A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ON THE HARMONIZATION

OF REFERENCE MODELS

César Pardo, Francisco J. Pino

IDIS Research Group – Electronic and Telecommunications Engineering Faculty

University of Cauca, Calle 5 No. 4 – 70, Popayán, Cauca, Colombia

Félix García, Mario Piattini

Alarcos Research Group – Institute of Information Technologies & Systems

University of Castilla-La Mancha, Paseo de la Universidad 4, Ciudad Real, Spain

Teresa Baldasarre

Department of Informatics, University of Bari, SER&Practices SPINOFF, Via E. Orabona 4, 70126, Bari, Italy

Keywords: Multi-model, Reference Models, Harmonization, Software Process Improvement, Systematic Review.

Abstract: At present, there are wide ranges of reference models that are available to improve the way to develop and

manage the software development in an organization, e.g. there are models to improve quality management,

such as ISO 9001, for Software Quality Management there is ISO 90003, to improve the capacity of models

there are CMMI and ISO 12207, for the IT Governance, there are ITIL, PMBOK and COBIT, Information

Security Management Systems such as 27000 and Bodies of Knowledge such as SWEBOK, amongst others.

However, the heterogeneity of the models available, together with the need to solve problems from many

dimensions and organizational hierarchies, means that organizations face problems in improvement process

projects which have to deal with different models at the same time. In this article, a systematic review is

presented of works, initiatives and projects published and carried out on the harmonization of multi-model

environments. Another objective stemming from the above is to discuss the significant issues related to this

area of knowledge, providing an up-to-date state of the art and identifying possible related research streams.

1 INTRODUCTION

There is currently a wide range of models that can

be taken as references for the improvement of an

organization’s processes, e.g. models to improve

quality management such as ISO 9001, models for

software quality management such as CMMI, ISO

12207 and ISO 90003, models for IT governance

such as ITIL, PMBOK and COBIT, models for

security management systems such as 27000, models

for IT Service Management such as ISO 20000 and

Bodies of Knowledge such as SWEBOK, amongst

others. According to (Piattini et al., 2007), it would

be imprudent to think that any of the models defined

at present provides a total solution for process

management in the context of: Information Security

Management System (ISMS), Information

Technology Governance Processes (IT Governance),

or processes of development, software maintenance

and operation.

The great diversity and heterogeneity of

available reference models, together with the need to

solve problems from many dimensions and

organizational hierarchies, provides organizations

with a positive environment which enables them to

choose different solutions to various problems and

needs (Pardo et al., 2009). However, each of these

approaches defines its own structure of process

entities, definitions and quality systems, which

increases the complexity in the implementation of

multi-models in a single organization. Organizations

must, therefore, define the most appropriate means

of choosing and implementing multi-models in the

Pardo C., Pino F., Garc

ıa F., Piattini M. and Baldasarre T. (2010).

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ON THE HARMONIZATION OF REFERENCE MODELS.

In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering, pages 40-47

 SciTePress

face of this huge quantity. Harmonization may be

one solution towards working simultaneously with

multiple models (Pardo et al., 2009). The multi-

model environments in software process

improvement are present when an organization

decides or needs to integrate into its processes

different practices or characteristics that are present

not in one, but in several models (Siviy et al.,

2008b).

At present, although the number of related works

on the harmonization of multiple models is small, in

the last 4 years there is within the software

engineering community an ever-increasing interest

in defining solutions for this type of environments.

This is evidenced by the initiatives and projects

performed or being carried out, such as: the PrIME

project of the SEI (SEI, 2010), ARMONÍAS project

of the research group ALARCOS (ARMONÍAS,

2009), Enterprise SPICE (SPICE, 2008), among

other publications and works analyzed in this paper.

In this article, we present a systematic review of

the literature which deals with the proposals that

exist to support the harmonization of reference

models for process improvement. In accordance with

the general goals of systematic reviews, our aim is to

provide an up-to-date state of the art which

synthesizes the work in this area of knowledge and

which can be used to identify gaps from which to

formulate innovative research activities. The works

found are classified and analyzed taking into account

the trends of publication, the models used and the

methods and techniques proposed. Some factors that

influence the work with multiple models, as

identified from the studies analyzed, are set out.

The paper proceeds as follows. In Section 2 the

systematic review itself is presented. Section 3

presents the results obtained and a discussion of

these. Finally, the conclusions and future work are

outlined.

