A Hybrid Evaluation Framework of CMM and COBIT for Improving the Software Development Quality

DOI: 10.4236/jsea.2013.65035   PDF   HTML     7,331 Downloads   11,035 Views   Citations


It is essential to study quality of software production like others. Software productions have special properties. They are intangible. So, qualitative evaluation encountered with complexity. Hence, proposing a model in order to evaluate the quality of Software productions is considerable to most software managers and experts. In this paper, regarding to improve software productions quality, the process of software production has been determined, using CMM standard framework of maturity level. In CMM it does not present a method for measurement and evaluation maturity level, the presented process in CMM standard mapped by COBIT control objectives has been combined in the process of software productions development in developed hybrid framework. In this research, the processes have been mapped utilizing focus and established group, in parallel of software production in different maturity level of CMM mapped by COBIT framework. In order to show the capabilities of proposed framework, the hybrid evaluation model was employed in a software developing organization as a case study. According to the results of evaluation, improvements proceedings and action plans have been proposed and discussed to enhance the software production processes.

Share and Cite:

A. Amid and S. Moradi, "A Hybrid Evaluation Framework of CMM and COBIT for Improving the Software Development Quality," Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, Vol. 6 No. 5, 2013, pp. 280-288. doi: 10.4236/jsea.2013.65035.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] E. Agrawal, P. Jain and V. K. Jain, “Comparative Study of ISO 9001,CMMI and Six Sigma with Reference to Software Process Quality,” Global Journal of Enterprise Information System, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2009.
[2] J. S. Osmundson, J. B. Michael, M. J. Machniak and M. A. Grossman, “Quality Management Metrics for Software Development,” Information & Management, Vol. 40, No. 8, 2003, pp. 799-812. doi10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00114-3
[3] B. Singh and S. P. Kannojia, “A Model for Software Product Quality Prediction,” Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, Vol. 5, No. 6, 2012, pp. 395-401. doi10.4236/jsea.2012.56046
[4] G. Kühner, T. Bluhm, P. Heimann, C. Hennig, H. Kroiss, A. Krüger, H. Laqua, M. Lewerentz, J. Maier, H. Riemann, J. Schacht, A. Spring, A. Werner and M. Zilker, “Employing Industrial Standards in Software Engineering for W7X,” Fusion Engineering and Design, Vol. 84, No. 7-11, 2009, pp. 1130-1135. doi10.1016/j.fusengdes.2008.12.019
[5] R. B. Grady and D. L. Caswell, “Software Metrics: Establishing a Company-Wide Program,” Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1987.
[6] N. Ashrafi, “The Impact of Software Process Improvement on Quality: In Theory and Practice,” Information & Management, Vol. 40, No. 7, 2003, pp. 677-690. doi10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00096-4
[7] N. Goel and M. Gupta, “Testability Estimation of Framework Based Applications,” Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2012, pp. 841-849. doi10.4236/jsea.2012.511097
[8] Y. Li Eldon, H.-G. Chen and T.-S. Lee, “Software Process Management of Top Companies in Taiwan: A Comparative Study,” Total Quality Management, Vol. 13, No. 5, 2002, pp. 701-713. doi10.1080/0954 412022000002081
[9] L. Tan, Y. Q. Lin and H. L. Ye, “Quality-Oriented Software Product Line Architecture Design,” Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, Vol. 5, No. 7, 2012, pp. 472-476. doi10.4236/jse a.2012.57054
[10] M. C. Paulk, C. V. Weber, S. M. Garcia, M. B. Chrissis and M. Bush, “Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model, Version 1.1,” 1993. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi
[11] R. V. O’Connor and G. Coleman, “Ignoring Best Practice: Why Irish Software SMES Are Rejecting CMMI and ISO 9000,” Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2009.
[12] H.-W. Jung and D. R. Goldenson, “Evaluating the Relationship between Process Improvement and Schedule Deviation in Software Maintenance Grounded Theory Perspective,” Information and Software Technology, Vol. 51, No. 2, 2009, pp. 351-361. doi10.1016/j.infsof.2008.04.005
[13] J. P. Li, M. L. Li, D. S. Wu and H. Song, “An Integrated Risk Measurement and Optimization Modelfor Trustworthy Software Process Management,” Information Sciences, Vol. 191, 2012, pp. 47-60. doi10.1016/j.ins.2011.09.040
[14] S.-J. Huang and W.-M. Han, “Selection Priority of Process Areas Based on CMMI Continuous Representation,” Information & Management, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2006, pp. 297-307. doi10.1016/j. im.2005.08.003
[15] R. B. Grady, “Measuring and Managing Software Maintenance,” IEEE Software, Vol. 4, No. 5, 2006, pp. 35-45. doi10.1109/MS.1987.231417
[16] C.-H. Cheng, J.-R. Chang and C.-Y. Kuo, “A CMMI Appraisal Support System Based on a Fuzzy Quantitative Benchmarks Model,” Software Industry Service Newsletter, Vol. 54, 2003, pp. 46-57.
[17] Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, “Appraisal Requirements for CMMI, Version 1.1,” Continuous Representation, 2002.
[18] C.-Y. Chen and S. J. Huang, “Using Quantitative Software Metrics to Support CMMI Deployment and Appraisal,” Software Industry Service Newsletter, Vol. 54, 2009, pp. 46-57.
[19] ISACA, “Cobit Mapping: Mapping of CMMI for Developmnet V1.2 with Cobit4.0,” Published in United State of America, ISSN 1-933284-80-3.
[20] A. Pederiva, “The COBIT maturity Model in a Vendor Evaluation Case,” Information Systems Control Journal, Vol. 3, 2003.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 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.