See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334854501

Global Software Development and Capability Maturity Model Integration: A

Systematic Literature Review

Conference Paper · October 2018

DOI: 10.1109/IAC.2018.8780489

CITATIONS READS

10 304

4 authors, including:

Anita Hidayati Betty Purwandari

Politeknik Negeri Jakarta University of Indonesia
31 PUBLICATIONS 65 CITATIONS 105 PUBLICATIONS 1,070 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Iis Solichah
University of Indonesia
19 PUBLICATIONS 179 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Anita Hidayati on 17 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Global Software Development and
Capability Maturity Model Integration:
a Systematic Literature Review
Anita Hidayati, Betty Purwandari, Eko K. Budiardjo, Iis Solichah
Faculty of Computer Science
Universitas Indonesia
Depok, Indonesia
anita.hidayati@ui.ac.id, bettyp@cs.ui.ac.id, eko@cs.ui.ac.id, iis@cs.ui.ac.id

Abstract—Global Software Development (GSD) offers
many benefits. On the other hand, it also has several challenges
such as its impact on software quality. The implementation of
software processes improvement, such as the Capability
Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), can improve quality of
software products. However, CMMI as a process improvement
model has been rarely discussed in GSD context. To fill this
gap a systematic literature study was conducted by using
Kitchenham’s method. It investigated GSD research from
several databases between 2013-2018. At the end there are 12
selected papers. The findings indicate that CMMI is essential
for the success of GSD projects. However, it requires multiple
customizations and combinations with other standards.
Concept Process Areas (PAs) and maturity level from CMMI
are used in new standards Software Process Improvement
(SPI) with different approaches. The results of this study are
potential as a reference to develop customized CMMI to
increase success rate in GSD projects.
Keywords—Global Software Development (GSD), Capability
Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), Systematic Literature
Review (SLR), software process improvement, Process Area (PA)
I. INTRODUCTION
Global Software Development (GSD) is also called
Global Software Engineering (GSE), Distributed Software
Development (DSD) [1], IT-outsourcing [2], Offshore
Outsourcing or Overseas Outsourcing [3]. It is an
outsourcing technique with team members coming from
different nationalities and cultural backgrounds. Outsourcing
is an activity in which an organization, which is called a
vendor or service provider, provides services to other
organizations as their customers or clients at predetermined
prices. There is agreement on quality criteria and specified
time schedules [1]. Overseas or offshore outsourcing is a
form of outsourcing conducted outside the country of the
origin of the organization, contracting out work to third
parties in other countries. Outsourced activities include the
transfer of non-core activities to suppliers for the purpose of
securing special skills and lower costs [3].
GSD becomes more widely applied, because it has many
advantages for both the vendors and clients. Client
companies do not have to send power from their own
country to branches abroad. They access world-class
capabilities including new technologies, tools,
methodologies and procedures, which do not exist in the
organization [1]. It optimizes and reduces costs by finding a
zone, where there are more ready labors and expert
resources at the least cost. It provides the easiest approach to
24/7 customers known as "Follow the Sun (FTS)" [4]. It
especially happens if the branches are spread around the
world. GSD can accelerate product development with high
quality and low-cost products, which are closely associated
with overseas markets [3], as well as the need to share risks.
GSD also provides benefits for vendors, including
enhancing the growth of developing countries [4], offering
new motivations such as opportunities for traveling and
interacting with different cultures [5]. The most important
thing is the technology transfer. As a result, it increases the
ability and experience for IT personnel involved in the GSD
team.
GSD has unique characteristics, because it is done in a
geographically dispersed location across national
boundaries. It involves communication for information
exchange, as well as group coordination, activities and
artifacts to achieve the overall goal. The coordination
involves real time (synchronous) and asynchronous
interactions, group control (following goals and policies),
and artefacts (quality, visibility and management).
GSD is different from Open Source Software (OSS),
Traditional Software Development, and Multi National
Corporation (MNC) as depicted in Fig. 1. More detailed
comparisons are shown in Table 1 to 3.
Fig. 1. Software Development Paradigms
TABLE 1. GSD vs. OSS [6]
GSD OSS
There is a target time, performance. Nothing. It depends on the
liveliness of the community.
There is a contract to bind the client There is freedom for anyone
and the vendor involved. to engage and contribute.
There are rules, procedures, tools and Simple communication tool.
ways of communicating sophisticated
and diverse.
TABLE 2. GSD vs. TRADITIONAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT [7]
GSD Traditional Software
Development

XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Indonesia. Downloaded on November 17,2020 at 08:32:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 It must use communication It is easy to communicate
techniques, which can overcome the directly.
barriers of distance, time, language
and culture.
GSD Traditional Software
Development
It requires huge consequences, when a It is easy to make project
project changes in the middle of the changes.
road.
All employees are actively involved in Employees are unaware of
innovation and project development. innovation and project
development.
TABLE 3. GSD vs. MNC [3]
GSD MNC
It consists of 1 client and 1 It belongs to one company. It can be
vendor or more. in multiple locations.
The relationship is the working There is a company's organizational
relationship between client and structure.
vendor.
The uniqueness of GSD creates challenges to adopt it,
such as how to manage its impact on software quality [8]. In
general, an organization must improve its software process
to advance the quality of its software product. The SPI
(Software Process Improvement) model is potential to
increase productivity and efficiency of the implementation
within the organization in efficient and effective ways [9]. It
also leads software organizations to develop good products
[10]. The SPI plays a significant role to make GSD projects
successful [11]. Deployment of SPI in GSD context is more
challenging [12]. CMMI is a process model framework for
SPI. There are several studies on the relation between GSD
and CMMI. Several models and standards of software
process improvement have been designed including CMMI
for enhancing software processes.
There have been researchers, who developed state of the
art of SPI, e.g. CMMI and ISO/IEC [9]. They gave future
work to study on SPI in the field of GSD. Richardson et al
[13] looked for a gap analysis between CMMI and the
application of GSD. Afterwards they proposed a new project
management process area called Global Teaming (GT) to
address specific problems relating to cultural, geographic,
temporal, and linguistic distance, which meet with the
complex and changing needs of GSD. These can be used as a
guidance to implement GSD.
Dayyala studied key elements affecting the performance
of software development projects based on software process
components [14]. He investigated team characteristics that
affect the output of global software projects based on the
CMMI level. Moreover, Persson and Schlichter discussed
how and why managers were willing to accept clients from
companies with level 5 CMII maturity [15]. They also
studied the implications on theory and practice in software
development offshoring.
In four previous studies, there are correlations between
GSD and CMMI. There is an effort to develop process area
from the existing CMMI. There are also special discussion
about the characteristics of the team and the reason in the
selection of clients based on CMMI. However, more studies
are required to understand the interplay between GSD and
CMMI. Hence, this study will address the following research
questions:
RQ1: How does GSD relate to CMMI or its variant?
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Indonesia. Downloaded on November 17,2020 at 08:32:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
RQ2: Are there any maturity levels in GSD and how to
measure?
The aim of these research questions is to map GSD
studies with the CMMI to find out how the CMMI concepts
applied in GSD. This can be a reference to advance software
process quality in GSD.
II. CMMI
Software process is defined as a set of activities,
methods, practices and transformations that people use to
build and maintain software and related products [16]. There
are several process improvement models such as CMMI,
CMM, ISO 9000 and ISO/IEC 15504. By applying one of
the process improvement models, the process of making
software products will take a shorter time but the quality is
not decreased, even increased.
CMMI is one of the maturity models used to improve the
process (process environment) within the organization.
CMMI is a systematic and structured collection of best
practices for process improvement and assessment [12]. The
main objective of CMMI is to reduce the cost of implement
improvements in processes. By eliminating inconsistencies
and establishing guidelines, CMMI reduces the cost of
implement improvement in processes.
In CMMI there are 22 Process Areas (PAs) grouped in
four functional groups as follows [17]:
• Process Management: Organizational Process Focus
(OPF), Organizational Process Definition (OPD),
Organizational Training (OT), Organizational Process
Performance (OPP), Organizational Performance
Management (OPM)
• Project Management: Project Planning (PP), Project
Monitoring and Control (PMC), Supplier Agreement
Management (SAM), Risk Management (RSKM),
Integrated Project Management (IPM), Quantitative
Project Management (QPM), Requirement
Management (REQM)
• Engineering: Requirement Development (RD),
Technical Solution (TS), Product Integration (PI),
Verification (VER), Validation (VAL)
• Support: Configuration Management (CM), Process
and Product Quality Assurance (PPQA),
Measurement and Analysis (MA), Decision Analysis
and Resolution (DAR), Causal Analysis and
Resolution (CAR)
CMMI defines five-level maturity that range from initial
(1), managed (2), defined (3), and quantitatively managed (4)
to optimizing (5) at the highest level as seen on Fig. 2. The
maturity level provides a way to characterize its capability
and performance. Maturity levels represent a staged path for
performance and process improvement effort of
organization. CMMI is successful when operating in a local
environment, but it does not discuss the complexity of GSD
in detail [18] whereas GSD is fundamentally different to
collocated development.
 DATABASES

