article

Software Maintenance Maturity Model (SM^mm): the software maintenance process model: Research Articles

Authors:

Jane Huffman Hayes,

Reiner DumkeAuthors Info & Claims

Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, Volume 17, Issue 3

Pages 197 - 223

Published: 01 May 2005 Publication History

Abstract

We address the assessment and improvement of the software maintenance function by proposing a maturity model for daily software maintenance activities: the Software Maintenance Maturity Model (SM^mm). The software maintenance function suffers from a scarcity of management models to facilitate its evaluation, management, and continuous improvement. The SM^mm addresses the unique activities of software maintenance while preserving a structure similar to that of the Capability Maturity Model integration (CMMi). It is designed to be used as a complement to that model. The SM^mm is based on practitioners' experience, international standards, and the seminal literature on software maintenance. We present the model's purpose, scope, foundation, and architecture, followed by its initial validation. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

References

[1]

1. Colter MA. The business of software maintenance. Proceedings 1st European Workshop of Software Maintenance. Computer Science Department, University of Durham: Durham, U.K., 1987; 12.

[2]

2. Bennett KH. Software maintenance: A tutorial. Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 2000; 289-303.

[3]

3. Pigoski TM. Practical Software Maintenance: Best Practice for Managing Your Software Investment. Wiley: New York NY, 1997; 29-36, 117-138.

Digital Library

[4]

4. Oskarsson Ö, Glass RL. An ISO9000 Approach to Building Quality Software. Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River NJ, 1996; 17-38.

Digital Library

[5]

5. Huffman J, Burgess C. Partially automated in-line documentation (PAID): Design and implementation of a software maintenance tool. Proceedings Conference on Software Maintenance (CSM 1988). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 1988; 60-65.

[6]

6. Pfleeger SL. Software Engineering: Theory and Practice. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 2001; 464-507.

Digital Library

[7]

7. Pressman RS. Software Engineering a Practitioner's Approach. McGraw-Hill: New York NY, 2001; 93, 127, 198, 519, 522-524.

Digital Library

[8]

8. Takang A, Grubb P. Software Maintenance: Concepts and Practice (2nd edn). World Scientific: River Edge NJ, 2003; 349.

[9]

9. Polo M, Piattini M, Ruiz F (eds.). Advances in Software Maintenance Management: Technologies and Solutions. Idea Group Publishing: Hershey PA, 2003; 300.

Digital Library

[10]

10. Khan KM, Zhang Y (eds.). Managing Corporate Information Systems Evolution and Maintenance. Idea Group Publishing: Hershey PA, 2005; 376.

Digital Library

[11]

11. Software Engineering Institute. Capability maturity model integration for software engineering (CMMi), Version 1.1. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-028, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh PA, 2002; 2-5, 12, 57-79, 94-528.

[12]

12. Abran A, Nguyenkim H. Measurement of the maintenance process from a demand-based perspective. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice 1993; 5(2): 63-90.

[13]

13. April A, Bouman J, Abran A, Al-Shurougi D. Software maintenance in an SLA: Controlling the customer expectations. Proceedings 4th European Conference on Software Measurement and ICT control (FESMA-DASMA 2001). Technologisch Instituut vzw: Heidelberg, 2001; 39-47.

[14]

14. Kajko-Mattsson M, Ahnlund C, Lundberg E. CM<sup>3</sup> : Service level agreement. Proceedings 20th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM 2004). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 2004; 432-436.

Digital Library

[15]

15. Kajko-Mattsson M. Corrective maintenance maturity model: Problem management. Doctoral Dissertation, Report Series 01-015, Department of Computer and System Sciences, Stockholm University/Royal Institute of Technology, Kista, Sweden, 2001; 93-101, 145-165.

[16]

16. Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. Service Support. Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL). Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office: Norwich, U.K., 2001; 71-120, 145-150, 165-199, 203-213.

[17]

17. Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. Service Delivery. Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL). Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office: Norwich, U.K., 2001 ; 59-117, 211-292.

[18]

18. Dekleva SM. Delphi study of software maintenance problems. Proceedings Conference on Software Maintenance (CSM 1992). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 1992; 10-17.

[19]

19. Carey D. Executive round-table on business issues in outsourcing: Making the decision.CIO Canada 1994; 2(3): 20-29.

[20]

20. McCracken B. Taking Control of IT Performance. InfoServer LLC: Dallas TX, 2002; 6. Available at: http://www.outsourcing-information-technology.com/control.html {27 January 2005}.

