Unified Quality Training Process
Hind Dahar and Ounsa Roudies
Mohammed V University in Rabat, EMI, Siweb Team E3S, Av. Ibn. Sina BP 765, Rabat-Agdal, Maroc, Hungary
Keywords:
Quality Standard, Quality References, Mapping, Harmonization, Co-deployment, MDE.
Abstract:
The development of quality in the global market has made standards and repository indispensable tools. Each
standard has its own strengths and covers specific perimeters in the company, which necessitates the co-
deployment of several standards simultaneously. However, the diversity of standards can lead to different
problems such as heterogeneity and redundancy, which results in increased implementation costs in terms of
time, resource mobilization and budget. We propose a quality approach called“Unified Quality” to address
these problems. This paper describes the configuration process that creates The common repository, that en-
compasses all requirements of the co-deployed standards without redundancy and ambiguity. It is an iterative
and MDE based process. Finally, the training process is illustrated by its application to both ISO 9001 and
CMMI standards.
1 INTRODUCTION
Quality development is a key competition process in
the global market. This requires companies to use
standards and benchmarks of good practices in man-
agement and information systems. Several standards
cover the main activities of IT (information tech-
nology) systems such as ISO 9001 (Marques et al.,
2017), CMMI (noa, 2015) and ITIL (noa, 2012). Each
standard has its own strengths but does not satisfy the
collection of IT system requirements independently
of other standards (Jomaa, 2015). For example, ITIL
ensures the post-production quality, while CMMI im-
proves the maturity level of company’s software en-
gineering processes. However, ITIL or CMMI cannot
satisfy, by its self, the whole company needs.
The problem remains in the implementation of
several standards within the same company. Sev-
eral works have attempted to approach this sub-
ject. Some authors believe that this issue is due to
heterogeneity of standards that it is manifested in
their entities and their processes structures (Mu
˜
noz
et al., 2014)(Kerzazi, 2015), It can also appear in
terms of terminology, size or complexity level (Pardo-
Calvache et al., 2015)(Dahar and Roudies, b). For
instance, heterogeneity causes difficulties for orga-
nizations in interpreting components of several stan-
dards (Pardo et al., 2015)(Pardo et al., 2012). while
for others, the issue is related to redundancies that
generate additional costs in terms of human resources,
time and budget (Baldassarre et al., 2012).
Many types of approaches have addressed the
challenges resulting from the co-deployment of sev-
eral quality standards, namely:
Ontological approaches that present ontolo-
gies (Pardo et al., 2012) and Baldassar (Baldas-
sarre et al., 2012) to overcome the problem of ter-
minological difference in standards.
Approaches based on model engineering and con-
struction of a general meta-model (Ponce et al.,
2014) which is based on the Meta models of stan-
dards.
Approaches of integrating (Marques et al., 2017)
one model into another, or into a common frame-
work adopted by the organization.
Our literature review shows that these approaches are
specific and focus on managing two or three well-
defined standards. We therefore conclude that re-
search field is lacking of an approach not limited to
a little number of standards. In other words, we need
an approach that allows to align a set of undefined and
unlimited standards.
Trying to remedy the inefficiency of the simulta-
neous use of several standards, we propose Unified
Quality approach. It is supported by the MDE (Model
Driven Engineering) approach. It aims to align sev-
eral standards in order to facilitate their integration
and to minimize the efforts related to their simulta-
neous usage in the IT field. In addition, it optimizes
audit process.
Dahar, H. and Roudies, O.
Unified Quality Training Process.
DOI: 10.5220/0010147502410248
In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2020) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 241-248
ISBN: 978-989-758-474-9
Copyright
c
2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
241
Our approach consists of two processes: Config-
uration and Audit. The approach’s configuration pro-
cess aims to integrate several standards into the same
optimal quality repository. The standards are inte-
grated in an incremental way, which capitalizes on
the building of the quality repository and its train-
ing. The configuration process is divided into two
sub-processes for this purpose:
First, the building the pivot meta-model that
presents the structure of the quality repository.
Second, the training process of this repository.
This repository allows to unify different structures of
the quality standards in order to solve their hetero-
geneity and redundancy issues. The second process
of Unified Quality approach is devoted to the quality
audit of a specific organization. First, the organiza-
tion chooses the collection of standards it wishes to
co-deploy. Then, Unified Quality system provides a
set of elementary requirements that the auditor has to
check. These are represent all the chosen standards in
a clear and not redundant manner. The audit process
will be addressed in subsequent study.
