基于目标度量和预估技术的软件过程评估
|
摘要
过程改进技术正成为软件过程的研究热点，而软件过程评估在软件过程改进中的作用至关重要。目前基于CMM和ISO/IEC 15504的这两种评估方法是得到世界公认，使用最广的。但这种评估大多依靠专家组进行，评估过程过于抽象，可操作性不强，普通用户无法根据相应的标准对自身的过程成熟度情况做出准确的判断。而且，许多方法虽然标准明确，但评估结果却不可避免的带有主观性，这些问题在实际应用中仍然有待探索。
为了解决这个问题，把度量模型和预估技术应用到软件过程评估中。为了克服度量方法本身的一些局限性，对现有的GQM度量模型进行改进，使其深入到过程的中间环节，以支持过程内部的度量。针对改进后的度量模型中仍然存在可操作性不强，仅在事后统计和度量，没有事先预估和分析，因此不能正确认识组织当前的软件过程状态，真正实现对过程的控制等问题，提出把预估技术应用到软件过程评估中，获取过程的可度量特征。
本文在深入研究和比较软件过程评估的各种标准、模型和方法，以及度量技术和预估模型的基础上，探索实际可用，更加客观的软件过程评估方法，具有非常重要的意义。主要工作包括以下内容：
1．度量技术在评估过程中的运用：主要研究基于目标的软件度量模式，分析其中的不足之处，进一步细化这种模式，使其深入到过程的中间环节，以支持过程内部的度量；
2．研究软件预估的主要技术和模型，并对COCOMO模型和功能点模型这两种软件预估模型进行比较。在获取过程的一些可度量特征，如与组织标准软件过程的使用有关的信息：软件规模、工作量、成本的估计值时，考虑将这两种模型结合使用，从而真正达到管理和控制的目的，不仅在事后进行统计和度量，而且在制定计划时对要度量的软件进行预估分析，有利于软件过程评估；
3．在实际的软件过程评估中，将上述模型和方法综合使用，即用一种基于目标度量和预估技术的软件过程评估方法尽可能解决评估过程过于抽象、主观性太强、可操作性不好、不易实施的问题。
本文的研究目的是提高评估过程的可操作性，使得过程评估提供的数据更具体，更有说服力，使得评估结果尽可能客观，为“怎样做”提出一些可行的方法，从而有利于过程能力级别的提高。这些问题的研究有利于更好的实施软件过程评估，在促进软件过程改进方面有重要的现实意义。
Process improvement has become one of the hot topics in software process research. Software process assessment plays a very important role in software process improvement. Currently, the assessments based on CMM and ISO/IEC 15504 are accepted and used worldwide. However, this kind of assessment generally depends on expert-groups and the assessment process is too abstract, which makes it difficult to operate. Therefore, ordinary users cannot judge their process maturity according to certain standards by themselves. Although many approaches have clear criteria, the result of assessment is inevitably subjective. Researches on these topics are still on the way.
In order to relieve above-mentioned problems, metric models and estimation techniques were applied to software process assessment. The current GQM metric model was reformed and applied to the intermediate steps of the process to support the metric of process interior. There remain some limitations in the reformed metric model, including low maneuverability, no prediction and analyses in advance. These drawbacks make it difficult to correctly recognize the current software process status of an organization, and thus, make it difficult to control the process. Therefore, estimation techniques were applied to software process assessment to obtain the metricable characteristics of the process.
On the basis of investigation and comparison of various standards, models and methods for software process assessment, metric techniques and estimation models, we demonstrated a more practical and objective software process assessment method. The contents of this thesis are as following:
1. The application of metric techniques in the assessment process was studied. Goal-driven software metric mode was studied and its drawbacks were analyzed. This metric mode was reformed and applied to intermediate steps of the process to support metric of process interior.
2. Main techniques and models of software estimation were studied. Two software estimation models, COCOMO model and function point model, were compared. These two models were used jointly to obtain some metricable characteristics of the process, including information on organization of standard software process, such as software scope, labor
consumption and cost estimation. The aim of this combination is not only to perform statistics and metric after the process, but also to do estimation analyses when the program was established. Thus, management and control of the process can be achieved.