[21]

21. Van Bon J. World Class IT Service Management Guide 2000. ten Hagem & Stam: The Hague, Netherlands, 2000; 263-272.

[22]

22. Schneidewind NF. The state of the maintenance. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1987; 13(3): 303-310.

Digital Library

[23]

23. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE Standard for Developing Software Life Cycle Processes, IEEE Standard 1074. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: New York NY, 1997; 96.

[24]

24. Schmidt M. Implementing the IEEE Software Engineering Standards. Sams Publishing: Indianapolis IN, 2000; 37-47.

Digital Library

[25]

25. Kitchenham BA, Travassos GH, Von Mayrhauser A, Niessink F, Schneidewind NF, Singer J, Takada S, Vehvilainen R, Yang H. Towards an ontology of software maintenance. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice 1999; 11(6): 365-389.

Digital Library

[26]

26. Ruiz F, Vizcaíno A, Piattini M, García F. An ontology for the management of software maintenance projects. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 2004; 14(3): 323-349.

[27]

27. Chapin N, Hale JE, Khan KM, Ramil JF, Tan W-G. Types of software evolution and software maintenance. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 2001; 13(1): 3-30.

Digital Library

[28]

28. Abran A, Moore JW, Bourque P, Dupuis R. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK), Ironman Version. IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 2004; 6-1-6-15. Available at: http://www.swebok.org {27 January 2005}.

Digital Library

[29]

29. Barghouti N, Rosenblum D, Belanger D, Alliegro C. Two case studies in modeling real, corporate processes. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 1995; 1(1): 17-32.

[30]

30. Butler K. The economic benefits of software process improvement. CrossTalk 1995; 8(7): 14-17.

[31]

31. Déry D, Abran A. Maintenance categories benchmarking. Technical Report #3, Projet de Recherche Bell-UQAM, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal QB, Canada, 1995; 21.

[32]

32. Bergeron F, Raymond L, Rivard S. Strategic alignment of information technology: Performance outcomes in small and medium-sized firms. Benchmarking and Best Practices in the New Economy. University of Minho: Braga, Portugal, 2003; 67-72.

[33]

33. International Function Point User Group. Guidelines to Software Measurement version 1.0. International Function Point User Group: Westerville OH, 1994; 17-34.

[34]

34. Hernu M. Using Benchmarking Data Effectively. Solomon Associates Inc: Dallas TX, 2003; 7. Available at: http://www.mt-online.com/current/03-01mm01.html {27 January 2005}.

[35]

35. International Software Benchmarking Standards group (ISBG). Data Collection Questionnaire: Application Software Maintenance and Support. Version 1.1. International Software Benchmarking Standards Group: Victoria, Australia, 2003; 34. Available at: http://www.isbsg.org/isbsg.nsf/weben/Downloads {27 January 2005}.

[36]

36. Grady R, Caswell D. Software Metrics: Establishing a Company-wide Program. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1987; 247-248.

Digital Library

[37]

37. Abran A, Nguyenkim H. Analysis of maintenance work categories through measurement. Proceedings Conference on Software Maintenance (CSM 1991). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 1991; 104-113.

[38]

38. St-Pierre D. Integration of maintenance metrics. Proceedings Conference on Software Maintenance (CSM 1993). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 1993; 374-375.

Digital Library

[39]

39. McGarry J. Practical Software Measurement: A Guide to Objective Program Insight. Department of Defense: Arlington VA, September 1995; 36. Available at: http://www.psmsc.com/UG1997/Presentations/PSM-Project-Update-McGarry.pdf {27 January 2005}.

[40]

40. Abran A, Maya M. A sizing measure for adaptive maintenance work products. Proceedings International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM 1995). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 1995; 286-294.

Digital Library

[41]

41. Huffman Hayes J, Mohamed N, Gao T. The observe-mine-adopt model: An agile way to enhance software maintainability. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 2003; 15(5): 297-323.

Digital Library

[42]

42. Huffman Hayes J, Patel S, Zhao L. A metrics-based software maintenance effort model. Proceedings 8th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR 2004). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 2004; 243-248.