This paper is devoted to training process. Building
the pivot Meta Model has been described previously.
The objective of this paper is to describe how a new
adopted standard is integrated in the quality reposi-
tory and how the requirements are optimised.
To validate our approach, we apply it to ISO 9001
and CMMI to ensure the functioning of the proposed
models and transformations. We choose the ISO 9001
case that is already integrated in the quality repository
and consider the integration of the CMMI model.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The
second section is a overview of different aspects of
the article, the third section summarizes the construc-
tion process of the pivot meta-model, the fourth one
describes the training process of Unified Quality ap-
proach, followed by the fifth section that describes the
experiment of the approach application. Lastly the
conclusion highlights the strengths of this approach,
some limits and leads to new perspectives.
2 UNIFIED QUALITY OVERVIEW
Unified Quality consists of two processes: Configura-
tion and Audit.
2.1 Configuration Process
The configuration process presents the backbone of
the UQ approach. Its main objective is to unify the
standards chosen by the company into a single reposi-
tory called the UQ repository, and this to facilitate and
optimize the simultaneous use of the standards within
the company and to eliminate the problems caused by
this issue. To this end, UQ repository contains all
the requirements of integrated standards. These re-
quirements are grouped by sector and are elementary
and unique. The configuration process is subdivided
into two sub-processes, namely, building of the pivot
meta-model sub-process entitled UQ pivot building
and the training sub-process entitled TPUQ.
UQ-Pivot Building Process: UQ Pivot meta-
model is a meta-model that supports communi-
cation between standards and the UQ repository.
It presents the structure of the UQ repository on
which the training process is based. The process
occurs only once in the life cycle of the system,
except in future need.
Training Process: the role of this process is to
train the new standard in the UQ repository. It
is an iterative process. The number of iterations
equals the number of standards to be integrated.
It is flexible and dynamic, depending on the stan-
dard.
2.2 Audit Process
The second process of Unified Quality approach is de-
voted to the quality audit of a specific organization.
First, the organization chooses collection of standards
it wishes to co-deploy. Then Unified Quality system
provides a set of elementary requirements that the au-
ditor has to check. These represent all the chosen
standards in a clear and not redundant manner. The
audit process will be addressed in subsequent work.
We propose in the following a detailed descrip-
tion of each sub-process composing the configuration
process, to present on the one hand their phases, steps
and tasks and explain on the other hand their concepts
and theoretical foundations.
3 PIVOT META-MODEL
Our goal is to analyze the structures and concepts of
existing standards in order to build a common model.
It aims to align the structures of quality standards in
order to facilitate their communication and minimize
the efforts related to their simultaneous use. For this
purpose, we follow an MDE approach. We rely on
Meta modeling to deduce the final structure of the
model. In our approach, we call the common model
UQ pivot model and its meta-model UQ pivot meta-
model.
KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
242
This section describes the UQ pivot meta-model.
The details of the process of this meta-model building
are given in a previous article(Dahar et al., )(Dahar
and Roudies, a).
Figure 1 presents the UQ pivot meta-model. The
UQ pivot meta-model consists of the Standard class
. Each standard is composed of a set of rubrics. It
allows the standard to be subdivided into several areas
or specialties. In addition, the requirements underline
the need to be met in order to obtain certification of a
standard.
Figure 1: Pivot meta-model.
Requirement: After analysis of the concepts of the
standards leaders, we noticed that in the standards,
the main concept is Requirement for ISO9001 and
Practice for CMMI. These two concepts have the
same intention at the level of organizations, it
presents the action or need to be satisfied in order
to obtain the level of quality required.
Rubric: In addition, the other classes of the two
standards generally allow the grouping of these
requirements according to one or several axis.
Therefore, there are two types of rubrics, elemen-
tary and compound rubrics.
Compound Rubric: The grouping contains groups
of requirements in order to have a well-structured
hierarchy, for example Composite item for ISO
9001 and Process area for CMMI.
Elementary Rubric: The grouping of require-
ments is directly linked to the requirements, for
example objective for CMMI and elementary arti-
cle for ISO 9001.
4 TRAINING PROCESS
UQ Training is an agile process. It allows to unify
standards in a UQ repository. This repository elim-
inates misunderstanding and redundancy in the re-
quirements of standards, and inconsistency in their
structures. The process integrates the standards into
the UQ repository incrementally. It consists of three
phases: the loading phase of the new standard, the
refinement phase and the integration phase. It relies
on the quality engineer who is a required analyst, and
his main role is to make sure that the products com-
ply with the company’s requirements, and to manage
the balance between productivity and quality. In this
process, he is in charge of judging the elementary and
refining. The figure shows the steps and tasks of the
training process as well as their input and output mod-
els. Figure2
Figure 2: UQ training process.