2 SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

ON THE HARMONIZATION

OF REFERENCE MODELS

To carry out the systematic review on the

harmonization of reference models we followed the

guidelines presented in (Kitchenham et al., 2007),

the protocol template defined in (Biolchini et al.,

2005) and the field procedure proposed in (Pino et

al., 2008).

The research question is: What works and

initiatives related to the harmonization and

integration of reference models have been carried

out? The list of keywords used to find an answer to

the research question is shown in the basic search

string presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Basic search strings.

(integration OR integrating OR integrated OR unification OR

unifying OR unified OR combination OR combining OR

combined OR mapping OR mapped OR harmonization OR

harmonizing OR harmonized OR) AND (standards OR models

OR frameworks OR technologies) AND ("process

improvement" OR "software process")

The planned list of sources with which the

systematic review was carried out is:

 Science@Direct, on the subject of Computer

Science,

 Wiley InterScience, on the subject of

Computer Science,

 IEEE Digital Library,

 ACM Digital Library, and

 As grey literature, the reports of the PRIME

project from the SEI were reviewed. In

addition, some papers and works delivered by

experts were reviewed.

The inclusion criterion of the primary studies

obtained focused on the analysis of the title, abstract

and keywords. This allowed us to determine whether

the articles found were related to software process

improvement, and moreover whether they perform

or propose a strategy for carrying out the

harmonization of multiple-models.

The exclusion criterion focused on the reading

and detailed analysis of the abstract and conclusions.

In certain cases where this was not enough, it was

necessary to extend the analysis to other parts of the

document.

The selection of studies followed an iterative and

incremental procedure. This procedure was

implemented by searching, extracting and

visualizing results from each search source

iteratively. In this way the revision report grew and

evolved more and more until it was complete,

thereby obtaining the final revision report.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

On the basis of information extracted from the

studies found, a statistical analysis to show relevant

findings of the systematic review was performed.

Below are the results from different points of view.

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ON THE HARMONIZATION OF REFERENCE MODELS

3.1 Trends of the publications

Multi-model environments

in Software Process Improvement

As shown in Figure 1, we may note that there has

been increasing interest in recent years on the part of

the software engineering community with regard to

process improvement environments where multiple

models are involved.

Figure 1 shows an increase of the publications

found in the last years. From the analysis of the 32

studies found (see all references of the studies

selected in references section), it is possible to

classify them into six categories. Figure 2 illustrates

a summary of the categorized studies.

A brief summary of the studies categorized is

presented below:

a. Studies where only Two Process Reference

Models are Harmonized. These models can be from

the same organization, or different. It is possible to

see that 38% (12) of the works found harmonize

only two models. In these proposals models are

harmonized based on internationally recognized

standards, e.g. ISO 9001 and CMM (Paulk, 1993;

Paulk, 1994; Paulk, 1995), and ISO 9001 and CMMI

(Mutafelija et al., 2003; Yoo et al., 2004; Yoo et al.,

2006a; Kitson et al., 2009). These proposals seek to

integrate the processes of the models from ones that

have been previously institutionalized. Other studies

attempt to integrate CMM or CMMI with other

models different and apart from ISO 9001. These

are: CMM and Cleanroom model (Oshana et al.,

1999), CMMI and SWEBOK model (Mutafelija et

al., 2006), CMMI and Six-Sigma model (Lin et al.,

2009), CMMI and ITIL (CITIL, 2010) and CMMI

and ISO 12207 (Pino et al., 2009).

b. Studies that Harmonize more than Two Process

Reference Models. 9% (3) of the works found

harmonize more than two models, e.g. the high-level

comparison between EIA IS 731, the CMMI

and

SECM (Minnich, 2002), the analysis performed to

identify the problems of interoperability and

harmonization of the models ISO/IEC 15288, EIA

632, IEEE 1220 and other related ISO standards

(Croll, 2002), and the aligning of Cobit 4.1, ITIL V3

and ISO/IEC 27002 for Business Benefit (ITGI,

2008).

