Structure of the ISO/IEC 15504-5:2012 Model

These are standard that are best practices for the software creation procedure and approaches for

the equation of the procedure capabilities assessment and the improvement where necessary (El-

Emam and Garro, 1999). The structure enumerates the software life cycle process and the

outlines the Maturity Models like the Bootstrap, Trillium and the CMM (El Emam and Birk,

2000). Mainly these standards for the process assessment is for the evaluation of the process

strengths as the grounds for the process improvements (Mesquida, Mas, Amengual and Calvo-

Manzano, 2012).

ISO/IEC 15504-5:2012 structure utilises the definition that are brought out by the ISO/IEC

122207:2008 to enumerate the Process Reference Model (Anacleto, von Wangenheim, Salviano

and Savi, 2004). The structure assures to utilise the process of Process Reference Model as to

describe in the Process Assessment Model in terms of the main aim and produce and they are

further categorised into three processes model (Peldzius and Ragaisis, 2011) . The Process

Assessment Model builds on the Process Reference Model progression descriptions by involving

a group of process performance indicators namely Base Practice in each and every procedure

involved in the evaluation of the level of output by affiliating task produce with every process
 Primarily the ISO/IEC 15504-5:2012 Model, shoes how Process Assessment and the Process

Capabilities Determination impacts to process improvements (Barafort, Di Renzo and Merlan,

2002).
Process

  Is examined by Identify capabilities and risk of

Identify changes to

Process Assessment
Leads to

Leads to

Motivates

Capability
Process Improvements
Determination

Ideally the illustration gives the skeleton structure of the standard model (Peldzius and Ragaisis,

2011). Primarily, a process is examined with a validation, which eventually leads to process

capabilities evaluation and process amendments (Peldzius and Ragaisis, 2011) .

Capability determination identifies the capacity and the various risks a process is exposed to and

Process Improvements points out the changes that should be amended to the process (Peldzius

and Ragaisis, 2011). Software capacity’s determination primarily evokes and catalyses the

organisations to integrate the process improvements (Anacleto, von Wangenheim, Salviano and

Savi, 2004).
Process assessments, at this stage all the examinations about the process are evaluated. This stage

determine the final output that the process will encounter (Peldzius and Ragaisis, 2011). The

input of this stage is sourced from a variety of sources, like the utilizers of the process even the

top managers or even the direct users of the system (Peldzius and Ragaisis, 2011).

Software process assessment and improvements using the ISO/IEC 15504 information

technology - Process Assessment model

Basically, the assessment procedures means a collection of any data and information evaluating

the current if any organisations process system capacity and capabilities (Peldzius and Ragaisis,

2011) . Often, commenced when there an inquiry to regulate, determine even improve the

aptitude of these processes. Simulation Program with Integrated Circuit Emphasis document lays

the grounds on which the interpreting of the requirement on how to be set up, ideally this aid the

assessment team. However, these guidelines are directed at leading a team-based valuation, the

principles for the evaluation process can be utilised in consistent manner. Tool-Based

Assessment. Nevertheless, in a continuous pros the data collection differs from the rest.

Ideally, the Simulation Program with Integrated Circuit Emphasis document aims at, firstly steps

on the preparation of the assessment team before embarking on the assessment (Peldzius and

Ragaisis, 2011) . Then guidelines on how to internalise the results of the assessment as well as
the participants of the assessment procedure to actualise the whole procedure of the assessment.

Thirdly, ensuring the understanding of the assessment and the importance of it to all the staff in

the organisation (Anacleto, von Wangenheim, Salviano and Savi, 2004). Finally, the tools and

methodology developers for the valuation equipment even methods reinforcing the Process

Assessment Model to be garnered (Barafort, Di Renzo and Merlan, 2002)..

Process Assessment

The Process assessment can be initiated can commenced by the need for an improvement of the

organisations system. Moreover the process can be as well initiated for the need of evaluating the

organisations system capabilities (Barafort, Di Renzo and Merlan, 2002). The input for the

assessment is collected with the aid of the Assessment tools and the process model is utilised in

the assessment. The final output is the one utilised for the improvements or evaluation of the

process capabilities (Barafort, Di Renzo and Merlan, 2002).

The illustration (Barafort, Di Renzo and Merlan, 2002).

Assessment input

Assessment purpose
From process improvements or the
Assessment scope
output of the capacities evaluation
Assessment constrains

Assessment responsibilities

Extended Process Definitions

Additional information to be collected.