4.1 Step 1. Loading a New Standard
The standard loading step consists of studying each
standard separately. It is based on model engineering.
Its goal is to load the new standard into the UQ pivot
model. As explained above, the main actor is the soft-
ware engineer. This step consists of two tasks. The
first one is the loading of the standard original model
and the second one is its transformation into UQ pivot
model.
4.1.1 Task 1. Creation of a Standard Original
Model
It consists of representing the new standard by a
model based on the standards concept. For exam-
ple CMMI is represented in terms of processes areas,
goals and practices. The result is the standard orig-
inal model. This standard original model is related
only to the standard, so it is the same model regard-
less of the enterprise. Thus, it is maybe reused. This
step is usually carried out by the quality engineer of
the enterprise.
4.1.2 Task 2. Updating UQ Pivot Model
The original model of each standard is transform in
order to express in the UQ pivot Model. UQ pivot
model encompasses the representation of each se-
lected standard expressed by common language. For
example CMMI is expressed in the pivot model in
terms of requirements and rubrics as shown in figure1.
This perform by defining transformation rules.
Unified Quality Training Process
243
Our method uses a (1 to 1) transformation (Mens
et al., ). The transformation system used is said to be
exogenous because the source and target models do
not come from the same metal-model. This system
is also called horizontal because the source and target
models involved in the transformation are at the same
level of abstraction. The transformation mechanism
used to load the UQ pivot model is schematized in
Figure 3.
Figure 3: Transformation from standard to Pivot repository.
4.2 Step 2. Refinement of a Standard
Before analyzing the correspondence between re-
quirements of the UQ pivot model and those of the
UQ repository, it is necessary to ensure that they are
placed at the same level of granularity. In this phase,
we use an analytical approach based on requirements
engineering. The requirements of the quality stan-
dards are functional. They define one or more func-
tionalities to be applied. The proposed solution to
unify the level of granularity is the function-oriented
refinement. The goal is to rewrite a requirement into
several refined requirements. A refined requirement
is elementary, associated with a single functionality.
The refinement is done by the quality engineer. The
latter is in charge of analyzing requirements, defining
their functionalities and rewriting them into elemen-
tary requirements.
Given
RP : The set of UQ pivot model requirements.
RR : The set of refined requirements.
r RP and r
i
RR.
We express this refinement by the function named
”F” presented by two equations; Equation 1 is defined
from RP to RR
n
. Indeed, if r is an elementary require-
ment then it is assumed to be already refined. There-
fore the image of r is the same. Otherwise, we decom-
pose r into several elementary requirements r
i
. The
union of r
i
is equivalent to r, as illustrated in Equa-
tion 2.
F(r) =
(
r, r is elementary
(r
1
, r
2
, r
3
, , r
n
), otherwise
(1)
n
i=1
r
i
r (2)
4.3 Step 3. Construction of the UQ
Repository
This step is composed of two main tasks.
4.3.1 Task 1. Requirement Mapping
In this phase, we create mapping links between the
refined requirements and the UQ repository require-
ments. This is done by the company’s quality en-
gineer. Analyzing each repository requirement with
each UQ pivot model requirement is a long and cum-
bersome process. We define two levels of mapping,
namely rubrics and requirements. At the first level,
we analyze the mapping between the rubrics of the
UQ pivot model and those of UQ repository. This
allows us to identify the rubrics that cover similar ar-
eas or that may have points of intersection and also
those that cover completely separate areas. This level
allows us to detect all requirements that will be ana-
lyzed at the second level. It is obvious that there is no
mapping link between requirements that belong to di-
vergent rubrics, and only those that belong to aligned
rubrics will be analyzed.
The function RM represented the requirements
mapping takes the following values:
1 in the case where there is a mapping,
0 otherwise.
The function RQM The function RM represented the
rubrics mapping takes the following values:
1 in the case where there is a mapping,
0 otherwise.
Many Natural Language Processing (NLP) applica-
tions allow to compute the similarity in meaning be-
tween two short texts. There is a wide range of meth-
ods for calculating the similarity in meaning between
two sentences like Pre-trained sentence encoder(Cer
et al., ) and Smooth Inverse Frequency(Karipbayeva
et al., ) or more advanced algorithms like Siamese
Manhattan(Amin et al., ).
