ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
A measurement framework to assess software maturity models.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Software maturity models can be utilized by organizations to evaluate and enhance their development processes. Established and recognized models such as the Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) and ISO/IEC 15504 (Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination (SPICE)) have proven their value. However, many new software maturity models exist, and their quality and potential value remain questionable until they are properly assessed before adoption. Without such an assessment, organizations can implement poor or ineffective models, resulting in wasted resources and failed improvement initiatives. Our research aims to address this challenge by developing a measurement framework based on ISO/IEC 15504-3 standards to assess the quality of developed software maturity models. We derived our quality assessment criteria through literature analysis, analyzing four main categories: basic model information, structural design, assessment methods, and implementation support. After developing this framework, we validated it with expert reviews to assess its design and usability and through a series of case studies. Feedback from academics and industry practitioners confirmed the framework's utility, especially recognizing its clear structure and comprehensiveness of evaluation criteria. Case studies also revealed the framework's effectiveness in identifying strengths and areas of improvement, finding that evaluated models had quality scores ranging from 83.3% to 93.2%. Our study enhances software maturity models' practical utility and adoption across different software contexts, providing professionals and academics with a structured way to evaluate and enhance maturity models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.