Digital Library

[43]

43. Ebert C, Dumke R, Bundschuh R, Schmietendorf A. Best Practice in Software Measurement. Springer: Berlin, 2005; 203, 243-257.

Digital Library

[44]

44. April A, Al-Shurougi D. Software product measurement for supplier evaluation. Proceedings Software Measurement Conference 2000 (FESMA-AEMES 2000). Federation of European Software Metrics Associations (FESMA): Madrid, Spain, 2000; 7. Available at: http://www.lrgl.uqam.ca/publications/pdf/583.pdf {27 January 2005}.

[45]

45. Booch G, Bryan D. Software Engineering With Ada. Addison-Wesley: Reading MA, 1994; 17-24.

Digital Library

[46]

46. Kajko-Mattsson M, Forssander S, Olsson U. Corrective maintenance maturity model: Maintainer's education and training. Proceedings International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2001). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 2001; 610-619.

Digital Library

[47]

47. Humphrey W. Managing Technical People: Innovation, Teamwork and the Software Process. Addison-Wesley: Reading MA, 2000; 212-217.

Digital Library

[48]

48. Software Engineering Institute. Capability maturity model for software. Technical Report CMU/SEI-91-TR-24, Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh PA, 1991; 82.

[49]

49. Trillium team. Model for the Telecom Product Development and Support Process Capability. Bell Canada: Montréal QB, Canada, 1994; 61. Available at: http://www2.umassd.edu/swpi/BellCanada/trillium-html/trillium.html {27 January 2005}.

[50]

50. European Commission. Bootstrap. Esprit Project #5441. European Software Institute: Brussels, Belgium, 1991; 26.

[51]

51. Software Engineering Institute. Capability maturity model for software (CMM), Version 1.1. Technical Report CMU/SEI- 93-TR-24, Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1993; 64.

[52]

52. Projet France-Québec. Camélia: Modèle d'évolution des processus de développement, maintenance et d'exploitation de produits informatique. Projet France-Québec: Montréal QB, Canada, 1994; 115.

[53]

53. Krause MH. Software: A maturity model for automated software testing. Medical Devices and Diagnostic lndustry, Magazine 1994; 16(12): 103-108. Available at: http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/94/12/014.html {27 January 2005}.

[54]

54. Software Engineering Institute. People capability maturity model. Technical Report CMU/SEI-95-MM-02, Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1995; 445.

[55]

55. Zitouni M, Abran A, Bourque P. Elaboration d'un outil d'évaluation et d'amélioration du processus de la maintenance des logiciels: Une piste de recherche. Proceedings génie logiciel et ses applications, huitièmes journées internationales (GL 1995). EC2 & Cie: Paris, 1995; 727-739.

[56]

56. Burnstein I, Suwannasart T, Carlson C. Developing a testing maturity model for software test process evaluation and improvement. Proceedings of the International Test Conference: Test and Design Validity. IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 1996; 581-589.

Digital Library

[57]

57. Burnstein I, Suwannasart T, Carlson C. Developing a testing maturity model: Part II. CrossTalk 1996; 9(9): 19-23. Available at: http://www.improveqs.nl/pdf/Crosstalk%20TMM%20part%202.pdf {27 January 2005}.

[58]

58. Dove R, Hartman S, Benson S. A change proficiency maturity model. Agility Forum AR96-04. Paradigm Shift International: Questa NM, 1996; 101. Available at: http://www.parshift.com/docs/MaturityMode100.htm {27 January 2005}.

[59]

59. Hopkinson JP. System security engineering maturity model. EWA Canada. EWA Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1996; 18. Available at: http://philby.ucsd.edu/~cse291 _ IDVA/papers/hopkinson.system_ security_engineering_capability_maturity _model.pdf {27 January 2005}.

[60]

60. Department of Defense U.S.A. Systems Security Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SSE-CMM), Version 3.0. Department of Defense: Arlington VA, 2003; 326. Available at: http://www.sse-cmm.org/docs/ssecmmv3final.pdf {27 January 2005}.

[61]

61. Sommerville I, Sawyer P. Requirements Engineering: A Good Practice Guide. Wiley: Chichester, U.K., 1997; 391.

Digital Library

[62]

62. Topaloglu NY. Assessment of Reuse Maturity. Computer Engineering Department, Ege University, Bomova-Izmir, Turkey, 1998; 2. Available at: http://people.cs.vt.edu/~edwards/icsr5/bpt/yasemin.htm {27 January 2005}.