These methods can be used to automate the com-
parison of two requirements and to estimate the error
distance at the equivalent level. The quality engineer
will intervene only if the error distance is low in or-
der to confirm the equivalence between the two com-
pared requirements. The comparison of the efficiency
of each similarity algorithm and the implementation
KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
244
of the most relevant one remains to be studied as part
of my future work.
4.3.2 Task 2. Merging the Standard and the UQ
Repository
This composition makes it possible to merge the re-
quirements of two models by taking into account
the mapping links established between these require-
ments. And this for ensuring that these requirements
are not duplicated in the new UQ repository. In addi-
tion to the final model of the UQ repository.
The requirements of the source models are divided
into two main groups. The first group presents those
that have a mapping in the model opposite, while the
second group presents those that do not. Indeed, there
are two activities that produce elements in the target
model which is the UQ repository. The elements that
have been identified as mapping are merged into a se-
quence of model elements in the target model and a
selection of the elements for which a mapping has not
been found in the opposite model is transformed into
elements of the target model. Each merge rule defines
the types of elements it can merge, as well as a list
of elements it produces in the target model. It also
defines exactly how the source elements are linked to
the newly created elements in the target model. Sim-
ilarly, each transformation rule defines the instances
it can transform, and a list of the model elements it
produces in the model.
5 EXPERIMENT
Let us consider SoftChallenge, a software company
producing logistic systems. At 2017 it has chosen to
be certified ISO 9001, in order to improve its busi-
ness processes. Therefore the quality team needs a
check list of the ISO 9001 requirements. The qual-
ity engineer has integrated ISO 9001 requirements
in SoftChallenge UQ repository. At 2020, SoftChal-
lenge decided to improve its software engineering
activities by the CMMI standard certification. SO
CMMI requirements must be integrated in SoftChal-
lenge UQ repository.
We assume that the ISO 9001 standard is the first
quality standard deployed in the company, and that
our main objective is the deployment of the CMMI
standard while pursuing our UQ approach. In our
case, we will follow a single iteration of CMMI in-
tegration.
We are currently implementing a framework that
helps the quality engineer in training the new stan-
dards in the UQ repository. In this article we will use
the framework in the application of the first part of
the process, the second and third part will be applied
manually, and the final version of the framework will
be described in details in a future work.
In view of the volume of ISO 9001 and CMMI
standards, we chose just the two-part of both stan-
dards. We have chosen the two most convergent parts
in order to visualize the approach and its benefits.
We have chosen Article 4 Quality management
system of the ISO 9001 standard[REF]. And the
generic goals of the CMMI standard[REF]. !
5.1 Step 1. Loading the CMMI Original
Model
In this task, we use the UQ framework in order to
instantiate the CMMI standard, the figure 4 presents
the generic goals and practices of the CMMI standard.
Figure 4: Generic goals and practices of the CMMI stan-
dard.
The transformation rules is illustrated in the table1
The result of the transformation gives us the pivot
model enriched by the instances of the CMMI stan-
dard.
5.2 Step 2: CMMI Refinement in UQ
Pivot Model
We elaborate the refinement of the requirements of
the CMMI UQ Pivot model by illustrating an exam-
ple of a requirement, we have chosen the GP2.5 re-
quirement, which is: GP2.5 Identify and involve the
parties concerned. As shown in Figure 6, this require-
ment has two features, the identification of the parties
concerned and their involving.
F(GP2.5) = (GP2.51, GP2.52) (3)
Unified Quality Training Process
245
Table 1: The transformation rules from CMMI to the UQ
Pivot.
Source target Attribute
Standard - id-s: CMMI
- label-s: Capability
Maturity Model In-
tegration
- validity-s:
Maturity
Level
Compound
rubric
- id-r: id-m
- label-r: label-m
- type-r: maturity
level
Process
Area
Compound
rubric
- id-r: id-pa
- label-r : label-pa
- type-r: process
area
Goal Elementary
rubric
- id-r: id-g
- label-r: label-g
- type-r: type-g
Practice Requirement - id-rp: id-p
- label-rp: label-p
- type-rp: type-p
- validity-rp : vali-
dity-p
Figure 5: Result of the transformation from CMMI model
to PIVOT model.
5.3 Step 3: Updating UQ Repository
The experimentation of this part is done in two parts:
5.3.1 Task 1. Requirement Mapping
In this part we will elaborate the mapping between
the requirements of the UQ repository and those of
the UQ pivot Model. As explained in the require-
ments mapping paragraph, this task is done in two
steps, rubric mapping and requirements mapping.
