DOC

Part 3 - Process Assessment Guide

By Bonnie Gardner,2014-05-07 10:56
9 views 0
Part 3 - Process Assessment Guide

    Consolidated product

    Software Process Assessment

    Part 3 : Rating Processes

    Version 1.00

    (Formerly PAG 1.01)

    ISO/IEC Software Process Assessment Part 3: Rating processes Working Draft V1.00 Page a

PREAMBLE

    In January 1993 a program of work was approved by ISO/IEC JTC1 for the development of an

    international standard for software process assessment. In June 1993 the SPICE Project

    Organisation was established with a mandate from JTC1/SC7 to:

     assist the standardisation project in its preparatory stage by developing initial working drafts; undertake user trials in order to gain early experience data which will form the basis for

    revision of the Technical Report prior to publication as a full International Standard;

     create market awareness and take-up of the evolving standard. The SPICE Project Organisation completed its task of producing the set of working drafts in June 1995. The SPICE user trials commenced in January 1995. The working drafts have now been

    handed over to JTC1/SC7 for the normal process of standards development, commencing in July

    1995.

    So far as can be determined, intellectual property rights for these documents reside with the individuals and organisations that contributed to their development. In agreeing to take part in the Project, participants agreed to abide by decisions of the Management Board in relation to the conduct of the Project. It is in accordance with this understanding that the Management Board has now agreed to release the baseline set of documents. This introductory statement sets out the terms and conditions under which this release is permitted.

    The documents as released are available freely from the SPICE Project File Server,

    sisyphus.cit.gu.edu.au, by anonymous ftp, or from approved mirrors of the server. A hypertext version of the documents is also available on the World Wide Web at URL http://www-

    sqi.cit.gu.edu.au/spice/

    ISO/IEC Software Process Assessment Part 3: Rating processes Working Draft V1.00 Page b

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

    These terms and conditions apply to the set of documents developed by the SPICE Project, and

    published within the Project as Version 1.0, with the following titles:

     Part 1 : Concepts and introductory guide Part 2 : A model for process management Part 3 : Rating processes

     Part 4 : Guide to conducting assessment Part 5 : Construction, selection and use of assessment instruments and tools

     Part 6 : Qualification and training of assessors Part 7 : Guide for use in process improvement Part 8 : Guide for use in determining supplier process capability

     Part 9 : Vocabulary

    1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of any or all of the Documents as you receive them,

    in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish with each copy a copy

    of these Terms and Conditions. You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy.

    2. You may copy extracts from these documents in materials for internal or public use, providing you

    provide clear acknowledgment of the source of the material, by citation or other appropriate

    means.

    3. You may not copy, modify, sub-license, or distribute the Documents except as expressly provided

    under these Terms and Conditions.

    Released on the Authority of the SPICE Management Board:

    Project Manager Alec Dorling

    Technical Centre Managers:

    Europe Harry Barker

    Canada, Central and South America Jean-Normand Drouin

    USA Mark Paulk / Mike Konrad / Dave Kitson

    Asia Pacific Terry Rout

    Members: Catriona Mackie, Bob Smith, Emmanuel Lazinier, Jerome Pesant, Bob Rand,

    Arnoldo Diaz, Yossi Winograd, Mary Campbell, Carrie Buchman, Ali Azimi, Bruce

    Hodgen, Katsumi Shintani

    ISO/IEC Software Process Assessment Part 3: Rating processes Working Draft V1.00 Page c

Product Managers:

     Part 1 : Concepts and introductory guide

    Product Manager: Terry Rout

     Part 2 : A model for process management

    Product Managers: Al Graydon, Mark Paulk

     Part 3 : Rating processes

    Product Manager: Harry Barker

     Part 4 : Guide to conducting assessment

    Product Manager: Harry Barker

     Part 5 : Construction, selection and use of assessment instruments and tools Product Managers: Mary Campbell, Peter Hitchcock, Arnoldo Diaz

     Part 6 : Qualification and training of assessors

    Product Manager: Ron Meegoda

     Part 7 : Guide for use in process improvement

    Product Managers: Adriana Bicego, Pasi Kuvaja

     Part 8 : Guide for use in determining supplier process capability Product Manager: John Hamilton

     Part 9 : Vocabulary

    Product Manager: Terry Rout

    Acknowledgment:

    Acknowledgment is made to all contributors of the SPICE project without whom the project could not

    have been conceived and carried through successfully.

