Using Test Employee Capability Maturity Model for Supporting Gaps Bridging in Software Testing

Jithinan Sirathienchai, Peraphon Sophatsathit, Decha Dechawatanapaisal

Department of Commerce, Faculty of Commerce and Accountancy, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Technopreneurship and Innovation Management, Graduate School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.

DOI: 10.4236/jsea.2012.56048                

Abstract

This study addresses the challenge of assessing gaps among the differences of test people in eight groups by matching them based on four scenarios. The proposed model called Test Employee Capability Maturity Model (TEC-MM) helps find the gaps and measure the capability and maturity levels of each sub-maturity models in four dimensions as technicality, management, business, and personality. We applied TEC-MM to a software company which has instituted test people improvement strategy and plans to be a front runner in software testing industry. The findings reveal that gaps existed and consequently affect software testing process quality.

Keywords

Software Testing; Test People; Capability Maturity Model; Capability and Maturity Levels;Gap Assessment

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	E. Dustin, “Effective Software Testing: 50 Specific Ways to Improve Your Testing,” Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing, Boston, 2002.
[2]	A. M. J. Hass, “Guide to Advanced Software Testing,” Artech House, Norwood, 2008.
[3]	D. Graham, E. Van Veenendaal, I. Evans and R. Black, “Foundations of Software Testing: ISTQB Certification,” Thomson Learning, Stamford, 2007.
[4]	R. L. Glass, R. Collard, A. Bertolino, J. Bach and C. Kaner, “Software Testing and Industry Needs,” IEEE Software, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2006, pp. 55-57. doi:10.1109/MS.2006.113
[5]	L. Briand and Y. Labiche, “Empirical Studies of Software Testing Techniques: Challenges, Practical Strategies, and Future Research,” ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 29, No. 5, 2004, pp. 1-3. doi:10.1145/1022494.1022541
[6]	T. Parveen, S. Tilley and G. Gonzalez, “A Case Study in Test Management,” Proceedings of the 45th Annual Southeast Regional Conference, Winston-Salem, 23-24 March 2007, pp. 82-87.
[7]	A. Bertolino, “The (Im)maturity Level of Software Testing,” ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 29, No. 5, 2004, pp. 1-4. doi:10.1145/1022494.1022540
[8]	J. J. Ahonen, T. Junttila and M. Sakkinen, “Impacts of the Organizational Model on Testing: Three Industrial Cases,” Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2004, pp. 275-296. doi:10.1023/B:EMSE.0000039880.99096.af
[9]	N. Juristo, A. M. Moreno and W. Strigel, “Guest Editors’ Introduction: Software Testing Practices in Industry,” IEEE Software, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2006, pp. 19-21. doi:10.1109/MS.2006.104
[10]	CMMI Product Team, “CMMI for Acquisition, Version 1.3,” Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 2010.
[11]	CMMI Product Team, “CMMI for Development, Version 1.3,” Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 2010.
[12]	CMMI Product Team, “CMMI for Services, Version 1.3,” Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 2010.
[13]	B. Curtis, B. Hefley and S. Miller, “People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM) Version 2.0,” Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 2009.
[14]	H. F. Kaiser, “An Index of Factorial Simplicity,” Psychometrika, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1974, pp. 31-36. doi:10.1007/BF02291575
[15]	http://www.tmmifoundation.org/downloads/tmmi/TMMi%20Framework.pdf