As a reminder, the example chosen ISO 9001
Figure 6: Example of a refinement of a requirement.
rubrics are
4.4 Quality management system and its processes.
And the example chosen CMMI rubrics are:
GG1 Achieving specific objectives
GG2 Institutionalize a managed process Plan the
process
GG3 Institutionalize a defined process Establish a
defined process
The result of the RQM function between the rubric
4.4 and the GG1 rubric is RQM(4.4, GG1) ) = 0, but
for the example of the two rubrics 4.4 and GG2 the
RQM (4.4, GG2) equals to 1.
We conclude from the rubric mapping result that,
it is not necessary to process the mapping between
the requirements of rubric 4.4 and GG1 because there
is no reconciliation between the two rubrics, and in
this case the QM mapping function between these re-
quirements equals to 0. for each requirement of 4.4
and r requirement of GG1 MQ(r,x) = 0. Which gives
us the benefit of analyzing the requirements of these
two rubrics.
On the other hand it is necessary to analyze the
mapping between the requirements of the rubric com-
binations (4.4 GG2) and (4.4, GG3). To illustrate,
using the example of (4.4 GG.2); The result of the
requirements mapping of the rubric 4.4 and GG2 is
shown in table2. The case of requirement GP2.1 (Pro-
vide resources) and the requirement d1(determine the
resources needed for these processes), these two re-
quirements cover the same functionality, which is the
determination of the resources for the processes. Then
there is a mapping between the two requirements and
the function RQM(d1, GP2.1) = 1. On the other
hand, the example of requirement pair GP2.3 (Edu-
cating people) and g1 (Evaluate these processes), il-
lustrates the case of absence of mapping and the func-
tion RQM(g1,GP2.3) = 0.
KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
246
Table 2: Result of the mapping of the requirements of rubric 4.4 and GG2.
RQM a b c d1 d2 e f g1 g2 h
GP2.1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
GP2.2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
GP2.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GP2.32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GP2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GP2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GP2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
GP2.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5.3.2 Task 2. Integration of the UQ Pivot Model
to the UQ Repository
We proceed in this task to integrate the pivot UQ
model in the UQ repository.
The pivot model requirements that have a mapping
of the requirements from the UQ repository will not
be integrated into the UQ repository but all the others
will be integrated, in the table3 shows the result of the
example integration of the GG.2 field.
6 CONCLUSION
Even if, software quality assurance approaches have
reached a maturity and their standards are popular,
their deployment is mastered when only one of them
is deployed. But in the case of the co-deployment of
several quality standards, many problems remain and
are the subject of extensive research. The originality
of UQ approach is first to provide an gradual and ag-
ile integration of standards according to the company
needs and vision. Secondly the approach is based on
formalisation and MDE. The quality engineer have a
unique quality check list to drive his audit, avoiding
redundancy and ambiguity.
The approach consists of two processes, configu-
ration and audit. The approach’s configuration pro-
cess aims to integrate several standards into the same
optimal UQ repository. The standards are integrated
in an incremental way capitalizes on the building of
the UQ repository and its training, It is divided into
two sub-processes for this purpose. The first one is
the building of the pivot meta-model that presents the
structure of the UQ repository and second one is the
training process of this repository which is the sub-
ject of this paper. This repository allows to unify the
different structures of the quality standards in order to
solve their heterogeneity and redundancy issue. The
second process of Unified Quality approach is de-
voted to the quality audit of a specific organization.
. The audit process will be addressed in subsequent
Table 3: The UQ repository containing article 4 of the ISO
9001 standard.
Rubric RequirementP
Quality manage-
ment system and
its processes
a) determine the inputs re-
quired and the outputs ex-
pected from these processes;
b) determine the sequence
and interaction of these pro-
cesses;
c1) Determine the criteria and
methods ...
c2) Apply the criteria and
methods.
d1) determine the resources
needed for these processes
d2) ensure their availability;
e) assign the responsibilities
and authorities for these pro-
cesses;
f) address the risks and op-
portunities ...
g1) valuate these processes
g2) implement any changes
needed...
h) improve the processes and
the QMS.
GG 2 Institution-
alize a managed
process Plan the
process
GP2.3) Educating people
GP2.4) Work control prod-
ucts
GP2.51) Identify the parties
concerned
GP2.52) involve the parties
concerned
GP2.7)Review Status with
Higher Level Management
work. The models of the UQ approach are reusable
and independent of the company. We are in the pro-
cess of implementing a final application that facili-
tates the application of the UQ approach as well as
we are still working on the audit process that will be
the subject of the next article(Kitchenham, 2013).