[63]

63. Bajers F. How to introduce maturity in software change management. Technical Report R98-5012, Department of Computer Science, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, 1998; 9. Available at: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~gobe/Publications/Bendix98b/IR.html {27 January 2005}.

[64]

64. Earthy J. Usability maturity model: Processes, Version 1.2. Information Engineering Usability Support Centres. Lloyd's Register: Croydon, U.K., 1998; 34. Available at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/eusc/r_usability_assurance.html {27 January 2005}.

[65]

65. Muthu S, Whitman L, Cheraghi SH. Business process reengineering: A consolidated methodology. Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering Theory, Applications and Practice. University of Texas: San Antonio TX, 1999; 14-16.

[66]

66. Vetter R. The network maturity model for Internet development. IEEE Computer 1999; 132(10): 117-118.

Digital Library

[67]

67. Scholz A, Schmietendorf A. A risk-driven performance engineering process approach and its evaluation with a performance engineering maturity model. Technical Report CSTR-99-007, Computer Science Department, University of Bristol, Bristol, U.K., 1999; 325.

[68]

68. Federal Aviation Administration. The Federal Aviation Administration Integrated Capability Maturity Model (FAACMMi) . Federal Aviation Administration: Washington DC, 1999; 49. Available at: http://www.faa.gov/cm/RegionalMinutes/FAA%20iCMM/ {27 January 2004}.

[69]

69. Garcia Diez AB, Lerchundi R. TeleSpice process model. ESI-1999-telespice-ext. European Software Institute: Bizkaia, Spain, 1999; 22.

[70]

70. Stratton RW. The Earned Value Management Maturity Model. Management Technologies: Brea CA, 2000; 2. Available at: http://www.mgmt-technologies.com/evmtech.html {27 January 2005}.

[71]

71. Bevans N. Introduction to usability maturity assessment. Serco Usability Services. Serco, Ltd.: London, 2000; 10. Available at: http://www.usability.serco.com/trump/documents/Maturity_assessment.ppt.pdf {27 January 2005}.

[72]

72. IT Governance Institute. COBIT Management Guidelines: Governance, Control and Audit for Information and Related Technology. IT Governance Institute, Information System Audit and Control Association (ISACA): Rolling Meadows IL, 2000; 122.

[73]

73. Rayner P, Reiss G. The Programme Management Maturity Model Questionnaire. The Programme Management Group: Wetherby, U.K., 2000; 10. Available at: http://www.e-programme.com/pmmm.htm {27 January 2005}.

[74]

74. Sribar V, Vogel D. The Capability Maturity Model For Operations. Metagroup: Stamford CT, 1995; 3. Available at: http://www.metagroup.com/metaview/mv0452/mv0452.html {27 January 2005}.

[75]

75. Niessink F, Clerc V, van Vliet H. The It Service Capability Maturity Model Release L2+3-0.3 Draft. Software Engineering Research Centre: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; 132. Available at: http://www.itservicecmm.org/doc/itscmm-123-0.3.pdf {27 January 2005}.

[76]

76. Mullins C. The capability maturity model from a data perspective. The Data Administration Newsletter. Robert Seiner: Pittsburgh PA, 2002; 3. Available at: http://www.tdan.com/i003fe04.htm {27 January 2005}.

[77]

77. Veenendaal V, Swinkels R. Guideline for testing maturity: Part 1: The TMM model. Professional Tester 2002; 3(1): 11-15. Available at: http://www.improveqs.nl/pdf/TMM%20testing%20professional%20v1.pdf {27 January 2005}.

[78]

78. Raffoul W. The Outsourcing Maturity Model. Meta Group: Stamford CT, 2002; 3. Available at: http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0%2C14179%2C2851971-2%2C00.html#level1 {27 January 2005}.

[79]

79. Project Management Institute. An Executive Guide To OPM3. Project Management Institute: Brussels, Belgium, 2004; 6. Available at: http://www.pmi.org/prod/groups/public/documents/info/pp_opm3.asp {27 January 2005}.

[80]

80. Kerzner H. Strategic Planning for Project Management Using a Project Management Maturity Model. Wiley: New York NY, 2002; 255.

[81]

81. Windley PJ. eGovernment Maturity. State of Utah: Salt Lake City UT, 2002; 6. Available at: http://www.windley.com/docs/eGovemment%20Maturity.pdf {27 January 2005}.

