TOWARDS A GLOBAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

MATURITY MODEL

Leonardo Pilatti Jorge Audy

School of Computer Science, 6681 Avenida

Ipiranga, Pontifical University Catholic of Rio Grande do Sul

Keywords: Global Software Development,

Distributed Software Development, Maturity Models Structure

Abstract: Build softwares have always been a challenge. To shape and to implement a computational viable solution

involves a lot of technical and social questions (referring to the interaction between stakeholders). This

complexity increases, significantly, when dispersed global teams are used. The necessity to have a set of

processes better to organize the development strategy appears as one of the main challenges to be explored.

The objective of this article is to present a proposal of structure for a maturity model for global software

development. The study is based on an ample theoretical revision on the structures of the main maturity and

government models of information technology. The empirical base of this study will involve a multinational

organization of software development with branch offices in Brazil, Russia and India.

1 INTRODUCTION

To work with teams globally distributed has been an

activity more frequent during the software

development. While the time-to market tends to be

less using this type of strategy, the necessity to

develop products with quality and speed tends to be

a counterbalance in the scale of this type of work

(Delmonte, 2003). These changes are causing a great

impact in such a way in the market, as well as in the

types of software products that are being created. In

this direction, the global software development

(GSD) has attracted a great number of researches in

some knowledge domains. Because of the great

technical and social complexity, the searches on

models that facilitate the development of software

with teams geographically distributed tend to

increase. There are a lot of efforts that has been done

by researchers and the management with the

intention to understand the factors that allow

multinationals organizations to get success crossing

physical and cultural borders of its countries.

In this context, this article has the objective to

prese

nt the structure of a preliminary model of

maturity for global software development, in order

to organize and to establish processes that facilitate

the adoption of this strategy. The model structure

was the result of an ample analysis of the main

maturity models structure from information

technology. Amongst them, have the SW-CMM, the

CMMI, the SPICE, the ITIL and the CobiT. This

structure is a part of a study in the search for a

maturity model for GSD. It will compose a

preliminary model, with it, cases studies will be

conducted in organizations with software

development units in Brazil, India and Russia.

This article is composed as: section 2 presents

the theoretical base; section 3 descri

bes the research

method; section 4 presents analyses and comments

on the structure of the studied maturity models

structure, section 5 shows the structure of the

preliminary maturity GSD model elaborated and the

section 6 presents the final considerations and

research limitations.

2 THEORECTICAL BASE

2.1 Maturity Models

2.2.1 SW-CMM

The SW-CMM (Software Capability Maturity

odel) is a product for organizations that develop

software. Made by the Software Engineer Institute

(SEI) (Paulk, 1995), this model aims to supply

subsidies for a better engineering and quality control

of software products. The structure of CMM consists

of six components, which, are delimitated by a set of

key process areas, in them, there are a common

474

Pilatti L. and Audy J. (2005).

TOWARDS A GLOBAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT MATURITY MODEL.

In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 474-477

DOI: 10.5220/0002527604740477

 SciTePress

features that need to be address by a key practice to

reach a generic or common goal.

It is composed of five incremental maturity levels

by which an organization establishes and improves

its software development process. Except for level 1,

each maturity level consists of several key process

areas that an organization have overcome to achieve

a maturity level.

2.2.2 CMMI

The CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integrated)

is an evolution of model SW-CMM (Kulpa, 2003).

The main change is at the definition level, being able

to improve areas that the SW-CMM did not attend.

In accordance to (Kulpa, 2003) it is a framework that

can be used from diverse representations,

composition by a series of other models. The CMMI

can be applied in to an organization process or

many. These forms are called continuous and staged,

respectively.

The CMMI model structure is composed by

common process areas, objectives (generic and

specific), elements (common features) and practices

(generic and specific). It has the same levels of SW-

CMM, in essence, with the differentiation that the

CMMI-continuous has a level 0 (incomplete), that

informs that the organization does not implement

any type of process or politics for a key area.

2.2.3 SPICE

In accordance to (Rocha, 2001), the SPICE

(Software Process Improvement and Capability

determination) was the project of future norm

ISO/IEC 15504 for evaluation of software processes.

SPICE model approaches the concept of evolution in

the capacities level of an organizational process.

