[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-240740-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-240740-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","software-process-definition-improvement-an-industry-report","Software Process Definition & Improvement - An Industry Report","","Highlights an industry software center’s process improvement effort aimed at achieving CMM Level 3 readiness, while using examples tied to CMM Level 2 and Level 3 expectations. The work is organized into three parts: Level 2 foundations for the transition, development of process definitions, and creation of a process database. It also covers qualitative and quantitative evaluation, future-work suggestions, and key lessons learned from managing the gap between Levels 2 and 3.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/presentations/","Presentations",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/software-process-definition-improvement-an-industry-report/240740/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/software-process-definition-improvement-an-industry-report/240740.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Graffin","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-11",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",10,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What was the main goal of the process improvement project described?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Prepare a software center for CMM Level 3 assessment by building on CMM Level 2 practices and defining improved processes, including the supporting process database.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What major challenges were encountered when transitioning from CMM Level 2 to Level 3?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Defining new CMM Level 3 KPA-related procedure documents and templates, revising existing Level 2 documentation to meet Level 3 requirements, and establishing a process database for historical project planning.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How did Software Quality Assurance (SQA) support moving toward Level 3?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"SQA functioned as a mechanism to ensure projects followed the defined process, with SQA reports used to identify preparation strengths and gaps before the assessment.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},240740,1791740106,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,93,98,103,108,113,118,123],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},11,90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":94,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":115,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":126},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":128},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":129,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":22,"category_id":85,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":55,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":33},3573418547284,"https://eur-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","Software Process Definition & Improvement: An Industry Report  \nMichael Jester, Herb Krasner, and Dewayne E. Perry Empirical Software Engineering Lab (ESEL), ECE, The University of Texas at Austin [mgibjester@hotmail.com](mgibjester@hotmail.com), {hkrasner, [perry}@ece.utexas.edu](perry}@ece.utexas.edu)  \nAbstract  \nWe present highlights of an process improvement project at a software center in preparation for CMM Level 3, with applicable examples given that relate to CMM level 2, level 3, and the effort needed in transitioning between level 2 and 3. For the efforts taken at this particular software center, the work documented is divided into three parts: the level 2 bases for moving to level 3, the process definition and the process database. Finally, some qualitative and quantitative analysis, suggestions for future work, and conclusions regarding overall lessons learned from the experience are provided.  \n1. Introduction  \nFor the sake of non-disclosure, the specific details about the company and the projects and technologies being developed in them are intentionally left vague and ambiguous. What can be said is this: the company is not involved in the business of selling mass-marketed software to the general public. Their primary customers are other corporations, and while software is not their end-product per se, the technologies developed by the company almost always require a strong software component. As a multinational corporation, this particular company has several“centers of excellence” in different parts of the world, each with individual focus. The focus for this particular center is the development of software that interacts with or supports the tools and technologies developed at other centers.  \nThe center is a relatively new center (compared to the other centers within the company), having been established in Beijing, China in 1997 (starting with only a handful of engineers, but growing steadily in numbers) . The typical project engineer is relatively young in their career (typical work experience of 2-3 years, with several fresh graduates), and many of the projects require a high level of interaction with other centers around the world. For these reasons (among others), having a viable software process is a center-wide objective, with formal CMM level assessment being used as the yardstick to measure progress toward that objective (in fact, every employee’s year-end bonus in 2004 was contingent upon passing the CMM Level 3 assessment) . Upon joining the software center in August of 2003, certification for CMM level 2 had already been obtained (in the previous calendar year) and efforts were already underway to receive CMM level 3 certification by the end of 2004.  \nSome of the challenges related to transitioning from CMM Level 2 to CMM Level 3 included:  \n• Defining new procedure documents and templates related to CMM level 3 KPAs  \n• Revising existing process documents and templates (related to CMM level 2) in order to comply with CMM level 3 requirements  \n• Establishing a process database (to use historical data for project planning, among other reasons)  \nThese challenges will be explained in turn in more detail in the subsequent sections.  \n2. Level 2 Bases  \nThere are several important KPAs that are critical for moving to Level 3: software quality assurance, project planning and project tracking.  \n2.1 Software Quality Assurance  \nSoftware Quality Assurance is one of the KPAs for CMM level 2 and essentially is a mechanism that helps ensure each individual project is following the defined process the way they are supposed to [7,8] . It is a sort of “police system” for checking upon project managers and their teams. In getting prepared for the level 3 assessment, the process-related strengths and weaknesses as reflected in SQA reports served as an important indicator for how prepared the center was for the assessment (and what gaps had to be filled before the assessment) .  \n2.1.1. Selection and General ","cbCainvZWZrJl4UP","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainvZWZrJl4UP","pdf",583882,"English","# Introduction\n## Level 2 Bases\n### Software Quality Assurance\n### Selection and General Duties of SQA Engineers\n### SQA Reporting","[{\"question\":\"What was the main goal of the process improvement project described?\",\"answer\":\"Prepare a software center for CMM Level 3 assessment by building on CMM Level 2 practices and defining improved processes, including the supporting process database.\"},{\"question\":\"What major challenges were encountered when transitioning from CMM Level 2 to Level 3?\",\"answer\":\"Defining new CMM Level 3 KPA-related procedure documents and templates, revising existing Level 2 documentation to meet Level 3 requirements, and establishing a process database for historical project planning.\"},{\"question\":\"How did Software Quality Assurance (SQA) support moving toward Level 3?\",\"answer\":\"SQA functioned as a mechanism to ensure projects followed the defined process, with SQA reports used to identify preparation strengths and gaps before the assessment.\"}]","Software Process Definition & Improvement - An Industry Report | PDF",1789165156]