[82]

82. National Association of State Chief Financial Officers. Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model, Version 1.3. National Association of State Chief Financial Officers: Lexington KY, 2003; 16. Available at: https://www.nascio.org/hotIssues/EA/EAMM.pdf {27 January 2005}.

[83]

83. US Department of Commerce. IT Architecture Capability Maturity Model (ACMM). The Open Group: Burlington MA, 2003; 6. Available at: http://www.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf8-doc/arch/p4/maturity/mat.htm {27 January 2005}.

[84]

84. Schekkerman J. Extended Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model. Institute for Enterprise Architecture Developments (IFEAD): Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2003; 4. Available at: http://www.enterprise-architecture.info/Images/E2AF/E2AMMv2.PDF {27 January 2005}.

[85]

85. Widdows C, Duijnhouwer F-W. Open Source Maturity Model. Cap Gemini Ernst & Young: New York NY, 2003; 18. Available at: http://www.capgemini.com/technology/opensource/ {27 January 2005}.

[86]

86. Ream SW. The Complete Public Domain Business Continuity Maturity Model, Version 1.2. Virtual Corporation: Flanders NJ, 2004; 71. Available at: http://www.virtual-corp.net/html/bcmm_intro.html {27 January 2005}.

[87]

87. International Standards Organization. Software engineering: Software maintenance. ISO/IEC Standard 14764. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998; 37.

[88]

88. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE Standard for software maintenance. IEEE Standard 1219. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: New York NY, 1998; 52.

[89]

89. International Standards Organization. Standard for information technology: Software lifecycle processes. ISO/IEC Standard 12207. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 1995; 87.

[90]

90. Niessink F, Clerc V, van Vliet H. The IT Service Capability Maturity Model, Release 0.4. CIBIT: Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 2004; 173. Available at: http://www.itservicecmm.org/{27 January 2005}.

[91]

91. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program. Criteria For Performance Excellence. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Gaithersburg MD, 2005; 76. Available at: http://www.quality.nist.gov/Business_Criteria.htm {27 January 2005}.

[92]

92. International Standards Organization. Quality management systems: Requirements. ISO Standard 9001:2000 (3rd edn). International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2000; 23.

[93]

93. International Standards Organization. Software engineering: Guidelines for the application of ISO9001:2000 to computer software. ISO/IEC Standard 90003:2004. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004; 54.

[94]

94. International Standards Organization. Information technology: Process assessment: Part 5 an exemplar process assessment model. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 3154 FCD 15504. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004; 200.

[95]

95. April A, Abran A, Bourque P. Analysis of the knowledge content and classification in the SWEBOK chapter: Software maintenance. Technical Report 03-001, École de Technologie Supérieure, GÉLOG, Québec QB, Canada, 2003; 12.

[96]

96. April A, Abran A, Dumke R. SM<sup>cmm</sup> to evaluate and improve the quality of software maintenance process: Overview of the model. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Process Assessment and Improvement (SPICE2004). Critical Software SA: Lisbon, Portugal, 2004; 19-32.

[97]

97. April A, Abran A, Dumke R. Assessment of software maintenance capability: A model and its architecture. Proceedings 8th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR2004). IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 2004; 243-248.

Digital Library

[98]

98. April A, Coallier F. Trillium v3.0: A model for the assessment of telecom software development capability. Proceedings 2nd International SPICE Symposium. Australian Software Quality Research Institute (ASQRI), Griffith University, Queensland, Australia, 1995; 79-88.

[99]

99. El Emam K, Drouin J-N, Melo W. SPICE: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 1998; 75-97.

Digital Library

[100]

100. Coallier F, Mayrand F, Lagüe B. Risk management in software product procurement. Elements of Software Process Assessment and Improvement. IEEE Computer Society Press: Los Alamitos CA, 2000; 23-44.

[101]

101. Kitchenham B. DESMET methodology: Guidelines for evaluation method selection. Technical Report TR96-09, Department of Computer Science, University of Keele, Staffordshire, U.K., October 1993; 49.

[102]

102. Niessink F. Perspectives on improving software maintenance. Doctoral Dissertation, Dutch Graduate School for Information and Knowledge Systems, Utrecht, Netherlands, 2000; 205.

