Mapping of improvement models as a risk reduction strategy: a theoretical comparison for the aerospace industry Articles uri icon



publication date

  • December 2014

start page

  • 283

end page

  • 295


  • 4


  • 10

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 1614-5046

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1614-5054


  • Organizations involved on process improvement programs need to deal with different process improvement and assessment models. As not all the process improvement and assessment models have an equivalent scope, the selection of a particular model to guide the improvement strategy may result in a partial, constrained view of the areas where the organization may obtain competitive advantages. As a mitigation strategy, organizations should have a detailed understanding of the differences in the scope of the available models. Whatever the model they adopt, companies should be aware of relevant areas that may be missed or treated with more or less detail in the models under consideration. In addition, the need of dealing with different assessment models is usually found in second- and third-party assessments, when prospects or potential contractors decide to conduct an assessment of the subcontractor's capabilities using a model that may not be the same as the reference model selected by the target subcontractor. In these situations, companies are at risks of overlooking relevant processes and practices. This paper describes a case study developed for the aerospace industry, based on the mapping of two assessment models widely deployed in this activity sector: CMMI-DEV and SPICE for Space, a variant of ISO/IEC 15504. A detailed gap analysis is provided identifying those aspects that should be considered both as potential improvement areas and as sources of risks. An extended assessment activity methodology is proposed that considers the results of model traceability analysis as a key factor for conducting the assessments.