When the processes are being implemented, the

organization can reach new levels of model

usability, thus exceeding, for new levels. The levels

of model SPICE are classified as: Level 0:

Incomplete; Level 1: Executable; Level 2: Managed;

Level 3: Established; Level 4: Predictable; Level 5:

Optimized. The structure of the model is composed

by maturity levels that are similar to the SW-CMM

model.

2.2.4 ITIL

The ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure

Library) is a framework of better practical developed

in the end of the 80’s for the Standard British for IT

Service Management. It is a set of documents whose

objective is to implement a service of IT assets

management (ITIL, 2004). This framework can be

customized, and defines how the services will be

carried through inside of the organization for the IT

area.

Its structure is not connected to a set of processes

or practical, but to better organize the processes and

procedures that the organization must implement.

The levels of the ITIL are identified as, Level 0:

Non-existent, Level 1: Initial, Level 2: Repeatable,

Level 3: Defined, Level 4: Managed, Level 5:

Optimised.

2.2.5 CobiT

Currently being kept by the ISACA (Information

Systems Audit and Association Control), the CobiT

(Objectives Control will be Information and related

Technology), is a reference model that it

structuralizes the processes and procedures in the

sector of information technology. Figure 1 presents

the elements of the CobiT. Composed of domains,

processes and activities, that must be lined up with

the processes, the resources and the IT criteria

(Ridley, 2004).

As long the objectives of the processes are being

reached, and the usability of the model is increased,

the organization advances in maturity levels. This

evolution is represented by a scale of 0 the 5 which

represent the levels of maturity of the model. In the

same way as the ITIL, the maturity levels evaluate

the degree of usability and integration that the

guidelines prescribe for the organization. The CobiT

defines has some guidelines in each process

dimension that can be customized by the

organization, facilitating its implementation.

Figure 1: CobiT model structure

3 RESEARCH METHOD

The research is organized in 2 stages (A and B).

Each stage has 3 dependent phases. The Figure 2

presents the relationship between the stages and

phases.

TOWARDS A GLOBAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT MATURITY MODEL

475

Stage A:

- Phase 1: Consists in a theoretical revision on

the maturity models structures;

- Phase 2: Does a detailed analysis on the models

structure;

- Phase 3: Presents the GSD preliminary maturity

model structure.

Stage B:

- Phase 1: Has the objective to propose a GSD

maturity model.

- Phase 2: Looks to lead case studies in some

organizations that use the GSD strategy.

- Phase 3: aims to elaborate improvements and to

provide feedback for a new version for the model

structure.

4 MATURITY MODELS

STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

Some properties were identified as common in the

models structures, as:

a) The models structures are iterative, or either, a

time is necessary until reaching definitive level of

qualification or maturity;

b) The maturity levels are composed by a set of

processes or documents that satisfy it;

c) The maturity levels serve to have an

impression, at some moment, on the usability of the

model in the organization. Its evolution is always

referring itself exactly and not to other variable.

d) The processes that compose the maturity

levels aim to reach objectives or to establish politics

and standards;

e) In the structures that use key processes areas,

there is a checklist to validate if the objectives of

each process or norm had been reached;

f) Maturity models are not restricted to processes

definitions and guidelines. They have other

components such as people and tools;

g) The model structures affects and changes the

processes management, people and the organization

assets.

The SW-CMM has one of the simplest structures

used of the models presented here. Moreover, it was

created to look for the necessities of organizations

that develop software. However, as presented for

(Nolan, 1999), it has limitations on its generic

definition. It also didn’t specify the relationship

between the software development and the IT

governance, did by ITIL and CobiT. In this aspect,

using these models structures could complement this

lack, can be a solution, in terms of GSD.

Between the ITIL and the CobiT, there is an

alignment into the business needs, the resources and

the IT processes. The ITIL encloses the governance,

but does not represent the involved elements, leaving

this to the organization. The SW-CMM does not

possess flexibility to reach the maturity in definitive

areas without reaching all items of the current level.

The GSD maturity model can not have this

limitation, because it may be interesting for the

organization not reach certain maturity in definitive

process for political or strategy questions.

5 TOWARD A GSD MATURITY

MODEL

Based on the maturity models structure analysis, it

was defined that the basic format that composes the

preliminary GSD maturity model, based on the SW-

CMM and the CobiT.