3. The above introduced models and methods were used in integrity to practical software process assessment. That is to say, a software process assessment method based on goal-driven metric and estimation techniques was used to alleviate drawbacks in the current assessment methods, such as abstract, low maneuverability and difficulties in implementation.
The aim of this study is to improve the maneuverability of assessment process, to make the data provided by the process assessment more solid and persuasive, to make the assessment result as objective as possible, to provide some applicable methods for "how to do", and to be helpful to improvement of process ability level. Investigations on these topics are helpful to better implement of software process assessment. It has great practical significance to accelerate software process improvement.
为了解决这个问题，把度量模型和预估技术应用到软件过程评估中。为了克服度量方法本身的一些局限性，对现有的GQM度量模型进行改进，使其深入到过程的中间环节，以支持过程内部的度量。针对改进后的度量模型中仍然存在可操作性不强，仅在事后统计和度量，没有事先预估和分析，因此不能正确认识组织当前的软件过程状态，真正实现对过程的控制等问题，提出把预估技术应用到软件过程评估中，获取过程的可度量特征。
本文在深入研究和比较软件过程评估的各种标准、模型和方法，以及度量技术和预估模型的基础上，探索实际可用，更加客观的软件过程评估方法，具有非常重要的意义。主要工作包括以下内容：
1．度量技术在评估过程中的运用：主要研究基于目标的软件度量模式，分析其中的不足之处，进一步细化这种模式，使其深入到过程的中间环节，以支持过程内部的度量；
2．研究软件预估的主要技术和模型，并对COCOMO模型和功能点模型这两种软件预估模型进行比较。在获取过程的一些可度量特征，如与组织标准软件过程的使用有关的信息：软件规模、工作量、成本的估计值时，考虑将这两种模型结合使用，从而真正达到管理和控制的目的，不仅在事后进行统计和度量，而且在制定计划时对要度量的软件进行预估分析，有利于软件过程评估；
3．在实际的软件过程评估中，将上述模型和方法综合使用，即用一种基于目标度量和预估技术的软件过程评估方法尽可能解决评估过程过于抽象、主观性太强、可操作性不好、不易实施的问题。
本文的研究目的是提高评估过程的可操作性，使得过程评估提供的数据更具体，更有说服力，使得评估结果尽可能客观，为“怎样做”提出一些可行的方法，从而有利于过程能力级别的提高。这些问题的研究有利于更好的实施软件过程评估，在促进软件过程改进方面有重要的现实意义。
Process improvement has become one of the hot topics in software process research. Software process assessment plays a very important role in software process improvement. Currently, the assessments based on CMM and ISO/IEC 15504 are accepted and used worldwide. However, this kind of assessment generally depends on expert-groups and the assessment process is too abstract, which makes it difficult to operate. Therefore, ordinary users cannot judge their process maturity according to certain standards by themselves. Although many approaches have clear criteria, the result of assessment is inevitably subjective. Researches on these topics are still on the way.
In order to relieve above-mentioned problems, metric models and estimation techniques were applied to software process assessment. The current GQM metric model was reformed and applied to the intermediate steps of the process to support the metric of process interior. There remain some limitations in the reformed metric model, including low maneuverability, no prediction and analyses in advance. These drawbacks make it difficult to correctly recognize the current software process status of an organization, and thus, make it difficult to control the process. Therefore, estimation techniques were applied to software process assessment to obtain the metricable characteristics of the process.
On the basis of investigation and comparison of various standards, models and methods for software process assessment, metric techniques and estimation models, we demonstrated a more practical and objective software process assessment method. The contents of this thesis are as following:
1. The application of metric techniques in the assessment process was studied. Goal-driven software metric mode was studied and its drawbacks were analyzed. This metric mode was reformed and applied to intermediate steps of the process to support metric of process interior.
2. Main techniques and models of software estimation were studied. Two software estimation models, COCOMO model and function point model, were compared. These two models were used jointly to obtain some metricable characteristics of the process, including information on organization of standard software process, such as software scope, labor
consumption and cost estimation. The aim of this combination is not only to perform statistics and metric after the process, but also to do estimation analyses when the program was established. Thus, management and control of the process can be achieved.
