Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Frameworks for quality software process: SEI Capability Maturity Model versus ISO 9000

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the historical characterization of software development as being costly due to massive schedule delays, incorporation of the ever-changing technology, budget reductions, and missing customer requirements, the trend of the 1990s in establishing a quality improvement or a quality assurance programme has been over-whelming. The two popular models or frameworks for assessment of a quality assurance programme are the US government-sponsored Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and the internationally recognized ISO-9000 quality standards. Both of these two frameworks share a common concern regarding software quality and process management. Since it is not clear which of these two frameworks is most effective in achieving their shared objectives, it is valuable and timely to provide an objective overview of both models and to compare and contrast their features for quality software development. Because there are many legitimate areas for comparison, we have selected the two most important as a basis for comparison: (1) the role of management, and (2) the application of measurements. We also provide a summary of the reported impact of these two models on the organizations adhering to their standards, and include our observations and analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bamford, R.C. and Deibler II, W.J. (1993) Comparing, contrasing ISO 9001 and the SEI capability model.Computer 26(10), 68–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J.H. and McWhinney, M.S. (1992) Software measures and the capability maturity model. Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-92-TR-25, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollinger, T.B. and McGowan, C. (1991) A critical look at software capability evaluations.IEEE Software 8(4), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldiera, G. (1995) personal communication.

  • Card, D. (1993) BOOTSTRAP: Europe’s assessment method.IEEE Software 10(5), 93–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Card, D. (1994) Making the business case for process improvement.IEEE Software 11(7), 115–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carleton, A.D., Park, R.E. and Goethert, W.B. (1992) Software measurement for DoD systems: recommendations for initial core measures. Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-92-TR-19, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawood, M. and Egan, L.G. (1994) ISO 9000 in the Department of Defense.CrossTalk, November, pp. 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawood, M. (1994) It’s time for ISO 9000CrossTalk, March, pp. 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dichter, C. (1993) How good really? Software audits.Unix Review 11(10), 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan Jr., L.G. (1993) ISO 9000-3: Key to quality software and global success.I&CS, January, 63–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, S. (1993) Management of quality in computing systems education: ISO 9000 series quality standards applied.Journal of Systems Management 44(9), 6–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florac, W.A. (1992) Software quality measurement: a framework for counting problems and defects. Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-92-TR-22, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh PA 15213, September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goethert, W.B., Bailey, E.K. and Busby, M.B. (1992) Software effort and schedule measurement: a framework for counting staff-hours and reporting schedule information. Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-92-TR-21, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbsleb, J., Carleton, A., Rozum, J., Siegal, J. and Zubrow, D. (1994) Benefits of CMM-based software process improvement: initial results. Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-94-TR-13, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, August.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, W.S. and Sweet, W.L. (1987) A method for assessing the software engineering capability of contractors. Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-87-TR-23, (Preliminary Version), Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, W.S., Synder, T.R. and Willis, R.R. (1991) Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft.IEEE Software 8(4), 11–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, W.S. (1992) Introduction to software process improvement. Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-92-TR-7, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inwood, C. (1993) Developers still lagging in ISO preparation.Computing Canada 19(17), 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inwood, C. (1994) Standards may solve user frustration.Computing Canada 20(2), 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. (1995) Chaos: the dollar drain of IT project failures.Application Development Trends,2(1), 41–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. (1995) Gaps in SEI programs.Software Development 3(3), 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kan, S.H., Basili, V.R. and Shapiro, L.N. (1994) Software quality: an overview from the perspective of total quality management.IBM Systems Journal 33(1), 4–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosemann II, L.K. (1994) Why the new metrics policy?.CrossTalk, April, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, R.E. (1992) Software size measurement: a framework for counting source statements. Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-92-TR-20, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulish, D.J. and Carleton, A.D. (1994) Case studies of software process improvement measurement.Computer 27(9), 50–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B. and Weber, C.V. (1993a) Capability maturity model, version 1.1.IEEE Software,10(7), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulk, M.C., Weber C.V., Garcia, S.M., Chrissis, M.B. and Bush, M. (1993b) Key practices of the capability maturity model, version 1.1. Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-93-TR-025, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulk, M.C. (1995) How ISO 9001 compares with the CMM.IEEE Software 12(1), 74–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, H.A. (1995) Measurement: despite its promise, successful programs are rare.Application Development Trends 2(1), 21–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saiedian, H. and Kuzara, D. (1995) SEI capability maturity model’s impact on contractors.IEEE Computer 28(1), 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmauch, C. (1992)ISO 9000 for Software Developers. ASQC Quality Press.

  • Software Acquisition Metrics Working Group (1992) Software measurement concepts for acquisition program managers. Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-92-TR-11, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, June.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 68182, Omaha, NE, USA

    Hossein Saiedian

  2. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), 68005, Bellevue, NE, USA

    Laura M. McClanahan

Authors
  1. Hossein Saiedian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura M. McClanahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saiedian, H., McClanahan, L.M. Frameworks for quality software process: SEI Capability Maturity Model versus ISO 9000. Software Qual J 5, 1–23 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02420941

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02420941

Keywords

Search

Navigation