SYNTHESIS OF QUANTITATIVE MATURITY MODEL SCALES FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20998/2079-0023.2025.02.18Keywords:
software development process, quality, maturity model scales, cost optimization, optimization planning model, expert methods, sequential option analysis methodAbstract
In this work, the concept of quality is defined as one of the most important indicators for evaluating products and services. The main stages of the evolution of this concept are examined. At the fourth stage, characterized by Total Quality Management (TQM), the ISO 9000 series of quality system standards emerges. The TQM stage and these standards are marked by the beginning of their application to software (SW) and the software development (SD) process. The paper reviews standards related to the following maturity models for assessing the SD process: Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) and Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination (SPICE). The CMMI model has two usage options: continuous and staged, while the SPICE model is only continuous. In the continuous model, maturity is assessed based on the following components: focus areas for CMMI and processes for SPICE. The staged CMMI model evaluates the quality of the entire software development process. In all three cases, quality is determined using score-based qualitative scales. Further research showed that score-based scales are not fully suitable for planning quality improvement in the SD process. Therefore, the goal of the study was to develop a technology for converting score-based qualitative scales into quantitative ones using a utility function, which made the developed models more adequate to real-world SD processes. Based on this, a technology for transforming a score-based qualitative scale into a quantitative scale using a utility function is proposed. The essence of the technology is that each capability level is treated as an alternative utility value for a focus area or process. Then the methodology of collective expert evaluation is applied, specifically the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) pairwise comparison method by Saaty, in which a team of experts assesses the utility of capability levels relative to one another. As a result, specific utility values for each capability level are obtained on a scale from zero to one. Appropriate resources are required for planning the quality improvement of individual focus areas and processes. Therefore, the next task is cost optimization aimed at maximizing the utility function. A technology for constructing balanced quantitative scales based on the obtained quantitative maturity model scales is presented. The essence of a balanced scale is that the intervals between individual utility estimates for a focus area or process, depending on the resources provided, should not differ significantly. One of the most significant directions for further research is the development of an optimization algorithm for planning the improvement of SD process maturity levels based on the method of sequential option analysis.
References
Rafa Al Qutaish. Quality Models in Software Engineering Literature: An Analytical and Comparative Study. Journal of American Science. 2010, vol. 6, pp. 166–175.
Estdale J., Georgiadou E. Applying the ISO/IEC 25010 Quality Models to Software Product. Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement. EuroSPI 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science. 2018, vol 896, pp. 492–503
Mesquida Antoni, Ma Antònia, Alcover Amengual, Calvo Manzano Jose. IT Service Management Process Improvement based on ISO/IEC 15504: A systematic review. Information & Software Technology. 2012, vol. 5, pp. 239–247.
Mutafelija B., Stromberg Process improvement with CMMI v1.2 and ISO standards. Boca Raton, Auerbach Pubs, 2009, 406 p.
Hodlevsʹkyy M. D., Brahynsʹkyy Y. L. Dynamichna modelʹ i alhorytm upravlinnya yakistyu protsesu rozrobky prohramnykh system na osnovi modeli zrelosti [A dynamic model and algorithm for quality control of the development process of software systems based on the maturity model]. Problemy ynformatsyonnykh tekhnolohyy [Information Technology Issues]. Kherson, OLDY Plyus Publ., 2012, pp. 6–13.
Hodlevsʹkyy M. D., Holoskokova A. A. Syntez statychnykh modeley planuvannya polipshennya yakosti protsesu rozrobky prohramnoho zabezpechennya [Synthesis of static planning models for improving the quality of the software development process]. Skhidno–Yevropeysʹkyy zhurnal peredovykh tekhnolohiy [Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies]. Kharkiv, 2015, no. 3/2 (75), pp. 23–29.
Hodlevsʹkyy M. D., Holoskokova A. O., Burlakov H. O. Dynamichna modelʹ planuvannya rozvytku pidmnozhyny protsesiv etalonnoyi modeli zrilosti SPICE [A dynamic development planning model for a subset of processes of the SPICE Maturity Reference Model]. Visnyk NTU "KhPI": zb. nauk. pr. Seriya: Sy’stemny’j analiz, upravlinnya ta informacijni texnologiyi. [Bulletin of NTU "KhPI". Series: System analysis, control and information technology]. Kharkiv, NTU "KhPI" Publ., 2020, no. 2 (4), pp. 10–16.
Sokol V. Ye., Hodlevsʹkyy M. D., Malets D. K. Otsinka yakosti protsesu rozrobky prohramnoho zabezpechennia IT-kompanii na osnovi vykorystannia funktsii korysnosti. [Quality assessment of the software development process of an IT company based on the use of the utility function]. Visnyk NTU "KhPI": zb. nauk. pr. Seriya: Sy’stemny’j analiz, upravlinnya ta informacijni texnologiyi. [Bulletin of NTU "KhPI". Series: System analysis, control and information technology]. Kharkiv, NTU "KhPI" Publ., 2024, no. 1 (11), pp. 9–17.
Kryuchkovskiy V. V., Petrov E. G., Sokolova N. A., Khodakov V. Ye. Introspektivnyy analiz. Metody i sredstva ekspertnogo otsenivaniya. [Introspective analysis. Methods and means of expert assessment]. Kherson, Grin D. S. Publ., 2011, 168 p. (In Russ.).
Saaty T. L. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh, RWS Publ., 1996, 370 p.
Salo A. A. On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 1997, vol. 6, pp. 309–319.
Lootsдоma F. A. Conflict resolution via pairwise comparison of concessions. European Journal of Operational Research. 1989, vol. 40, pp. 109–116.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