Running search string

- Indexed Journal and N=178

Proceeding
- English Version

N=86

Title, keyword and

abstract
N=17
Fig. 2. CMMI Maturity Levels [19] Full text

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY N=8+4(snowballing)

= 12
The research methodology of this article is based on
guidelines proposed by Kitchenham [20] in identifying and Fig. 3. The Selection Process
evaluating all sources that related with research question.
Kitchenham is one of the most widely used SLR methods in
software engineering. To find the literature sources used IV. RESULTS AND FINDINGS
some academic databases such as SpringerLink, ProQuest, This section reports the results and findings from the
ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, EBSCOhost and ACM Digital research questions for this study. Global summary of selected
Library. The literature studied is from 2013 and 2018 papers can be seen in Table 5.
semester 1. 178 total papers used in this study with the
composition in Table 4. EBSCOhost dominates with most RQ1: How does GSD relate to CMMI or its variant?
papers totaling 69, whereas in ACM has no paper. There are still many developing countries which are
For article selection, use of terms: global software reluctant to use CMMI. In Turkey and Nigeria, CMMI is
development, global software engineering, distributed only followed if it is explicitly specified as a requirement of
software development, GSD, GSE and CMMI. The query project. CMMI is only as a brand or a label and just for 'show
string used is: off', the product qualities are not necessary [21]. If
organizations have obtained CMMI, they do not follow their
("GLOBAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT" OR prescribed directives. CMMI is considered to slow the
"GLOBAL SOFTWARE ENGINEERING" OR development process and it is not so efficient in practice for
"DISTRIBUTED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT" OR small software companies. The majority of software
"GSD" OR "GSE") AND ("CMMI" OR “CAPABILITY development firms in Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica and
MATURITY MODEL”) Trinidad (English-Speaking Caribbean), were not aware of
This study is included based on criteria: nor using CMMI [22]. With less attention to CMMI, it
results in poor of quality software being delivered in
• Study describes about CMMI in GSD context. developing countries. Meanwhile in a developed country,
Finland, SMEs companies do not adopt CMMI because its
• Study is published in a Scopus-indexed journal or benefits are not clear [23].
conference.
Having international quality certifications such as CMMI
Studies are excluded based on criteria: is important for the success of offshore software industries
• The domain is not in the field of computer science. [24]. The standard model, such as CMMI, is still needed in
GSD, one important is documentation [25]. With CMMI
• Not in English version. certification, GSD vendors maintain stringent documentation
• The terms are not explicit in title, keywords or of projects undertaken by them. All artifacts (data flow
abstract. charts, software code, test scripts, etc.) have strict
documentations. These help understanding of partners about
The last exclude is based on content of full text. The common project expectations.
result is 8 full-reviewed papers. There 4 papers obtained by
snowballing method, so total papers are 12. So that CMMI can be relevant in the context of GSD and
widely applied, it is devoted to develop customization [26].
TABLE 4. DATA SOURCES Customization of the area process must be performed to suit
E-Databases Total of First Second Final different GSD characteristics with collocated, especially
Articles Selection Selection Paper
when associated with culture, coordination, agile concept,