[103]

103. April A, Abran A, Dumke R. Software maintenance productivity measurement: How to assess the readiness of your organization. Proceedings International Workshop on Software Metrics and DASMA Software Metrik Kongress (IWSM/MetriKon 2004). Shaker: Aachen, Germany, 2004; 231-244.

[104]

104. April A, Abran A, Dumke R. Assessment of software maintenance capability: A model and its design process. Proceedings Conference on Software Engineering (IASTED 2004). Acta Press: Calgary AB, Canada, 2004; 31-44.

[105]

105. April A, Abran A, Dumke R. Software Maintenance Capability Maturity Model (SM-<sup>cmm</sup>): Process performance measurement. Proceedings 13th International Workshop on Software Measurement (IWSM 2003). Shaker: Aachen, Germany, 2003; 311-326.

Cited By

Ünlü HDemirörs OGarousi V(2024)Readiness and maturity models for Industry 4.0Journal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.264136:7Online publication date: 14-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1002/smr.2641
Garousi VGiray GTuzun E(2019)Understanding the Knowledge Gaps of Software EngineersACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/336049720:1(1-33)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3360497
Gupta MAsadullah APadmanabhuni SSerebrenik A(2018)Reducing user input requests to improve IT support ticket resolution processEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-017-9532-223:3(1664-1703)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10664-017-9532-2
Show More Cited By

Software Maintenance Maturity Model (SM^mm): the software maintenance process model: Research Articles
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Machine learning
    1. Learning paradigms
      1. Supervised learning
2. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Management of computing and information systems
      1. Software management

Recommendations

A Software Maintenance Maturity Model (S3M): Measurement Practices at Maturity Levels 3 and 4

Evaluation and continuous improvement of software maintenance are key contributors to improving software quality. The software maintenance function suffers from a scarcity of the management models that would facilitate these functions. This paper ...
Software System Documentation Process Maturity Model
Software maintenance productivity and maturity
PROFES '10: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Product Focused Software

Maturity models assess the organization's processes to determine their level of maturity and capability. There is an implicit assumption that a higher level of maturity (or more capability) leads to higher level of productivity and quality. Based on ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice

Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice Volume 17, Issue 3

May 2005

77 pages

ISSN:1532-060X

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 May 2005

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

14
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 09 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Ünlü HDemirörs OGarousi V(2024)Readiness and maturity models for Industry 4.0Journal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.264136:7Online publication date: 14-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1002/smr.2641
Garousi VGiray GTuzun E(2019)Understanding the Knowledge Gaps of Software EngineersACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/336049720:1(1-33)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3360497
Gupta MAsadullah APadmanabhuni SSerebrenik A(2018)Reducing user input requests to improve IT support ticket resolution processEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-017-9532-223:3(1664-1703)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10664-017-9532-2
Zhang TYang GLee BChan AWainwright RCorchado JBechini AHong J(2015)Predicting severity of bug report by mining bug repository with concept profileProceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/2695664.2695872(1553-1558)Online publication date: 13-Apr-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2695664.2695872
Rajlich VHerbsleb JDwyer MHerbsleb J(2014)Software evolution and maintenanceFuture of Software Engineering Proceedings10.1145/2593882.2593893(133-144)Online publication date: 31-May-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2593882.2593893
Lane SGu QLago PRichardson I(2014)Towards a framework for the development of adaptable service-based applicationsService Oriented Computing and Applications10.1007/s11761-013-0136-48:3(239-257)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11761-013-0136-4
Marques-Neto HAparecido GValente MShin SMaldonado J(2013)A quantitative approach for evaluating software maintenance servicesProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/2480362.2480565(1068-1073)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2480362.2480565
Patas JPöppelbuß JGoeken M(2013)Cherry picking with meta-modelsProceedings of the 8th international conference on Design Science at the Intersection of Physical and Virtual Design10.1007/978-3-642-38827-9_24(353-368)Online publication date: 11-Jun-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-38827-9_24
Ishfaq RRaja U(2012)Task-Resource Capability AlignmentInformation Resources Management Journal10.4018/irmj.201210010125:4(1-25)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4018/irmj.2012100101
Edberg DIvanova PKuechler W(2012)Methodology MashupsJournal of Management Information Systems10.2753/MIS0742-122228041028:4(271-304)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.2753/MIS0742-1222280410
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents