Share This Article:

Deriving Software Acquisition Process from Maturity Models—An Experience Report

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:351KB) PP. 280-286
DOI: 10.4236/jsea.2010.33034    6,034 Downloads   10,268 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

The establishment of an existing practice scenario was an essential component in providing a basis for further research in the area of COTS software acquisition within the organisation. This report details the identification of means of describing the existing practice of software acquisition within an organisation and identification of models that could be used to present this view. The chosen best practices descriptions for the idealized model were maturity models, including SA-CMM, CMMI-ACQ, and ISO/IEC 12207. This report describes these models briefly and then describes the process of identifying the requirements for idealizing these maturity models into process frameworks that could be identified to actually business process models from a real organisation in order to identify gaps and optimizations within the organisation’s realization of the best practices model. It also identified the next steps in identification of the theoretical best practice framework, which will involve translation of the model to YAWL Petri nets and simulation of the process in order to identify potential modelling flaws or issues with framework efficiency. Implications of the currently ongoing research include the identification and correspondence of specific tasks and activities from ITIL and CoBiT frameworks with the generic key process areas of software acquisition frameworks and identification of sufficiently detailed structural framework models for each level in order to identify appropriate frameworks for application even in cases where these frameworks were not explicitly identified by the organisation or the researcher.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

H. Alfaraj and S. Qin, "Deriving Software Acquisition Process from Maturity Models—An Experience Report," Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, Vol. 3 No. 3, 2010, pp. 280-286. doi: 10.4236/jsea.2010.33034.

References

[1] M. Biro, C. Deak, J. Ivanyos, and R. Messnarz, “From compliance to business success: Improving outsourcing service controls by adopting external regulatory require- ments,” Software Process Improvement and Practice, Vol. 11, pp. 239–249, 2006.
[2] L. Anderson, M. Fisher, and J. Gross, “Case study: IRS business system modernization process improvement,” Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Ins- titute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2004.
[3] J. Cooper and M. Fisher, “Software Acquisition Capability Maturity Model (SA-CMM) Version 1.03,” Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineer- ing Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2002.
[4] J. White, “Managing information in the public sector,” M. E. Sharpe, London, UK, 2007.
[5] J. A. Mykkanen, M. P. Tuomainen, “An evaluation and selection framework for interoperability standards,” Infor- mation and Software Technology, Vol. 50, pp. 176–197, 2008.
[6] F. Navarrete, P. Botella, X. Franch, “Reconciling agility and discipline in COTS selection processes,” Proceedings of the 6th International IEEE Conference on Commercial- off-the-Shelf [COTS]-Based Software Systems, pp. 1–11. IEEE, 2007.
[7] “CMMI product team: CMMI for acquisition, version 1.2: CMMI-ACQ, version 1.2,” Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2007.
[8] S. J. Huang, W. M. Han, “Selection priority of process areas based on CMMI continuous representation,” Infor- mation and Management, Vol. 43, pp. 297–307, 2006.
[9] J. Moore, T. Doran, A. Kark, “Systems and software engineering—software lifecycle processes,” Software & Systems Engineering Standards Committee of the IEEE Computer Society, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, 2rd Edition, Piscataway, 2008.
[10] Y. Hwang, J. G. Park, “Approaches and requirements to develop and improve the standard processes for a research and development organisation,” Systems Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 35–44, 2006.
[11] D. Nichols, “Governing ITIL with COBIT, DITY News- letter,” itSM Solutions LLC, Lexington, USA, 2007.
[12] “ITGI/ISACA: COBIT 4.1,” IT Governance Institute, USA, 2007.
[13] “ITGI/OCG: Aligning COBIT, ITIL, and ISO 1799 for business benefit: Management summary,” Office of Government Commerce, Norfolk, 2007.
[14] “Office of government commerce: Software asset mana- gement,” Stationery Office, London, 2003.
[15] I. Lee, “Selected readings on information technology and business systems management,” Idea Group Inc, London, 2008.
[16] “YAWL: Yet another workflow language,” http://www. yawl-system.com/.
[17] C. Meyers and P. Oberndorf, “Managing software acqui- sition: Open systems and COTS products,” Addison- Wesley, Sydney, 2001.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.