SpringerLink 25 9 2 1
ProQuest 46 22 5 2 et.al. New standards such as Global Teaming [27][28],
ScienceDirect 32 30 7 4 SPIIMM [29], SOPM [30], PAM [31] and an ontological
IEEE Xplore 6 6 2 0 framework [32] have been built to accommodate the needs of
EBSCOhost 69 29 1 1 GSD. Although these standards are not purely CMMI, they
ACM Digital Library 0 0 0 0 can be called as CMMI variants, but they still use the basic
Total 178 86 17 12 (8+4) concept of CMII, such as process areas and maturity levels.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Indonesia. Downloaded on November 17,2020 at 08:32:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE 5. RELATION GSD WITH CMMI
Sources Related with CMMI
[21] CMMI is only followed if it explicitly specified as a
requirement, and just for ‘showoff’.
In ESC, key determinants of process maturity are
[22]
verification & validation and project monitoring & control.
[23] Benefit of CMMI is not clear for small company.
[24] CMMI is important for the success of offshoring.
[25] Certifications from CMMI can push maintaining stringent
documentation of all projects.
[26] More pragmatic approach is more likely, in Scandinavia
toward to “agile” era, so need to customize CMMI.
[27] Global Teaming is made based on empirical study in GSD
with deriving CMMI template for governance.
[28] DSS for global teaming.
[29] SPIIMM is based on existing process development models,
including CMMI.
[30] SOPM categorizing vendors’ capability level based on
CMMI maturity levels, and on partnership CSFs based on
Pas
[31] PAM takes all top-level PAs from CMMI and replace PAs
with other standards as a way that fits context of GSD.
[32] Ontologicall framework based on a multi-model approach,
including CMMI concept.
RQ2: Are there any maturity levels in GSD and how to
measure?
An initial Software Process Improvement
Implementation Management Model (SPIIMM) was
developed to assist GSD organizations to measure and
improve their SPI activities. It will tackle the problems
associated with implementation of SPI, which is vital to the
GSD organizations success and progression. It used CMMI
and other existing process development models to structure
SPIIMM, as shown in Fig. 4. CMMI as one of references to
determine maturity levels. Critical Success Factors (CSFs)
dan Critical Barriers (CBs) are also identified based on
CMII.
Process Area Map (PAM) is one example reference
frameworks and standards like CMMI. It structures and
categorizes available solutions (tool, process, model,
technique, and so on) to tackle challenges in GSD into main
and sub-process areas. It is used to evaluate and improve
development environment in a structure way. Fig. 5 shows
the structure of PAM looks like a tree. It was constructed
using several sources, with CMMI as the basis of the
structure. All top-level PAs (Process Management, Project
Management, Engineering, Support) and most of the PAs are
Fig. 4. Architecture of SPIMM Model [29]
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Indonesia. Downloaded on November 17,2020 at 08:32:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
taken from CMMI. In some areas, there are replacements of
PAs. This is because PAs from other standards are more
appropriate and have wider possible definitions, so they can
fit the context GSD much better.
RQ2: Are there any maturity levels in GSD and how to
measure it?
In PAM, there is no maturity level of organization like
CMMI. The maturity which is meant in PAM is maturity of
the PA. The average rating of a PA is used to compare PAs
and show the maturity of the PA. The higher the value, the
better the maturity.
SPIIMM has maturity levels indicates the capability of
an organization in process improvement. SPIIMM maturity
levels is based on CMMI and two others. Each maturity