c. Studies that Harmonize Two or more Process

Reference Models and Assessment Models. 22% (7)

of the studies analyze the integration of the

assessment models and their implementation in

different process reference models. Some of the

related studies include: analysis of compatibility

between SPICE and CMM (Rout, 1998), analysis of

the compatibility of CMMI as Process Assessment

Model, ISO 12207 as Process Reference Model and

ISO 15504-2 as Measurement Framework (Rout et

al., 2007; Pino et al., 2009), integration of ISO/IEC

15504 and CMMI-SE/SW (Wangenheim et al.,

2005; Rout et al., 2007), defining support structures

and comparison between CMMI and SPICE

(Lepasaar et al., 2002; Foegen et al., 2003), among

others.

d. Studies that Propose unique and/or Universal

Models. 3% (1) of the works found correspond to a

study that proposes a unique and/or universal model,

but which does not describe the solutions used, e.g.

steps, activities or process performed carried out.

The study found presents the lessons learnt from the

definition of the Capability Maturity Model

(iCMM), as a new approach that integrates multiple

approaches, including: ISO 9001, Malcolm

Baldridge National Quality Award criteria,

International lifecycle and assessment standards and

processes, and several CMMs (Ibrahim et al.,

2004a).

Figure 1: Trends of the publications on Multi-Model

environments in Software Process Improvement.

e. Studies that Provide a Solution for Supporting

Multi-model Harmonization. 25% (8) of the works

proposed provide solutions (methodology, process,

framework, activities, tasks, steps, amongst other

elements) for supporting the harmonization of

multiple models, these being the following: the VM

XT project, which is applied as the standard in

harmonizing the different approaches and projects of

Information technology (IT) under a specific model

(Biffl et al., 2006), an ontology for the integration of

quality standards in ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI is

taken for collaborative projects (Ferchichi et al.,

2008). The PRIME project presents the value of

harmonization process improvement in

organizations when different models are in use

ENASE 2010 - International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

Figure 2: Trends of the publications on Multi-Model environments in Software Process Improvement.

(Siviy et al., 2008a; Siviy et al., 2008b; Siviy et al.,

2008c) and Infosys Project defines a path for the

transition from ISO 9001 to SW-CMM level 4,

based on the experience of an organization (Jalote,

1999). Enterprise SPICE is an initiative to establish

an Enterprise Integrated Standards-Based model for

use with international standard ISO/IEC 15504

(SPICE) (SPICE, 2008). In (Ferreira et al., 2009) a

work is presented that identifies principles and

process characteristics for designing a system of

processes at the architectural level and in (Kelemen,

2009) we can discover research that defines a

method for process-based unification of different

approaches to multiple process-oriented software

quality.

f. Studies that Provide Analysis of Multiple

Models or Related Concepts. 3% (1) of the works

found correspond to a study that recognizes the

value of having processes that are drawn from

widely accepted and proven quality models e.g.

CMMI-DEV, ISO 9000, ISO 20000, eSCMSP, ITIL,

Lean Six Sigma and ISO 27001 (Heston et al.,

2009).

3.2 Models used

On the basis of the analysis and classification

performed above, it is significant to highlight that in

the harmonization of models, different types of

models are involved. In Table 2 the process

reference models and reference models for

assessment used in the studies are shown in

alphabetical order. As can be seen in the Table, the

models for assessment that are most frequently used

in the integration with other models are the ISO/IEC

15504 or SPICE, at 11%. Likewise, it can be seen

that the process reference models which are most

frequently used are CMM (13%), CMMI (25%) and

ISO 9001 (18%). On the other hand, models such as

ITIL and ISO 27000 (Part 1 or 2) are used in a lesser

percentage; 5% each one, respectively. The ISO

12207 and Sigma and Lean Six-Sigma have 4% use

compared to other models such as CSE, COBIT,

EIA IS 731, eSCMSP, ISO 20000, SECM,

SWEBOK, V-Modell XT, Six- and other ISO

standards have a 2% usage each.

Table 2: Models used.