3. The above introduced models and methods were used in integrity to practical software process assessment. That is to say, a software process assessment method based on goal-driven metric and estimation techniques was used to alleviate drawbacks in the current assessment methods, such as abstract, low maneuverability and difficulties in implementation.
The aim of this study is to improve the maneuverability of assessment process, to make the data provided by the process assessment more solid and persuasive, to make the assessment result as objective as possible, to provide some applicable methods for "how to do", and to be helpful to improvement of process ability level. Investigations on these topics are helpful to better implement of software process assessment. It has great practical significance to accelerate software process improvement.
引文
[1] 《软件过程改进》Sami Zahram，中信出版社，2002年6月
[2] Tim C. Kasse, Action focused assessment for software process improvement, Artech House, December 2001
[3] ISO 9001: 1994, Quality systems-Models for quality assurance in design/development, production, installation and servicing.
[4] Mark C. Paulk, Bill Curtis, Merry Beth Chrissis, Charles V. Weber, Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1, http://sei.cmu.edu, 1993
[5] H.-Y. Lee, H.-W. Jung, C.-S. Chung, J. Lee, K. Lee, H. Jeong, Analysis of Interrater Agreement in ISO/IEC 15504-Based Software Process Assessment, Proceedings of the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Quality Software, December 2001
[6] Watts S. Humphrey, Managing the Software Process, Addison-Wesley, Jan. 1989
[7] Watts S. Humphrey, David H. Kitson, Tim C. Kasse, (Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University) The State of Software Engineering Practice:A Preliminary Report, Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Software engineering, May 1989
[8] http://isospice.com/standard/tr15504.htm
[9] Hans Stienen, Franz Engelmann, Ernst Lebsanft, Bootstrap: Five Years of Assessment Experience, Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice (STEP '97) (including CASE '97), July 1997
[10] 何新贵、王纬等，软件能力成熟度模型，清华大学出版社，2000年11月
[11] Zubrow D., Hayes W., Siegel J. and Goldenson D., Maturity Questionnaire. Special Report CMU/SEI-94-SR-7, June 1994
[12] Khaled El Emam, Ho-Won Jung, An empirical evaluation of the ISO/IEC 15504 assessment model, Journal of Systems and Software, October 2001
[13] ISO/IEC 12207: 1995, Information Technology-Software life cycle processes.
[14] Mark C. Paulk, "Analyzing the Conceptual Relationship Between ISO/IEC 15504 (Software Process Assessment) and the Capability Maturity Model for Software", Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
[15] Rout, SPICE: A fiamework for Software Process Assessment, Software Process
Improvement and Practice, August 1995, pp 56-66, ISSN: 1077-4866
[16] Michael O. Tingey, Comparing ISO 9000, Malcolm Balbridge, and the SEI CMM for Software: A Reference and Selection Guide, Edition: 1st, September 1996
[17] Y. Wang, I. Court, M. Ross, G. Staples, G.King, A. Doffing, Quantitative Evaluation of the SPICE,CMM, ISO 9000 and BOOTSTRAP, Proceedings of the 3rd International Software Engineering Standards Symposium (ISESS '97), June 1997
[18] 刘孟仁等译，卡内基．梅隆大学软件工程研究所——能力成熟度模型(CMM)：软件过程改进指南，电子工业出版社，2001年7月
[19] CMMI Product Team, Capability Maturity Model Integration Version 1.1, Staged Representation, March 2002
[20] DeBunje T, Saunders A, Combining process models and metrics in practice. Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on Software Process Technology, 1995
[21] McCall, J., P. Richards, and G. Waiters, "Factors in Software Quality," three volumns, NTIS AD-A049-014, 015, 055, November 1977
[22] ISO/IEC 9126: 1991, Information Technology-Software product evaluation-Quality characteristics and guidelines for their use. http://www.isaca.org.za/ISO9126.htm
[23] IEEE Std 1061-1992. IEEE Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology
[24] Basili V R, Caldiera G, Rombach H D. The goal question metric paradigm. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering Volum 1,1994
[25] 宿为民、朱三元，支持过程度量的软件过程建模方法的研究，软件学报， Vol.10，No．8，Aug．1999
[26] Ross, D., and K. Schoman, "Structured Analysis for Requirements Definition," IEEE Trans. Software Engineering, vol. 3, no. 1, January 1977.