level consists of different Critical Success Factors (CSFs)
and Critical Barriers (CBs). Its assessment component is
used to evaluate maturity levels of an organization. But
SPIMM does not have a detailed explanation about the
measurement of maturity level, because it is still a model
design.
V. CONCLUSIONS
From this research can be drawn conclusion as follows:
• CMMI as a SPI is still essential for the success of
GSD projects. However, it has not been able to
answer the challenges in GSD. Multiple
customizations and combinations with other standards
are required to make it be more flexible and able to fit
the needs and relevance of GSD.
• There are some new standards SPI as variants of
CMMI. They referred to the CMMI concept in terms
of PAs and maturity levels.
• There are maturity levels in GSD that are derived
from CMMI, for example SPIIMM, with combination
of CSFs and CBs. But there is no measurement of
maturity levels.
• There are still open opportunities for research in GSD
especially in improving product quality through
customization of existing process models.
The results of this study will be developed for further
research to standardize new models by combining existing
standards and adoption to the GSD.
 Fig. 5. Structure of PAM [31]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was supported by a PITTA grant at the
University of Indonesia (1868/UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2018).
REFERENCES
[1] K. Siakas, “Cultural and Organisational Diversity Evaluation (
CODE ) A tool for improving global transactions,” 2015.
[2] J. Palvia and C. Shailendra, “Outsourcing issues and challenges
facing CEOs and CIOs,” J. Inf. Technol. Cases Appl., vol. 7, no.
4, pp. 1–6, 2005.
[3] P. Hong, “Strategic outsourcing practices of multi-national
corporations ( MNCs ) in China,” 2014.
[4] J. Kroll, I. Richardson, R. Prikladnicki, and J. L. N. Audy,
“Empirical evidence in follow the Sun software development : A
systematic mapping study,” vol. 93, pp. 30–44, 2018.
[5] S. Beecham et al., “Challenges and Recommendations for the
Design and Conduct of Global Software Engineering Courses : A
Systematic Review Protocol Contact Information :,” 2015.
[6] P. Mohagheghi, “Global software development: Issues, solutions,
challenges,” Retrieved April, no. September, pp. 1–26, 2004.
[7] G. Gaughan, B. Fitzgerald, and M. Shaikh, “An Examination of
the use of Open Source Software Processes as a Global Software
Development Solution for Commercial Software Engineering .,”
2009.
[8] S. Mahmood, S. Anwer, M. Niazi, M. Alshayeb, and I.
Richardson, “Key factors that influence task allocation in global
software development,” Inf. Softw. Technol., vol. 91, pp. 102–
122, 2017.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Indonesia. Downloaded on November 17,2020 at 08:32:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[9] M. Kuhrmann, P. Diebold, and J. Münch, “Software process
improvement : a systematic mapping study on the state of the
art,” no. 2012, 2016.
[10] A. A. Khan and J. Keung, “Systematic review of success factors
and barriers for software process improvement in global software
development,” IET Softw., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 125–135, 2016.
[11] A. A. Khan, J. Keung, M. Niazi, and S. Hussain, “Towards a
hypothetical framework of humans related success factors for
process improvement in global software development,” Proc.
Symp. Appl. Comput. - SAC ’17, pp. 180–186, 2017.
[12] M. Niazi, M. A. Babar, and J. M. Verner, “Software process
improvement barriers: a cross-cultural comparison,” Inf. Softw.
Technol, vol. 52, pp. 1204–1216, 2010.
[13] I. Richardson, V. Casey, F. McCaffery, J. Burton, and S.
Beecham, “A process framework for global software engineering
teams,” Inf. Softw. Technol., vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 1175–1191,
