scholarly journals STUDI TINJAUAN PERBANDINGAN KIPI DAN CMMI SEBAGAI FRAMEWORK STANDAR KEMATANGAN PENGEMBANGAN INDUSTRI PERANGKAT LUNAK DI INDONESIA

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley Karouw
Keyword(s):  
Software Engineering ◽  
Model Integration ◽  
Capability Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Capability Maturity Model Integration ◽  
Engineering Institute

Model kematangan kemampuan atau Capability Maturity Model adalah salah satu pemicu pengembangan industri telematika, dalam hal standarisasi kemampuan pengembang perangkat lunak. KIPI merupakan suatu standar model kematangan kemampuan yang berlaku di Indonesia. KIPI diserap dari CMMI atau Capability Maturity Model  Integration yang dikeluarkan oleh Software Engineering Institute, SEI, dengan penyesuaian tertentu, menurut karakteristik industri telematika dalam negeri. Studi tinjauan perbandingan KIPI dan CMMI sebagai framework standar kematangan pengembangan industri perangkat lunak ini, memaparkan beberapa perbandingan langsung antara CMMI dan KIPI. Perbandingan KIPI dan CMMI merupakan hal penting untuk memahami keterkaitan setiap area kunci proses dalam setiap tahap kematangan dari masing-masing standar ukuran tersebut. Dengan memahami masing-masing area kunci proses, maka implementasi KIPI akan merupakan salah satu faktor penentu tumbuhkembangnya pengembang perangkat lunak dalam negeri menuju terwujudnya visi bangun industri telematika 2020.Kata Kunci: Model Kematangan, Rekayasa Perangkat Lunak, Model Proses, Area Kunci Proses,CMMI, KIPI

Software and Systems Engineering Integration

2011 ◽  
pp. 3525-3530
Author(s):  
Rick Gibson
Keyword(s):  
Software Engineering ◽  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Software Process Improvement ◽  
Capability Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Integrated Product Development ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
Engineering Institute

With software an increasingly significant component of most products, it is vital that teams of software and systems engineers collaborate effectively to build cost effective, reliable products. This article will identify the key aspects of software engineering and systems engineering in an effort to highlight areas of consensus and conflict to support current efforts by practitioners and academics in the both disciplines in redefining and integrating their professions and bodies of knowledge. In response to increasing concerns about software development failures, the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) pioneered a software process improvement model in 1988, with the fully developed version of their Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW- CMMâ) appearing in 1993. Since the early nineties, there have been comparable improvement models introduced in the systems engineering community as well, some of which have been published and widely accepted include: Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE-CMM), also known as the Electronic Industries Alliance Interim Standard (EIA/IS) 731, Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM), and the Integrated Product Development Capability Maturity Model (IPD-CMM). The resulting avalanche of models and standards has been described by Sarah Sheard (Software Productivity Consortium) as a “Framework Quagmire”. In December of 2000, the SEI initiated the Capability Maturity Model–Integrated (CMMISM) project, which combines best practices from the systems and software engineering disciplines. (Note: CMMâ and CMMISM are copyrights and service marks of the Software Engineering Institute.) Recent studies (Carter et al., 2003; Goldenson & Gibson, 2003) have validated the SEI’s assertion the each of the disciplines benefit from incorporation of principles from the other. Moreover, there appears to be no fundamental differences between the disciplines that would prevent their integration.

scholarly journals Avaliação da maturidade do processo de desenvolvimento de veículos automotivos

2006 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heitor Luiz Murat de Meirelles Quintella ◽  
Henrique Martins Rocha
Keyword(s):  
Software Engineering ◽  
Model Integration ◽  
Capability Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Capability Maturity Model Integration ◽  
Engineering Institute

Neste estudo, buscou-se avaliar o nível de maturidade das organizações em seus processos de desenvolvimento de produtos, tendo como base os critérios do CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration). O referencial teórico utilizado foi o modelo de maturidade de capabilidade para desenvolvimento integrado de produtos e processos do SEI (Software Engineering Institute), da Carnegie Mellon University. Partindo da literatura existente sobre o assunto e de pesquisa e questionários aplicados em duas montadoras instaladas na região Sul Fluminense do País, identificou-se a existência de um processo estruturado de desenvolvimento de produtos, o qual é planejado, executado, medido e controlado e as práticas existentes são mantidas, mesmo nos momentos de crise, podendo repetir a experiência para novos projetos.

scholarly journals Un proceso definido para la planeación temprana de proyectos de software

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Diego Martín Rubio
Keyword(s):  
Project Management ◽  
Software Engineering ◽  
Model Integration ◽  
Capability Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Capability Maturity Model Integration ◽  
Project Management Institute ◽  
Engineering Institute