Models

Total

Cleanroom Software Engineering (CSE)

CMM

CMMI

COBIT

EIA IS 731

eSCMSP

ISO 12207

SPICE or ISO 15504

ISO 20000

ISO 9001

ISO/IEC 15288, EIA 632, EEE 1220 and

other related ISO standards

ISO 27000 Part 1 and Part 2

ITIL

SECM

Six-Sigma or Lean Six-Sigma

SWEBOK

V-Modell XT

TOTAL

100%

With regard to process reference models, those

which are most widely used are the ISO models at

41%, of which ISO 9001 is the most frequently used,

at 18%, and the SEI models at 39%, of the which the

CMMI is the most frequently used at 25%. Other

models are used in smaller percentage (20%); see

Figure 3(a). Likewise, we can observe that in most

of the studies that involve these models, the way of

achieving CMM or CMMI is analyzed starting from

ISO 9001. Although the major aim is to reuse parts

of the ISO standards in a CMM or CMMI

environment, it is difficult for an ISO-certified

organization to implement CMMI easily because of

the differences in the language, structure, and details

of the two sets of documents; see (Yoo et al.,

2006a).

A:12; 38%

B:3; 9%

C:7; 22%

D:1; 3%

E:8; 25%

F:1; 3%

A: Only two process reference

models are harmonized

B: More of two process references

models

C: Two o more of two process

reference models and assessment

models

D: Unique and/or universal models

(several models)

E: Solution for supporting the multi-

models harmonization

F: Analysis of multiple models or

related concepts

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ON THE HARMONIZATION OF REFERENCE MODELS

Figure 3: Reference model for the assessment and process reference models involved.

With regard to process reference models and

reference model for assessment, Figure 3(b) shows

that: (i) 22% of the studies involve the

harmonization of reference models for assessment

and process reference models and (ii) 78% only

involve the study of process reference models. This

suggests that there is a special interest in analyzing

the compatibility and the relationships between two

approaches, e.g. the relationships established

between CMMI, as a candidate conformant Process

Assessment Model, relative to the Measurement

Framework defined in ISO/IEC 15504-2, and the

Process Reference Model described in ISO/IEC

12207, e.g. (Rout et al., 2007).

3.3 Methods and Techniques Proposed

With regard to the analyses carried out above, this

section provides a brief summary of some of the

methods and techniques used in works found. Table

3 shows those techniques used.

The above table shows that several attempts have

been made to define solutions for the harmonization

of multi-models. These works propose various

techniques with solutions to support harmonization.

The techniques used are classified in different ways,

e.g. the activity used to discover related elements in

several models may be called comparison or

mapping. Other works use terms such as synergy or

compatibility to identify the level of relationship

between models. However, most related comparison

techniques do not use a comparison scale that allows

a range for the relations identified among the models

compared to be established. This would allow the

subjectivity in the comparison to be minimized.

Similarly, combining and merger are used to refer to

several integrated or unified models, but with the

difference that the steps followed for their

integration are not shown. Some works use the term

single model or universal model.

Table 3: Methods and Techniques proposed.

Technique,

term or

concept used

Studies

Number

studies

Integration,

Unification

(Siviy et al., 2008a; Siviy et

al., 2008b; Siviy et al.,

2008c), (SPICE, 2008),

(Yoo et al., 2004; Yoo et al.,

2006b), (Jalote, 1999),

(Biffl et al., 2006),

(Ferchichi et al., 2008)

Comparison,

Mapping,

Align

(Biffl et al., 2006), (Paulk,

1993; Paulk, 1994; Paulk,

1995), (Mutafelija et al.,

2003; Mutafelija et al.,

2006), (Rout, 1998; Rout et

al., 2007), (Minnich, 2002),

(ITGI, 2008), (Oshana et al.,

1999), (Kitson et al., 2009),

(Pino et al., 2009),

(Minnich, 2002),

(Wangenheim et al., 2005),

(Lepasaar et al., 2002)

Combine,

Combination,

Merger,

Single model,

Universal

model

(Lin et al., 2009), (CITIL,

2010), (Ibrahim et al.,

2004b)

Harmonization

(Croll, 2002),

Neither

(Ferreira et al., 2009),

(Kelemen, 2009)

Likewise, complementarily is used to refer to

models that take elements of other models to

maximize their qualities.

It may be seen that of the techniques used in

50% of the studies analyzed, some kind of

comparison, alignment or mapping is used as a

technique leading to the harmonization of multiple

models. Only some of the studies propose different

harmonization techniques. However, we believe that

the techniques or terms used in the other studies

correspond to general or related concepts. In that

sense, we believe that the terms found can be

classified into methods and techniques. The methods

are general procedures and the techniques are

ISO

41%

SEI

39%

Others

20%

Process

Reference

Models

78%

Reference

Models for

Assessment

22%

(a)

(b)

ENASE 2010 - International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

specific procedures applied to the definition or

framework of a method. That is, a method is a

procedure which is generally oriented towards a

specific purpose, while the techniques are different

ways of applying the method. Based on the

techniques found, in Table 3 we have ordered the

techniques, terms or concepts used in the studies

analyzed into a general concept called

harmonization, along with methods, techniques and

the possible objective or result.