2012.
[14] N. Dayyala, “Essays On Sofwtare Development Projects: Impact
Of Social And Technological Factors On Project Performance
And Co-Diffusion Of Software Sourcing Arrangements,” The
University Of Texas At El Paso, 2017.
[15] J. Stouby and B. Rerup, “Managing Risk Areas in Software
Development Developm Offshoring : A CMMI Level 5 C Case,”
J. Inf. Technol. theory Appl., vol. 16, no. 1, p. 5=24, 2015.
[16] P. Mark, C. V. Weber, C. Bill, and M. B. Chrissis, The capability
maturity model: Guidelines for improving the software process.
Addison-Wesley, 1995.
[17] D. Proença and J. Borbinha, “Formalizing ISO/IEC 15504-5 and
SEI CMMI v1.3 – Enabling automatic inference of maturity and
 capability levels,” Comput. Stand. Interfaces, vol. Volume 60, pp.
13–25, 2018.
[18] I. Richardson, V. Casey, J. Burton, and F. Mccaffery, “Global
Software Engineering : A Software Process Approach,” in
Collaborative Software Engineering, Springer, 2010, pp. 35–57.
[19] S. Godfrey, “What is CMMI?,” NASA Presentation. 2008.
[20] B. Kitchenham, O. Pearl Brereton, D. Budgen, M. Turner, J.
Bailey, and S. Linkman, “Systematic literature reviews in
software engineering - A systematic literature review,” Inf. Softw.
Technol., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 7–15, 2009.
[21] O. Y. Sowunmi, S. Misra, L. F. Sanz, B. Crawford, and R. Soto,
“An empirical evaluation of software quality assurance practices
and challenges in a developing country : a comparison of Nigeria
and Turkey,” Springerplus, pp. 1–14, 2016.
[22] E. C. Firms, “Key Factors of Process Maturity in English-
Speaking Caribbean Firms,” pp. 322–330, 2014.
[23] S. Wagner, M. K. M. Felderer, T. Conte, M. C. D. Greer, and P.
M. A. Vetr, “Naming the pain in requirements engineering
Contemporary problems , causes , and effects in practice,” pp.
2298–2338, 2017.
[24] G. P. Sudhakar, “A Review of Critical Success Factors for
Offshore Software Development Projects,” vol. 46, no. 6, pp.
282–296, 2013.
[25] A. Mathrani and S. Mathrani, “Test strategies in distributed
software development environments,” Comput. Ind., vol. 64, no.
1, pp. 1–9, 2013.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universitas Indonesia. Downloaded on November 17,2020 at 08:32:03 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
View publication stats
[26] M. Kuhrmann and P. Diebold, “How Does Software Process
Improvement Address Global Software Engineering ?,” in IEEE
11th International Conference on Global Software Engineering
How, 2016, pp. 89–98.
[27] J. Noll, S. Beecham, I. Richardson, and C. N. Canna, “A Global
Teaming Model for Global Software Development Governance:
A Case Study,” 2016 IEEE 11th Int. Conf. Glob. Softw. Eng., pp.
179–188, 2016.
[28] S. Beecham, J. Noll, and I. Richardson, “A Decision Support
System for Global Software Development,” in Sixth IEEE
International Conference on Global Software Engineering
Workshops, 2011, pp. 48–53.
[29] A. A. Khan, J. Keung, M. Niazi, S. Hussain, and A. Ahmad,
“Systematic literature review and empirical investigation of
barriers to process improvement in global software development:
Client–vendor perspective,” Inf. Softw. Technol., vol. 87, pp.
180–205, 2017.
[30] S. Ali and S. U. Khan, “Software outsourcing partnership model:
An evaluation framework for vendor organizations,” J. Syst.
Softw., vol. 117, pp. 402–425, 2016.
[31] S. Schneider, R. Torkar, and T. Gorschek, “Solutions in global
software engineering: A systematic literature review,” Int. J. Inf.
Manage., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 119–132, 2013.
[32] J. Mejia, E. Muñoz, and M. Muñoz, “Reinforcing the
applicability of multi-model environments for software process
improvement using knowledge management,” Sci. Comput.
Program., vol. 121, pp. 3–15, 2016.