La necesidad de técnicas de planeación como método de gestión de proyectos en general, y de proyectos de software en particular, es ampliamente conocida y estudiada. Así existen organizaciones como el “Project Management Institute”[PMI] que se dedican enteramente a la disciplina de Administración de proyecto proveyendo guías de las prácticas generalmente aceptadas en lo que dan por llamar: la profesión de administración de proyectos [PMI:2004]. Con el avance en la gestión de proyectos de software comenzaron a aparecer algunos campos en donde las prácticas de Ingeniería de Software demostraron ciertas falencias, entre ellas la gestión de las etapas iniciales de los proyectos. Tal como menciona Steve McConnell [McConnell:1998] “El primer paso para sobrevivir a un proyecto de software es asegurarse de comenzarlo de una manera civilizada”. Por su lado Gerald Weinberg [Weinberg:1997] luego de estudiar una gran cantidad de proyectos fallidos en busca del momento más temprano en su ciclo de vida en el cual los problemas podrían haber sido detectados y prevenidos, llegó a la conclusión de que los proyectos fallaban en general en etapas muy tempranas principalmente debido a la falta de definición de procesos que ayudaran en estas actividades. En este contexto y con el objetivo permanente de incorporar las mejores prácticas de la industria, el Software Engineering Institute (SEI) publicó en Marzo de 2002 su más reciente modelo de madurez, el “Capability Maturity Model Integration” [CMMI:2002] el cuál incorpora una gran cantidad de nuevas prácticas a las ya publicadas en sus modelos predecesores: SW-CMM v2.0 [CMM2:1999], SE-CMM [SE-CMM:1995] y IPD-CMM [IPD-CMM:1997]. En este modelo y acorde a lo reflejado por los expertos en la temática y distintos estudios empíricos realizados en la industria del software, el Software Engineering Institute incluyó prácticas relacionadas a la planificación temprana de los proyectos y en específico a la planificación de las etapas predecesoras a la existencia de un plan formal de administración del proyecto.

scholarly journals PROPOSTA DE UM FRAMEWORK PARA O GERENCIAMENTO DE MATURIDADE DE PROCESSOS E A SUA APLICAÇÃO NUMA ORGANIZAÇÃO PÚBLICA BRASILEIRA POR MEIO DE PESQUISA-AÇÃO

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (Especial) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Tatiane Pinto de Oliveira ◽  
Saulo Barbará Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Software Engineering ◽  
Balanced Scorecard ◽  
Capability Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Engineering Institute

Os estudos iniciados pela Software Engineering Institute (SEI) nos anos 80 sobre o Capability Maturity Model (CMM), trouxeram uma nova perspectiva para avaliar a maturidade dos processos de negócios, por meio da introdução de uma escala. Atualmente, os modelos de maturidade propõem métodos totalmente orientados para atender as demandas organizacionais. Este artigo apresenta um destes modelos, o 8 Omega ORCA, que busca atender organizações de diversos portes e segmentos. Com base neste modelo, o estudo propõe a ferramenta Íris, que une em um só framework o 8 Omega ORCA e o Balanced Scorecard. Está apresentada a metodologia para a implantação desta ferramenta e os primeiros resultados dessa implantação em uma organização pública. Preliminarmente é possível identificar neste estudo que a flexibilidade, o roteiro para alcançar a maturidade nos processos e a clareza de informações do modelo 8 Omega são diferenciais para a organização, e que o Íris parece ter um futuro promissor, dada a sua aplicabilidade em unir os benefícios do 8 Omega ORCA e do BCS.

Software and Systems Engineering

2003 ◽  
pp. 26-41
Author(s):  
Rick Gibson
Keyword(s):  
Software Engineering ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Capability Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Organizational Cultures ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
Significant Point

This chapter will identify the key aspects of software engineering and systems engineering in an effort to highlight areas of consensus and conflict to support current efforts by practitioners and academics in both disciplines in redefining their professions and bodies of knowledge. By using the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model –Integrated (CMMISM) project, which combines best practices from the systems and software engineering disciplines, it can be shown that significant point of agreement and consensus are evident. Nevertheless, valid objections to such integration remain as areas of conflict. This chapter will provide an opportunity for these two communities to resolve unnecessary differences in terminology and methodologies that are reflected in their different perspectives and entrenched in their organizational cultures.

scholarly journals Technology maturity assessment of micro and nano manufacturing processes and process chains

2017 ◽  
Vol 232 (8) ◽  
pp. 1362-1383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre C Vella ◽  
Stefan S Dimov ◽  
Roussi Minev ◽  
Emmanuel B Brousseau
Keyword(s):  
Software Engineering ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Capability Maturity Model ◽  
Manufacturing Processes ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Maturity Assessment ◽  
Process Chains ◽  
Manufacturing Technologies ◽  
The Individual

This article presents a systematic approach for assessing the maturity of manufacturing technologies. A methodology is proposed that is based on modelling the capability of the individual processes and technology interfaces between them. It is inspired by a capability maturity model which has been applied successfully in the field of software engineering. The methodology was developed to assess the maturity levels of individual processes and the combined maturity of pairs or chains of processes. To demonstrate its validity, it was applied for assessing the maturity of technologies in the micro and nano manufacturing domain. The results demonstrated its applicability as a tool for evaluating the maturity of micro and nano manufacturing pairs and their constituent processes. Also, it was shown that the methodology can be employed for identifying process pairs, suitable for integration in process chains, together with their potential weaknesses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document