Unified Quality Training Process
247
REFERENCES
(2012). ITIL V3 Foundation Exam.
(2015). CMMI for Development, Version 1.3 CMMI-DEV,
V1.3.
Amin, K., Lancaster, G., Kapetanakis, S., Althoff, K.-D.,
Dengel, A., and Petridis, M. Advanced similarity
measures using word embeddings and siamese net-
works in CBR. In Bi, Y., Bhatia, R., and Kapoor, S.,
editors, Intelligent Systems and Applications, pages
449–462. Springer International Publishing.
Baldassarre, M. T., Caivano, D., Pino, F. J., Piattini, M.,
and Visaggio, G. (2012). Harmonization of ISO/IEC
9001:2000 and CMMI-DEV: from a theoretical com-
parison to a real case application. Software Quality
Journal, 20(2):309–335.
Cer, D., Yang, Y., Kong, S.-y., Hua, N., Limtiaco, N., John,
R. S., Constant, N., Guajardo-Cespedes, M., Yuan, S.,
Tar, C., Sung, Y.-H., Strope, B., and Kurzweil, R. Uni-
versal sentence encoder.
Dahar, H. and Roudies, O. Mapping of quality standards.
8(11):2406–2412.
Dahar, H. and Roudies, O. Measurement of co-deployment
of IT quality standard: Application to ISO9001,
CMMI and ITIL. In Rocha, l. and Serrhini, M., ed-
itors, Information Systems and Technologies to Sup-
port Learning, pages 451–459. Springer International
Publishing.
Dahar, H., Roudies, O., and Younoussi, S. Process of build-
ing of the pivot meta-model. pages 139–143. ACM.
Jomaa, H. (2015). Contribution de l’usage des syst
`
emes
d’information
`
a la performance des organisations.
page 239.
Karipbayeva, A., Sorokina, A., and Assylbekov, Z. A Cri-
tique of the Smooth Inverse Frequency Sentence Em-
beddings.
Kerzazi, N. (2015). Conceptual alignment between SPEM-
based processes and CMMI. In 2015 10th Interna-
tional Conference on Intelligent Systems: Theories
and Applications (SITA), pages 1–9, Rabat. IEEE.
Kitchenham, B. (2013). Guidelines for performing Sys-
tematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering.
page 44.
Marques, P. A., Meyrelles, P. M., Saraiva, P. M., and
Frazao-Guerreiro, F. J. (2017). Integrating Lean Six
Sigma with ISO 9001:2015. In 2016 IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Industrial Engineering and En-
gineering Management (IEEM), pages 894–898, Bali,
Indonesia. IEEE.
Mens, T., Gorp, P. V., Varr
´
o, D., and Karsai, G. Applying a
model transformation taxonomy to graph transforma-
tion technology. 152:143 – 159.
Mu
˜
noz, M., Mejia, J., and Gasca-Hurtado, G. P. (2014).
A Methodology for Establishing Multi-Model Envi-
ronments in Order to Improve Organizational Soft-
ware Processes. International Journal of Software En-
gineering and Knowledge Engineering, 24(06):909–
933.
Pardo, C., Pino, F. J., Garcia, F., Baldassarre, M. T., and
Piattini, M. (2015). From chaos to the systematic har-
monization of multiple reference models: A harmo-
nization framework applied in two case studies. Jour-
nal of Systems and Software, 86(1):125–143.
Pardo, C., Pino, F. J., Garc
`
ıa, F., Piattini, M., and Bal-
dassarre, M. T. (2012). An ontology for the harmo-
nization of multiple standards and models. Computer
Standards & Interfaces, 34(1):48–59.
Pardo-Calvache, Universidad del Cauca, C. J., Garc
`
ıa-
Rubio, F. O., Universidad del Cauca, Piattini-Velthuis,
M. G., Universidad del Cauca, Pino-Correa, F. J., Uni-
versidad del Cauca, Baldassarre, M. T., and Univer-
sidad del Cauca (2015). A 360-degree process im-
provement approach based on multiple models. Re-
vista Facultad de Ingenier
´
ıa Universidad de Antio-
quia, (77).
Ponce, J., Garc
`
ıa-Borgo
`
non, L., Garc
`
ıa-Garc
`
ıa, J.,
Escalona, M. J., Dominguez-Mayo, F. J., Alba, M.,
and Aragon, G. (2014). A Model-Driven Approach
for Business Process Management. 1(2):22.
KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems
248