    Note on document formatting

    Use the following margins for equivalent printing on A4 or US letter paper (these are NOT the SPICE

    standards)

    Paper size A4 US letter (imperial) Top margin 34.1 mm or 1.34 inches 25.4 mm or 1.0 inches Bottom margin 34.1 mm or 1.34 inches 25.4 mm or 1.0 inches Left margin 25.4 mm or 1.0 inches 28.4 mm or 1.12 inches Right margin 25.4 mm or 1.0 inches 28.4 mm or 1.12 inches

    ISO/IEC Software Process Assessment Part 3: Rating processes Working Draft V1.00 Page d

    SOFTWARE PROCESS ASSESSMENT Part 3 Rating Processes

    Contents

    Foreword......................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2 1 Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Normative references ................................................................................................................ 4 3 Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 5 4 Requirements ............................................................................................................................ 6 4.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 6 4.2 Defining the assessment input .......................................................................................... 6 4.3 Responsibilities ................................................................................................................. 6 4.4 Assessing and rating processes ........................................................................................ 7

    4.4.1 Assessing processes ............................................................................................ 7

    4.4.2 Rating components .............................................................................................. 7

    4.4.3 Rating scales........................................................................................................ 8

    4.4.4 Weighting ............................................................................................................. 8

    4.4.5 Rating references ................................................................................................. 9

    4.4.6 Basis for Comparison ........................................................................................... 9

    4.4.7 Assessment Instrument ........................................................................................ 9

    4.5 Recording the assessment output ................................................................................... 10

    4.5.1 The process profile ............................................................................................. 10

    4.5.2 The assessment record ...................................................................................... 10

    ISO/IEC Software Process Assessment Part 3: Rating processes Working Draft V1.00 Page i

Foreword

In June 1991, the fourth plenary meeting of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 approved a study period (resolution

    144) to investigate the needs and requirements for a standard for software process assessment.

    The results, which are documented in a Study Report (JTC1/SC7 N944R, 11 June 1992), came to

    the following major conclusions:

     there is international consensus on the needs and requirements for a standard for process

    assessment;

     there is international consensus on the need for a rapid route to development and trialling to

    provide usable output in an acceptable timescale and to ensure the standard fully meets the

    needs of its users;

     there is international commitment to resource the project with an international project team

    staffed by full time resource, with development being coordinated through four technical

    development centres in Europe, N America (2) and Asia Pacific;

     the standard should initially be published as a Technical Report Type 2 to enable the

    developing standard to stabilise during the period of the user trials, prior to its issuing as a full

    International Standard.

    The new work item was approved in January 1993 by JTC1. In June 1993 the SPICE Project

    Organisation was established with a mandate from JTC1/SC7 to:

     assist the standardisation project in its preparatory stage to develop initial working drafts;

     undertake user trials in order to gain early experience data which will form the basis for

    revision of the published Technical Report prior to review as a full International Standard;

     create market awareness and take-up of the evolving standard.

    The SPICE Project Organisation completed its task of producing the set of working drafts in June

    1995. These working drafts have formed the basis for this Technical Report Type 2. The period of

    SPICE user trials commenced in January 1995 and is synchronised in phases to allow feedback to

    the stages of the technical work.

    ISO/IEC Directives state that a Technical Report Type 2 may be used to publish a prospective

    standard for provisional application so that information and experience of its practical use may be

    gathered.