The SW-CMM presents an adequate structure of

organization and relations between the components.

The aggregated components of the SW-CMM are:

- Structure format;

- Elements Composition, guided by a maturity

level.

The CobiT did not limit to organize in processes

areas, moreover, it explores in a bigger depth, the

use of guidelines to drive the processes that can be

implemented and institutionalized. So, from this

model, the structure will aggregate the following

components:

-Orientation of implementation based on

guidelines;

-Relations at the domain level, which means

there will exist domains inside the model that could

be composed by processes.

Phase 3: GSD structure

osal

Phase 1: GSD maturity model

proposal

Phase 2: Case studies

Phase 2: Models structure anal

sis

Phase 1: Theoretical Revision

Phase 3: Results analyses

Figure 2: Research Phases

ICEIS 2005 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPECIFICATION

476

Based on these components, it was possible to

compose the structure represented on Figure 3.

The maturity levels are grouped in domains.

They represent the capacity for each domain or set

of domains.

The domain capability delimits the target that

must be done in each level of maturity.

The domains, which grouped, compose a

maturity level, are related to the dimensions that are

worked in global development projects (Evaristo,

2003). Domains like trust; levels of dispersion;

synchronization; stakeholders involved; culture;

type of Projects and development process can be

considered as part of GSD organizations.

The processes will compose the domains. Each

process has an objective that it must be reached so

that it attends a domain. The domains can be

composed for one or more processes and must

inform, as it is possible to reach definitive objective.

For example, the organization can have 2 processes

to make the synchronization in the global

development projects. The guidelines are used to

drive the way the processes should be implemented.

They supply subsidies to support the processes. In

the same way, they can guide as an activity or

infrastructure must be used to implement a process.

The activities and/or infrastructures aim to allow

the processes reach the objectives that they must

reach. A set of activities will compose one or more

processes.

The Implementation and Institutionalization aim

to characterize the way as the organization is leading

its domains.

6 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The studies in this area offer excellent chances of

research. In accordance to (Ridley, 2004), the

research GSD area will approximately have a growth

of 65% up to 2006, presenting great changes in the

economic politician scene in countries that will

adopt this type of practical.

The ample theoretical revision did not identify

analyses on the maturity models structure, and as

they could compose a generic model for GSD. In

this direction, this research looked to explore this

space. A study on the main software development

maturity models and technological management was

carried through, composing a structure that will

serve as base for a GSD maturity model.

Future works will evaluate this study and use

cases studies to validate the implemented model. It’s

necessary also, apply the model in organizations that

develop software globally to investigate its

effectiveness.

REFERENCES

Delmonte, Anthony, J.; McCarthy, Richard V. Offshore

Software Development: Is the benefit worth the risk?

In: Ninth Americas Conference on Information

Systems, 2003.

Evaristo, J. R., Scudder, R., Desouza, K., Sato, O. A

Dimensional Analysis of Geographically Distributed

Project Teams: A Case Study, Journal of Engineering

Technology and Management, 2003.

ITIL Service Management. The ITIL Framework. In:

http://www.itil-service-management-

shop.com/itildefinition.htm. August 2004.

Kulpa, Mararet K. Interpreting the CMMI: a process

improvement approach. Auerbach, 2003.

Nolan, R. Managing the Crisis in Data Processing. In:

Harvard Business Review, vol 57, no. 2, 1999.

Paulk M. C. et al. The Capability Maturity Model:

Guidelines for Improving the Software Process.

Addison Wesley, 18

Edition, 1995.

Ridley, Gail; Young, Judy; Carroll, Peter. COBIT and its

Utilization: A framework from the literature. In:

Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences, 2004.

Rocha, Ana R.; Maldonado, José; Weber, Kival. Software

Quality Assurance. Sao Paulo, Prentice Hall, 2001.

Composed by

Maturit

Levels

Capability

Domains

Indicate

Grouped by

Domains

Goals

Achieves

Processes

Implementation and/or

Institutionalization

Addresses

Infrastructures

or Activities

lements

Guidelines

Drive

Can drive

Figure 3: Preliminary GSD model structure

TOWARDS A GLOBAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT MATURITY MODEL

477