[27] Ross, D., "Applications and Extensions of SADT," IEEE Computer, vol. 18, no. 4, April 1984
[28] Jacques Lonchamp, A structured Conceptual and Terminological Framework for Software Process Engineering, Proceedings of the 2nd. International Conference on the Software Process-Continuous Software Process Improvement, 1993
[29] Beck, K., "Extreme Programming Explained." Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman, 2000
[30] Function Point Counting Practices Manual, The International Function Point User's Group (IFPUG)
[31] Albrecht, A. J., and J. E. Gaffney, "Software Function, Source Lines of Code and Development Effort Prediction: A Software Science Validation," IEEE Trans. Software Engineering, November 1983
[32] Kitchenham, B., "Measuring software development In Software Reliability Handbook," Amsterdam: Elsevier 1990
[33] Boehm, B., Clark, B. et al., "Cost models for future life cycle processes:COCOMO2", Annals of software Engineering, 1, 1995
[34] Boehm, B. and Royce, W., "Ada COCOMO and the Ada Process Model", Software Engineering Institute, 1989
[35] USC COCOMO Ⅱ User's Manual, University of Southern Califomia, 1999
[36] Prentice Hall, "Software Cost Estimation with COCOMOII", http://sunset.usc.edu.cn/index.html, July 2000
[37] IEEE Std 1061-1992. IEEE Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology, 1992
[38] Methodology for Validating Software Metrics. In: Marciniak J J ed. Encyclopedia of software engineering. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,1994.
[39] Khaled El Emam, Andreas Birk, Validating the ISO/IEC 15504 measures of software development process capability, Journal of Systems and Software, April 2000
[40] Khaled El Emam, Andreas Birk, Validating the ISO/IEC 15504 measure of software requirements analysis process capability, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, June 2000
[41] Khaled El Emam, I(?)igo Garro, Estimating the extent of standards use: the case of ISO/IEC 15504, Joumal of Systems and Software, August 2000
[42] David Kitson, Loretta Kitson, An Emerging International Standard for Software Process Assessment, Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Intemational Symposium and Forum on Software Engineering Standards, May 1999
[43] Ho-Won Jung, Robin Hunter, The relationship between ISO/IEC 15504 process capability levels, ISO 9001 certification and organization size: an empirical study, Journal of Systems and Software, October 2001
[44] R. Lok, A. Walker, Automated Tool Support for an Emerging Intemational Software Process Assessment Standard, Proceedings of the 3rd International
Software Engineering Standards Symposium (ISESS '97), June 1997
[45] Khaled El Emam, The Internal Consistency of the ISO/IEC 15504 Software Process Capability Scale, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Software Metrics, March 1998
[46] Watts S. Humphrey, Marc I. Kellner, Software process modeling: principles of entity process models, Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Software engineering, May 1989
[47] E. Ellmer, D. Merkl, Defining a set of criteria for the assessment of tool support for CMM-based software process improvement, Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Assessment of Software Tools (SAST'96), May 1996
[48] Austen Rainer, Tracy Hall, A quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors affecting software processes, Journal of Systems and Software, ,April 2003
[49] Watts S. Humphrey, Recent findings in software process maturity, Proceedings of the European symposium on Software development environments and CASE technology, June 1991
[50] Ed Yourdon, Bibliography, IT measurement: practical advice from experts, January 2002
[51] 何新贵，软件能力成熟度模型CMM的框架与内容，计算机应用，2001年3月
[52] 田立新、李生红、顾建荣、顾尚杰，软件过程评估方法的研究与实践，计算机工程，2001年2月
[53] 严芬、殷新春等，ISO9001与CMM的比较研究，扬州大学学报(自然科学版)，2001年11月
[54] 颜峻、李星寰，软件能力成熟度模型，信息工程大学学报，2001年12月
[55] 邯丽，基于CMM的软件过程改进，微型机与应用，2002年第4期
[56] 张宇、贲可荣，小型软件开发单位软件过程改进模型探讨，计算机应用研究，2001年第11期
[57] 黄飞雪、周东清、孙效里、李志洁，软件过程能力成熟度模型研究，小型微型计算机系统，2002年3月
[2] Tim C. Kasse, Action focused assessment for software process improvement, Artech House, December 2001
[3] ISO 9001: 1994, Quality systems-Models for quality assurance in design/development, production, installation and servicing.