Table 4: Methods and Techniques.

Methods

Techniques

Objective

Harmonization

Comparison

Align,

Mapping

(Pino et al.,

2009),

(Mutafelija

et al., 2003;

Mutafelija

et al.,

2006),

(Biffl et al.,

2006),

Complement

Homogenization

Single model,

Universal model

Integration

Unification

Combine,

Merger

(Jalote,

1999), (Yoo

et al., 2004;

Yoo et al.,

2006b),

(Biffl et al.,

2006),

3.4 Factors that Influence the Work

with Multiple Models

The primary studies were also used to search for and

extract the information that reported the factors that

may influence an organization in needing to work

with more than one assessment or process reference

model. The following can be highlighted as some of

these:

 Market Niches with Specific Models. It is

possible that in some market niches the groups

of organizations prefer certain models or fact

standards, e.g. according to the literature

analyzed, CMMI or ISO 9001, respectively.

 Improvement of Practices from Legacy Process

Models. It is possible that is necessary to carry

out the complementarily of the process and

practices which have been institutionalized

from specialized models or more detailed ones,

e.g. to obtain a certification in CMMI from an

ISO certification obtained previously, see (Yoo

et al., 2006a).

 Business Positioning. Although certification on

a specific model does not entail an increase in

sales for an organization, at a commercial level

it increases confidence among its customers,

allowing a better business positioning.

 Leveraged or Merger Corporate. It is possible

that in a corporate merger the organizations do

not use the same model. Taking into account

that in a merger an organization can be

absorbed by other, it is necessary to identify

and define rules to lead the merger adequately.

 Systematic Search of the Capability of the

Processes. For the organizations interested in

performing a continual and ever–more-

complete improvement of their processes, it is

possible that the harmonization of multiple

models may allow them to carry out substantial

growth in the capacity of their processes from

other models.

 Business Growth. Business growth involves

more mature and complex processes. At any

specific time in their business growth,

organizations can require integration of models

and practices that support the performing of

activities and the process of management

and/or development.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Undoubtedly, the effort required in systematic

reviews is considerably greater than for a

conventional review of the literature. The way

systematic reviews are performed allows us to

summarize the evidence found on a specific topic. In

this article a systematic review of the literature on

the harmonization of multi-models for software

process improvement has been presented, which has

allowed us to obtain a view of the initiatives and

related works.

From the results obtained in the current review,

the first observation from the study that was carried

out is that in the last 4 years there has been an ever-

increasing interest on the part of the software

engineering community in harmonizing multiple

models. Currently, software development

organizations may need more than one model to

support and achieve the organization’s strategic

goals. Nevertheless, there is a lack of proposals, so

for the organizations it is no easy task to carry out

the implementation and management of the different

events to be taken into account to harmonize more

than two approaches or models as references for

software process improvement.

With regard to the most frequently used models,

it can be seen that the CMMI as process reference

model is the one most used by the SEI. We note that

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ON THE HARMONIZATION OF REFERENCE MODELS

the models defined by the ISO are the ISO 9001 as

reference model and the ISO 15504 as process

assessment method, while a smaller percentage of

studies involve other models.

Another relevant fact is that the systematic

review carried out has allowed us to identify that,

depending on an organization’s needs, the multi-

model environments are characterized by the

implementation of different approaches and

techniques to support their harmonization. These

techniques are identified using different terms to

bring into consonance two or more models. There is

no single glossary to identify the multiple techniques

used.

Another fact to highlight is that there are

significant differences between the structures,

terminology and approaches; these hinder the

harmonization of multiple models. Likewise, it has

been possible to identify several factors which

influence the work with multi-model environments.

These factors or needs we have identified can

influence the approach to implementation or

selection of the models when carrying out a multi-

model project.

