A Study on the Comparison of CMM and ISO9001 for Software Process Improvement

소프트웨어 프로세스 개선을 위한 CMM과 ISO9001간의 비교 연구

  • 류진수 (LG-CNS 사업지원본부 기술연구부분 아키텍쳐센터 테이터아키텍쳐팀) ;
  • 김연성 (인하대학교 경영학부) ;
  • 서우종 (인하대학교 경영학부)
  • Published : 2003.03.01

Abstract

Recently, CMM have been recognized as a critical factor to validate the competitiveness of software organizations, even if the organizations have already achieved the ISO9001 certification. Furthermore, the new version of ISO9001:2000 is being required instead of ISO9001:1994. Both CMM and ISO9001 have a common point that they pursuit quality improvement for the organizations processes and products. Therefore, it is important to understand the similarities of specific requirements between the two models in software organizations which attempt to employ both of the models. From this background, this paper compares CMM and ISO9001 by considering the versions in 1994 and 2000 of ISO9001. The results of this research are likely to help software organizations ma]fe a decision for a strategy to adopt CMM and ISO9001.

Keywords

References

  1. 김연성, 박영택, 서영호, 유왕진, 유한주,이동규(2001), [품질경영론] , 박영사,pp.441-447
  2. 나미자, 남기찬, 김정욱, 박수용(2002),SW프로세스 능력에 관한 현황과 기업성과에 관한 연구, [품질경영학회지],제30권, 제1호, pp.22-46
  3. 최은만(1996), [소프트웨어 곤학] , 희중당, pp.1-17
  4. 한국능률협회(2000a), [품질씨스텝 문서심사용: 품질 경영매뉴얼]
  5. 한국능률협회(2000b), [ISO9000: 2001품질경영시스템 - 요구사항] ,pp.105-131
  6. 한국능률협회(2001), [ISO9000: 2000 전환 기본 교육 과정]
  7. KSA ISO인증본부 연구개발팀(2002), 경영시스템 인증의 발전, '품질경영', pp.35-41
  8. Bamford, R. and Deibler, W.(1997),Software Engineering Models For Quality: Comparing the SEI Capability Matuhty Model (CMM) to ISO 9001, Proceedings of 3rd International Software Engineering Standards Symposium, pp.289-292
  9. El Emam, K., Drouin, J.N., and Melo,W.(1997), SPICE: The Theory andPractice of Software ProcessImprovement and CapabiIityDetermination, CA: IEEE ComputerSociety Press
  10. Ghosh, H.(1994), A Comparison ofISO9000 and SEI/CMM for SoftwareEngineehng Organizations, Proceedingsof 1994 1st International Conference onSoftware Testing, RelidbiIity andQuality Assurance, pp.78-83
  11. Gibbs, W.W.(1994), Software'sChronic Chsis, Scientific American,Sep. 1994, pp.86-95
  12. ISO(1997), ISO/IEC 15504 Draft Standard for Software Process Assessment (Parts 1-9), ISO/IEC15504 Draft Technical Report(DTR),ISO
  13. Kuvaja, P., Simila, J., Krzanik, L.,Bicego, A., Soukkonen, S. and Koch,G.(1994), Software Process Assessmentand Improuement: The BOOTSTRAPApproach, Blackwell Business, Oxford,United Kingdom
  14. McGuire, E.G. and McKeown,K.A.(2001), 5 Critical Steps forAdopting CMM in an ISO Environment,Manasement of Engineering andTechnoIogy, pp.430-431
  15. Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis,M.B. and Weber, C.V.(1993a), CapabilityMatuhty Model for Software, Versionl.1, TechnicaI Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-24, SEI
  16. Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chhssis, M.B. and Weber, C.V.(1993b), Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model for Software, Versionl.1,Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-25.SEI
  17. Paulk, M.C.(1994), A Compahson of ISO 9001 and the Capability Maturity Model for Software, Technical Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-12,SE
  18. Paulk, M.C.(1995), How ISO 9001 Compares with the CMM, IEEE Software, Vol.12, No.1, Jan. 1995,pp.74-83
  19. van der Pijl, G.L, Swinkels, G. J. P.,and Verrijdt, J. G.(1997), ISO 9000versus CMM: Standardization andCertification of IS Development,Information and Management, Vol.32,No.6, pp.267-274 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(97)00019-0
  20. Rozman, I., Horvat, R.V., and Gyorkos,J.(1994), United View on ISO9001 Model and SEI CMM, Proceedings of IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, Dayton North, IEEE Press, pp.56-63
  21. Tnllium(1994), TrilIium: Modet forTetecom Product Development andSupport Process Cnpability, Release3.0, Bell Canada Acquisitions(BCA),Canada
  22. Zahran, S.(1998), Software ProcessImprovement: Practical GuideIinesfor Business Success, Addison-Wesley