[4] Mark C. Paulk, Bill Curtis, Merry Beth Chrissis, Charles V. Weber, Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1, http://sei.cmu.edu, 1993
[5] H.-Y. Lee, H.-W. Jung, C.-S. Chung, J. Lee, K. Lee, H. Jeong, Analysis of Interrater Agreement in ISO/IEC 15504-Based Software Process Assessment, Proceedings of the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Quality Software, December 2001
[6] Watts S. Humphrey, Managing the Software Process, Addison-Wesley, Jan. 1989
[7] Watts S. Humphrey, David H. Kitson, Tim C. Kasse, (Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University) The State of Software Engineering Practice:A Preliminary Report, Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Software engineering, May 1989
[8] http://isospice.com/standard/tr15504.htm
[9] Hans Stienen, Franz Engelmann, Ernst Lebsanft, Bootstrap: Five Years of Assessment Experience, Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice (STEP '97) (including CASE '97), July 1997
[10] 何新贵、王纬等，软件能力成熟度模型，清华大学出版社，2000年11月
[11] Zubrow D., Hayes W., Siegel J. and Goldenson D., Maturity Questionnaire. Special Report CMU/SEI-94-SR-7, June 1994
[12] Khaled El Emam, Ho-Won Jung, An empirical evaluation of the ISO/IEC 15504 assessment model, Journal of Systems and Software, October 2001
[13] ISO/IEC 12207: 1995, Information Technology-Software life cycle processes.
[14] Mark C. Paulk, "Analyzing the Conceptual Relationship Between ISO/IEC 15504 (Software Process Assessment) and the Capability Maturity Model for Software", Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
[15] Rout, SPICE: A fiamework for Software Process Assessment, Software Process
Improvement and Practice, August 1995, pp 56-66, ISSN: 1077-4866
[16] Michael O. Tingey, Comparing ISO 9000, Malcolm Balbridge, and the SEI CMM for Software: A Reference and Selection Guide, Edition: 1st, September 1996
[17] Y. Wang, I. Court, M. Ross, G. Staples, G.King, A. Doffing, Quantitative Evaluation of the SPICE,CMM, ISO 9000 and BOOTSTRAP, Proceedings of the 3rd International Software Engineering Standards Symposium (ISESS '97), June 1997
[18] 刘孟仁等译，卡内基．梅隆大学软件工程研究所——能力成熟度模型(CMM)：软件过程改进指南，电子工业出版社，2001年7月
[19] CMMI Product Team, Capability Maturity Model Integration Version 1.1, Staged Representation, March 2002
[20] DeBunje T, Saunders A, Combining process models and metrics in practice. Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on Software Process Technology, 1995
[21] McCall, J., P. Richards, and G. Waiters, "Factors in Software Quality," three volumns, NTIS AD-A049-014, 015, 055, November 1977
[22] ISO/IEC 9126: 1991, Information Technology-Software product evaluation-Quality characteristics and guidelines for their use. http://www.isaca.org.za/ISO9126.htm
[23] IEEE Std 1061-1992. IEEE Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology
[24] Basili V R, Caldiera G, Rombach H D. The goal question metric paradigm. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering Volum 1,1994
[25] 宿为民、朱三元，支持过程度量的软件过程建模方法的研究，软件学报， Vol.10，No．8，Aug．1999
[26] Ross, D., and K. Schoman, "Structured Analysis for Requirements Definition," IEEE Trans. Software Engineering, vol. 3, no. 1, January 1977.