Bearing in mind the shortcomings found in this

current research stream, we are implementing some

proposals towards the definition of a Framework for

the harmonization of multiple models, see (Pardo et

al., 2010). As of this moment, we have defined some

harmonization techniques which make it easier to

harmonize models, e.g. the homogenization

technique and comparison, see (Pardo et al., 2009)

and (Pino et al., 2009) respectively. We are also

working on the definition of an ontology of terms

and relationships that integrate the most frequently

concepts used in this type of environments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been funded by the projects:

ARMONÍAS (JCCM of Spain, PII2I09-0223-7948),

PEGASO/MAGO (MICINN and FEDER of Spain,

TIN2009-13718-C02-01), ARCA (CEC – JCCM of

Spain - and FEDER, HITO-2009-06), Collaborative

Environment to Support Process Improvement for

the Colombian software industry (Colciencias of

Colombia, 3531-403-20708) and QUASIMODO

(PAC08-0157-0668).

REFERENCES

ARMONÍAS, 2009. A Process for Driving Multi-models

Harmonization, ARMONÍAS Project. from

http://alarcos.esi.uclm.es/armonias/.

Biffl, S., Winkler, D., Höhn, R. and Wetzel, H., 2006.

Software process improvement in Europe: potential of

the new V-modell XT and research issues. Software

Process: Improvement and Practice 11(3): 229–238.

Biolchini, J., Gomes, P., Cruz, A. and Travassos, G., 2005.

Systematic Review in Software Engineering. Rio de

Janeiro, Brazil, Systems Engineering and Computer

Science Department, UFRJ: 1-31.

CITIL, 2010. CMMI+ITIL. Retrieved January, from

http://www.wibas.de/publikationen/referenzmodelle/w

as_ist_cmmi/index_de.html.

Croll, P. R., 2002. Interoperability of Systems Engineering

Standards-Harmonizing World and National

Perspectives. In 5th Annual Systems Engineering

Conference.

Ferchichi, A., Bigand, M. and Lefebvre, H., 2008. An

Ontology for Quality Standards Integration in

Software Collaborative Projects. In First International

Workshop on Model Driven Interoperability for

Sustainable Information Systems, France.

Ferreira, A. and Machado, R. J., 2009. Software Process

Improvement in Multimodel Environments. In Fourth

International Conference on Software Engineering

Advances (ICSEA 2009), Porto.

Foegen, M. and Richter, J., 2003. CMM, CMMI and ISO

15504 (SPICE), IT Maturity Services: 52.

Heston, K. M. and Phifer, W., 2009. The Multiple Quality

Models Paradox: How Much ´Best practice` is Just

Enough? Software Process: Improvement and

Practice: (In press).

Ibrahim, L. and Pyster, A., 2004a. A Single Model for

Process Improvement. IT Professional 6(3): 43-49.

Ibrahim, L. and Pyster, A., 2004b. A Single Model for

Process Improvement. IT Professional 6(3): 43–49.

ITGI, 2008. Aligning Cobit 4.1, ITIL V3 and ISO/IEC

27002 for Business Benefit, IT Governance Institute

(ITGI) and Office of Government Commerce (OGC).

131.

Jalote, P., 1999. CMM in Practice: Processes for

Executing Software Projects at Infosys. Massachusetts,

Addison-Wesley Professional.

Kelemen, Z. D., 2009. A Process Based Unification of

Process-Oriented Software Quality Approaches. In

Proceedings of the 2009 Fourth IEEE International

Conference on Global Software Engineering, IEEE

Computer Society.

Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S., 2007. Guidelines for

performing systematic literature reviews in software

engineering: Version 2.3. EBSE Technical Report.

Kitson, D. H., Vickroy, R., Walz, J. and Wynn, D., 2009.

An Initial Comparative Analysis of the CMMI Version

1.2 Development Constellation and the ISO 9000

Family, Software Engineering Institute. Carnegie

Mellon: 70.

ENASE 2010 - International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

Lepasaar, M., Mäkinen, T. and Varkoi, T., 2002.

Structural comparison of SPICE and continuos CMMI.

In In the Proceedings of SPICE 2002, Venice, Italy.

Lin, L.-C., Li, T.-S. and Kiang, J. P., 2009. A continual

improvement framework with integration of CMMI

and six-sigma model for auto industry. Quality and

Reliability Engineering International 25(5): 551–569.

Minnich, I., 2002. EIA IS 731 compared to CMMI

SE/SW. Systems Engineering 5(1): 62-72.