    This Technical Report Type 2 consists of the following parts, under the general title Software Process

    Assessment:

     Part 1 : Concepts and introductory guide Part 2 : A model for process management Part 3 : Rating processes

     Part 4 : Guide to conducting assessment Part 5 : Construction, selection and use of assessment instruments and tools

     Part 6 : Qualification and training of assessors Part 7 : Guide for use in process improvement Part 8 : Guide for use in determining supplier process capability

     Part 9 : Vocabulary

    This part of this International Standard (part 3) is normative

    ISO/IEC Software Process Assessment Part 3: Rating processes Working Draft V1.00 Page 1

Introduction

    This part of the International Standard defines the minimum set of requirements for conducting a software process assessment to ensure that the outputs of the assessment are consistent, repeatable and representative of the process instances assessed.

    Process assessment is an activity that is performed either during a process improvement initiative as described in part 7 of this International Standard, or as part of a capability determination exercise as described in part 8. In either case, the formal entry to the assessment process occurs with the compilation of the assessment input which defines the purpose of the assessment (why it is being carried out), the scope of the assessment (which processes are being assessed), what constraints, if any, apply to the assessment, and any aditional information that needs to be gathered. The assessment input also defines the responsibility for carrying out the assessment and gives definitions for any processes within the scope of the assessment that are extended processes (see part 2 of this International Standard).

    Process assessment is undertaken to understand an organizational unit's current processes. An assessment may be conducted as a self-assessment, an assisted self-assessment, a self-assessment with external verification, or an independent assessment. A team or an individual approach can be used to perform the assessment. This International Standard does not define one methodology for the performance of an assessment but rather a framework and key elements that an assessment methodology should incorporate.

    An assessment is carried out by assessing selected processes against the process model defined in part 2 of this International Standard. This consists of a set of process-specific base practices on one hand and a set of generic practices on the other hand. The generic practices apply across all processes. The generic practices are grouped into five process capability levels that define how well the process is managed. The assessment output includes a set of process capability level ratings for each process instance assessed.

    An assessment is implemented with the aid of an assessment instrument, or set of instruments, constructed according to the requirements and guidance contained in part 5 of this International Standard. The process assessment may be carried out by a team with at least one qualified assessor who has the competencies described in part 6 of this International Standard, or on a continuous basis using suitable tools for data collection. Part 4 of this International Standard provides guidance for interpreting the requirements for a team-based assessment.

    This part of the International Standard assumes familiarity with the relevant guidance parts of the standard. It is primarily addressed to the qualified assessor and other people, such as the sponsor of the assessment, who need to assure themselves that the requirements have been met. It will also be of value to developers of assessment methods and of tools to support an assessment. ISO/IEC Software Process Assessment Part 3: Rating processes Working Draft V1.00 Page 2

1 Scope

    As part of the Software Process Assessment Standard this document establishes the requirements

    for a software process assessment, for rating, analysing and profiling an assessment, and defines the

    circumstances under which assessment results are comparable.

    Process Assessment is applicable in the following circumstances:

    a) by or on behalf of an organization with the objective of understanding the state of its own

    processes for process improvement;

    b) by or on behalf of an organization with the objective of determining the suitability of its own

    processes for a particular requirement or class of requirements; c) by or on behalf of one organization with the objective of determining the suitability of another

    organization's processes for a particular contract or class of contracts. This document describes a process assessment framework which:

    a) encourages self-assessment;

    b) takes into account the context in which the assessed processes operate; c) produces a set of process ratings (a process profile) rather than a pass/fail result; d) through the generic practices, addresses the adequacy of the management of the assessed

    processes;

    e) is appropriate across all application domains and sizes of organization. ISO/IEC Software Process Assessment Part 3: Rating processes Working Draft V1.00 Page 3

2 Normative references

There are no normative references in this part of the International Standard.

ISO/IEC Software Process Assessment Part 3: Rating processes Working Draft V1.00 Page 4

3 Definitions

    For the purposes of this part of this International Standard, the definitions in Software Process Assessment - Part 9 : Vocabulary apply.

    ISO/IEC Software Process Assessment Part 3: Rating processes Working Draft V1.00 Page 5

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com