[27] Ross, D., "Applications and Extensions of SADT," IEEE Computer, vol. 18, no. 4, April 1984
[28] Jacques Lonchamp, A structured Conceptual and Terminological Framework for Software Process Engineering, Proceedings of the 2nd. International Conference on the Software Process-Continuous Software Process Improvement, 1993
[29] Beck, K., "Extreme Programming Explained." Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman, 2000
[30] Function Point Counting Practices Manual, The International Function Point User's Group (IFPUG)
[31] Albrecht, A. J., and J. E. Gaffney, "Software Function, Source Lines of Code and Development Effort Prediction: A Software Science Validation," IEEE Trans. Software Engineering, November 1983
[32] Kitchenham, B., "Measuring software development In Software Reliability Handbook," Amsterdam: Elsevier 1990
[33] Boehm, B., Clark, B. et al., "Cost models for future life cycle processes:COCOMO2", Annals of software Engineering, 1, 1995
[34] Boehm, B. and Royce, W., "Ada COCOMO and the Ada Process Model", Software Engineering Institute, 1989
[35] USC COCOMO Ⅱ User's Manual, University of Southern Califomia, 1999
[36] Prentice Hall, "Software Cost Estimation with COCOMOII", http://sunset.usc.edu.cn/index.html, July 2000
[37] IEEE Std 1061-1992. IEEE Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology, 1992
[38] Methodology for Validating Software Metrics. In: Marciniak J J ed. Encyclopedia of software engineering. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,1994.
[39] Khaled El Emam, Andreas Birk, Validating the ISO/IEC 15504 measures of software development process capability, Journal of Systems and Software, April 2000
[40] Khaled El Emam, Andreas Birk, Validating the ISO/IEC 15504 measure of software requirements analysis process capability, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, June 2000
[41] Khaled El Emam, I(?)igo Garro, Estimating the extent of standards use: the case of ISO/IEC 15504, Joumal of Systems and Software, August 2000
[42] David Kitson, Loretta Kitson, An Emerging International Standard for Software Process Assessment, Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Intemational Symposium and Forum on Software Engineering Standards, May 1999
[43] Ho-Won Jung, Robin Hunter, The relationship between ISO/IEC 15504 process capability levels, ISO 9001 certification and organization size: an empirical study, Journal of Systems and Software, October 2001
[44] R. Lok, A. Walker, Automated Tool Support for an Emerging Intemational Software Process Assessment Standard, Proceedings of the 3rd International
Software Engineering Standards Symposium (ISESS '97), June 1997
[45] Khaled El Emam, The Internal Consistency of the ISO/IEC 15504 Software Process Capability Scale, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Software Metrics, March 1998
[46] Watts S. Humphrey, Marc I. Kellner, Software process modeling: principles of entity process models, Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Software engineering, May 1989
[47] E. Ellmer, D. Merkl, Defining a set of criteria for the assessment of tool support for CMM-based software process improvement, Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Assessment of Software Tools (SAST'96), May 1996
[48] Austen Rainer, Tracy Hall, A quantitative and qualitative analysis of factors affecting software processes, Journal of Systems and Software, ,April 2003
[49] Watts S. Humphrey, Recent findings in software process maturity, Proceedings of the European symposium on Software development environments and CASE technology, June 1991
[50] Ed Yourdon, Bibliography, IT measurement: practical advice from experts, January 2002
[51] 何新贵，软件能力成熟度模型CMM的框架与内容，计算机应用，2001年3月
[52] 田立新、李生红、顾建荣、顾尚杰，软件过程评估方法的研究与实践，计算机工程，2001年2月
[53] 严芬、殷新春等，ISO9001与CMM的比较研究，扬州大学学报(自然科学版)，2001年11月
[54] 颜峻、李星寰，软件能力成熟度模型，信息工程大学学报，2001年12月
[55] 邯丽，基于CMM的软件过程改进，微型机与应用，2002年第4期
[56] 张宇、贲可荣，小型软件开发单位软件过程改进模型探讨，计算机应用研究，2001年第11期
[57] 黄飞雪、周东清、孙效里、李志洁，软件过程能力成熟度模型研究，小型微型计算机系统，2002年3月