Assessment instruments

Process indicator

Process Management Indicator

Process Assessment

Process Model
Assessment output

Process purpose
Generic practice adequacy evaluation

Practice,
Process capabilities level evaluation

Assessment record

Improvements or determination of the process capabilities.

In case of the improvements are don with, the output of the valuation process provides the

abilities level range of the selected process and the ground on which the plan, preparation,

implementation and monitoring of the specific improvements practices(Barafort, Di Renzo and

Merlan, 2002).. However, if the valuation procedure outlines the capabilities, the output of the

valuation process procures the information for pinpointing, investigating and computing of the

organisations risks, puniness and the strengths (Peldzius and Ragaisis, 2011).

Assessment guide

The valuation procedure contains eight levels, these stages are:

The review of the input assessment, selection of the instance process, preparation stage,

verification and collection of the information, valuation of the real time rating, evaluation and
 determination of the derived grading, validation of the rating and finally, the presentation of the

assessment output (Mc Caffery, Dorling and Casey, 2010).

These are the stages of the assessment in accordance with ISO/IEC 15504-5:2012 model

Mesquida, Mas, Amengual and Calvo-Manzano, 2012).

Aligned to Presentation of the assessment output.

Revision of the assessment

input

Selection of the instances. Validating the rating

Preparation the assessment Determination of the derived rating

Collection and verification of

Determination of the real time rating
information

Simulation Program with Integrated Circuit Emphasis document, inaugurates the necessities for

establishing an assessment instrument (Paulk, 1999). Moreover, it outlines the guidance on the

sorting and usability traits affiliated with an array of assessment tools. Assessment tools, are

basically utilised in the evaluation of the completeness or existence of an activity. An assessment

tool is inquired for the provision of the consistency in set of indicators as discriminators to aid in

verdict giving on how accurately has the practice been implemented. Moreover, the tool provide

a mechanism for recording the information that is collect Mesquida, Mas, Amengual and Calvo-

Manzano, 2012).
The illustration, firstly sets out the minimal necessities to be met in the establishing of an

assessment tool. Secondly, gives meaning to set of indicators to be utilised in an Assessment

Instrument. Finally, provides guidance on the sorting, establishing and usability of Assessment

Instrument (Peldzius and Ragaisis, 2011) .

This Simulation Program with Integrated Circuit Emphasis guidelines is highly utilised by: those

who are responsible for valuation, design and establishment of the Assessment Instruments, for

instance, Assessors, tool suppliers and the methodology providers. Assessors and valuation crew

with the accountability of sorting and grading as well as purchasing of the Assessment Tools

(Paulk, 1999). Finally, Assessors, funders and other affiliated people responsible for valuation

conformance of an assessment tool to those necessities.

Construction of an Assessment instrument

In these standard it has not stipulated the format and design the team should take in the valuation

process. For example, the team can decide to take the paper-based instruments, whereby they can

use the forms, questionnaires or even checklist (Barafort, Di Renzo and Merlan, 2002). Or can be

computer-based thus sing platforms like the spreadsheet, the database structure or the cohesive

CASE tools.

Regardless the format used the main aim of the assessment instruments, is to aid the team of

assessors to perform an assessment in a sequential and reputable manner, hence eradicating

assessors element of subjectivity and ensuring objectivity, usability and compatibility of the final

results (Paulk, 1999). Moreover, all indicators incorporated into an assessment tool shall be vivid

to the team, hence conforming to the corresponding process, generic performs or Validation of

the samples (Barafort, Di Renzo and Merlan, 2002).

Process improvement

Also the standard outline on the management of the improvement of the software of an

organisation (Barafort, Di Renzo and Merlan, 2002). The document guide on the utilisation of

Process Assessment to understand the stature of the process and the creation as well as the

prioritising the improvement strategies (Paulk, 1999). The document is basically aiming at the

overseeing f an organisation considering of the improvement programme of the software, parties

involved in the improvement, software developers and the designers and all consultants both

external and the internal ones Mesquida, Mas, Amengual and Calvo-Manzano, 2012).

Moreover the process also guides in the: firstly the overview of the improvement process,

secondly the application of the methodology for the improvement, thirdly equation and scrutiny

of the cultural issues of the organisation and finally the management, aid in software procedural

improvement from a management viewpoint including the eventual structure for process

enhancement (Anacleto, von Wangenheim, Salviano and Savi, 2004).