Mutafelija, B. and Stromber, H., 2003. ISO 9001:2000 -

CMMI V1.1 Mappings, Software Engineering

Institute: 31.

Mutafelija, B. and Stromber, H., 2006. Architecting

Standard Processes with SWEBOK and CMMI.

Systems and Software Consortium. In SEPG 2006

Conference.

Oshana, R. S. and Linger, R. C., 1999. Capability maturity

model software development using cleanroom

software engineering principles - results of an industry

project. In Hawaii International Conference on System

Sciences.

Pardo, C., Pino, F., García, F. and Piattini, M., 2009.

Homogenization of Models to Support multi-model

processes in Improvement Environments. In 4th

International Conference on Software and Data

Technologies, Sofía.

Pardo, C., Pino, F., García, F. and Piattini, M., 2010.

Apoyando la armonización de diferentes marcos de

referencia de procesos. In XIII Ibero-American

Conference on Software Engineering (CIbSE'2010),

Ecuador.

Paulk, M. C., 1993. Comparing ISO 9001 and the

Capability Maturity Model for Software. Software

Quality Journal 2(4): 245-256.

Paulk, M. C., 1994. A Comparison of ISO 9001 and the

capability maturity model for software, Software

Engineering Institute: 78.

Paulk, M. C., 1995. How ISO 9001 compares with the

CMM. IEEE Software 12(1): 74–83.

Piattini, M. and Vidal, F. H., 2007. Gobierno de las

tecnologías y los sistemas de información. Madrid,

España, Ra-Ma.

Pino, F., Balssarre, M. T., Piattini, M. and Visaggio, G.,

2009. Harmonizing maturity levels from CMMI-DEV

and ISO/IEC 15504. Software Process: Improvement

and Practice: In press.

Pino, F., Garcia, F. and Piattini, M., 2008. Software

Process Improvement in Small and Medium Software

Enterprises: A Systematic Review. Software Quality

Journal 16(2): 237-261.

Rout, T. P., 1998. SPICE and the CMM: is the CMM

compatible with ISO/IEC 15504? AquIS, Venice, Italy:

12.

Rout, T. P. and Tuffley, A., 2007. Harmonizing ISO/IEC

15504 and CMMI. Software Process: Improvement

and Practice 12(4): 361-371.

SEI, 2010. The PrIME Project. from http://www.sei.cmu.

edu/process/research/prime-details.cfm.

Siviy, J., Kirwan, P., Marino, L. and Morley, J., 2008a.

The Value of Harmonization Multiple Improvement

Technologies: A Process Improvement Professional's

View, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie

Mellon: 15.

Siviy, J., Kirwan, P., Morley, J. and Marino, L., 2008b.

Maximizing your Process Improvement ROI through

Harmonization, Software Engineering Institute (SEI).

Carnegie Mellon University: 16.

Siviy, J., Kirwan, P., Renato, V., Peter, K. and Gerhard,

G., 2008c. SEPG Europe 2008. In Multimodel

Improvement in Practice.

SPICE, 2008. Enterprise SPICE. An enterprise integrated

standards-base model Retrieved April, from

http://www.enterprisespice.com/.

Wangenheim, C. G. v. and Thiry, M., 2005. Analyzing the

Integration of ISO/IEC 15504 and CMMI-SE/SW. San

José, Brasil, LQPS - Laboratorio de Qualidade e

Productividade de Software. Universidad do Vale do

Itajaí - UNIVALI: 28.

Yoo, C., Yoon, J., Lee, B., Lee, C., Lee, J., Hyun, S. and

Wu, C., 2004. An integrated model of ISO 9001:2000

and CMMI for ISO registered organizations. In

Proceedings - Asia-Pacific Software Engineering

Conference, APSEC.

Yoo, C., Yoon, J., Lee, B., Lee, C., Lee, J., Hyun, S. and

Wu, C., 2006a. A unified model for the

implementation of both ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI by

ISO-certified organizations. Journal of Systems and

Software 79(7): 954-961.

Yoo, C., Yoon, J., Lee, B., Lee, C., Lee, J., Hyun, S. and

Wu, C., 2006b. A unified model for the

implementation of both ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI by

ISO-certified organizations. Journal of Systems and

Software 79(7): 954–961.

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ON THE HARMONIZATION OF REFERENCE MODELS