to the organization's tailoring guidelines, and contributes work products, measures, and other process-improvement information to the organizational process assets.

Capability Level 4 – Quantitatively Managed level: Since the latest CMMI Version calls for capability level5, capability levels 0to4 are discussed above as a prelude. However with respect to capability level 4 a quantitatively managed process is a defined (capability level 3) process that is controlled using statistical and other quantitative techniques. Quantitative objectives for quality and process performance are established and used as criteria in managing the process capability level 5 is used for latest version of CMMI.

Capability Level 5 – Optimizing: An optimizing process is a quantitatively managed process that is improved, based on an understanding of the common causes of process variation inherent in the process. It focuses on continually improving process performance through both incremental and innovative improvements.

Kelemen etal [8] did some work on the reliability test of the SEI MQ. According to them, the Spearman-Brown formula was used to make all of the reliability estimates applicable to instruments of equal lengths. During their study, a point was noted where all of the internal consistency values for full length instruments were above the 0.9 minimal threshold. For this reason, the full length instrument was therefore considered to be internally consistent for practical purposes. This capability level is used in the latest version of CMMI.

3.0 METHODOLOGY OF PRESENT WORK

Two major research methodologies that are normally used include survey research and case study research methodologies.

Survey Research: According to research objectives, a survey of the software practices adopted by software companies is made.

An instrument – Maturity Questionnaire (MQ) – was used to gather information about software process implementation within the companies covered. This instrument was administered to solutions developers and software project managers in the industry. This instrument served as the key data collection tool for the survey.

Case Study Research: Some of the companies were taken as case studies for more detailed investigation. A direct observation of their activities and environment was carried out. Indirect observation and measurement of process related phenomena was also performed. The companies involved were visited and observed over a period of time to see how they actually implement their software development process. Both structured and unstructured interviews were also used to solicit information. Documentation, such as written, printed and electronic information about the company and its operations were another method by which information was gathered.

The software process maturity questionnaire (MQ) replaces the 1987 version of the maturity questionnaire, CMU/SEI-87-TR-23, in the 1994 set of appraisal products. This version of the questionnaire is based on the capability maturity model (CMM) v1.1. It has been designed for use in the new CMM-based software process appraisal methods: the CMM-based appraisal for internal process improvement (CBA IPI) which is the update of the original software process assessment (SPA) method, CMM-based software capability evaluations (SCEs), and the interim profile method. The questionnaire focuses solely on process issues, specifically those derived from the CMM. The questionnaire is organized by CMM key process areas (KPAs).

However the questionnaire should be based on the CMMI latest version based on capability level 5.

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Out of the 10 companies surveyed, only responses from 7 companies were found useful. Responses from three companies were either inconsistent or could not be verified. As such, the evaluation of the companies was based on responses from 7 companies. In order to meet the objective of this study, the key practices were organized according to key process areas. The key process areas were organized according to maturity level. Only the result for maturity level 2 is discussed this section. This is because an evaluation of the key practices at maturity level 2 suffices to arrive at a conclusion as to which maturity level of the software industry belongs. However while finalizing the maturity level that is to be used, the CMMI process areas and KPAs are to be considered and suitable maturity level is to be chosen

To appraise an organization using the Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI), the organization is considered to have reached a particular level of maturity when it has met with all of the objectives/practices within each of the key process areas from maturity level 2 to the maturity level in question. This work shall therefore progress in that order, starting with the appraisal of the key process areas and practices found within maturity level2, until a point is reached where all the objectives/practices associated with a particular KPA are not met.

5.0. CONCLUSION

To achieve the objective of this review work, the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) for software process improvement was employed. The SEI Maturity Questionnaire (MQ) was the primary instrument used for eliciting data from respondents. Survey (using the MQ), and Case Study combined research methodologies were applied. The survey revealed that the software industry is very deficient in so many areas.

This review work as described in this work paves way for design and development of a conventional system for performing software process maturity and capability evaluation in software organization.

CMMI provides guidance for efficient, effective improvement across multiple process disciplines in an organization. It benefits the organization by providing a common, integrated vision of improvement. The ultimate benefit is improved performance that means decreased costs, improved on-time delivery, improved productivity, improved quality, and improved customer satisfaction. Another benefit is return on investment. Such a program more than pays for the monetary investment required. These are all reasons why CMMI is the choice for process improvement in multiple industries. [10]