Capability Dimension and process Dimension in the context of the ISO/IEC 15504

information technology - Process Assessment model

In accordance with ISO/IEC 15504-2, Process Assessment model involves two dimension

namely the process dimension and the capability dimension.

Process dimension, is in relation with the concept of the Process Reference Model. Process

Reference Model defines processes in manner of a purpose statement and one or more results or

attainments should be quenched when the process or the activity (Rout and Tuffley, 2007). It is

significant in order to attain the aim of the process even the significant capabilities of the process

(Barafort, Di Renzo and Merlan, 2002). The fifth part of the ISO/IEC 15504 exist as a software
Process Assessment model (SPICE Model) with the aid of the amended version of ISO/IEC

12207 acting as the Process Reference Model.

Capability dimension, is related to the valuation framework for the procedural capacity

assessment via process traits and the relevant capabilities level (Rout, 1998). Process Assessment

model, also contain indicators used in the valuation process in order to evaluate the procedural

attribute rating for every process (Rout and Tuffley, 2007). Each trait must be graded on a scale

either achieved or not attained.

Process dimension of the SPICE model, is Process Reference Model and was later on replaced

with the ISO/IEC 12207 adjustments (Rout, 1998). Process Reference Model includes three core

classes of process. Primary Life Cycle Process. Organisational Life Cycle Process and Support

Life Cycle Process.

Capability Dimension and attributes, each of the SPICE model can be sole assessed via the range

of the six capabilities levels: level 0, incomplete, the procedural has yet to be integrated or has

failed in attaining the aim. Contains no traits. Level1, performed, the process is integrated and

fulfilled the aim. Contains one trait Process performance. Level 2, managed, the process attains

the goals and controls its execution. It contains two traits Performance Management and Work

Product Management. Level 3, established the managed process in level two id now integrated as

an outlined and documented procedure that has the ability to attain its results . There are two

traits that is Process Definition and Process Deployment. Level 4, predictable, the defined

process in level three attains the results within the outlined control limitations. The process is

managed and must be predictable, traits at this stage Process Measurement and Process Control.

Level 5, optimisation, the level four predictable process is an incessant improving in order to
attain business goals of the firm. There are two traits Process Innovation and Process

Optimisation (Barafort, Di Renzo and Merlan, 2002).

In conclusion, current industries involved in the software creation are creating questionable

software. Thus the strategic goal of the software organisation standards are to improve the

quality of the production by the application of variety of standards, methodology, tools that

enhance the software development based on the most effective and efficient practices of the

integrated process and results development as well as the process for the maturity assessment of

such activities. Consequently, there is a possibility to determine the needed amendments for the

software development.

Reference

Anacleto, A., von Wangenheim, C.G., Salviano, C.F. and Savi, R., 2004, April. Experiences

gained from applying ISO/IEC 15504 to small software companies in Brazil. In 4th International

SPICE Conference on Process Assessment and Improvement, Lisbon, Portugal (pp. 33-37).

Barafort, B., Di Renzo, B. and Merlan, O., 2002, December. Benefits resulting from the

combined use of ISO/IEC 15504 with the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL).

In International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement (pp. 314-325).

Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

El-Emam, K. and Garro, I., 1999. ISO/IEC 15504. International Organization for

Standardization.

El Emam, K. and Birk, A., 2000. Validating the ISO/IEC 15504 measure of software

requirements analysis process capability. IEEE transactions on Software Engineering, 26(6),

pp.541-566.

Management Process Improvement based on ISO/IEC 15504: A systematic review. Information

and Software Technology, 54(3), pp.239-247.

Mc Caffery, F., Dorling, A. and Casey, V., 2010. Medi SPICE: an update.

Mesquida, A.L., Mas, A., Amengual, E. and Calvo-Manzano, J.A., 2012. IT Service

Paulk, M.C., 1999, October. Analyzing the conceptual relationship between ISO/IEC 15504

(software process assessment) and the capability maturity model for software. In 1999

International Conference on Software Quality.

Peldzius, S. and Ragaisis, S., 2011. Comparison of maturity levels in CMMI-DEV and ISO/IEC

15504. Applications of Mathematics and Computer Engineering, pp.117-122.

Rout, T.P. and Tuffley, A., 2007. Harmonizing iso/iec 15504 and cmmi. Software Process:

Improvement and Practice, 12(4), pp.361-371.

Rout, T., 1998. SPICE and the CMM: is the CMM compatible with ISO/IEC 15504.