Adherence Analysis of Agile Methods According to the MR-MPS Reference Model

  • Maurício Massaru Arimoto UNIVEM
  • Edson Murakami UDESC
  • Valter Vieira de Camargo UFSCar
  • Maria Istela Cagnin UFMS


In this paper some preliminary guidelines are defined to assess the adherence of agile methods to the MR-MPS model by means of established metrics, taking into consideration the intrinsic characteristics of each one. As a case study, an analysis of the adherence of three agile methods (XP, Scrum and OpenUP) according to G and F levels of the MR-MPS was conducted, identifying the necessary changes and their impacts. The results of this analysis show that agile methods and maturity models may be compatible, although some differences were found. In this context, adjustments are proposed in agile methods, in order to make them more adherent at the G and F levels of the MR-MPS.
Palavras-chave: Adherence Analysis, Agile Methods, MR-MPS Reference Model


Agile Manifesto. (2001), “Manifesto for Agile Software Development”,

Balduino, R. (2007), “Introduction to OpenUP”,

Beck, K. and Andres, C. (2004), “Extreme Programming Explained: embrace change”. Addison-Wesley, 2nd edition.

“CMMI® for Development” (version 1.2). (2006), Technical Report CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, August.

Cohn M. (2006), “Agile Estimating and Planning”. Prentice Hall. Eclipse Process Framework (EPF). (2006), “Open Unified Process (OpenUP)”.

Glazer, H. et al. (2008), “CMMI or “Agile: why not embrace both!” Technical Report CMU/SEI-2008-TN-003, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, November.

Highsmith, J. and Cockburn, A. (2001), “Agile Software Development: the Business of Innovation”. IEEE Computer Society, September, p. 20-122.

ISO/IEC 12207: 1995/Amd 1: 2002/Amd 2: 2004. Information Technology – Software Life-cycle Processes.

ISO/IEC 15504. Information Technology – Process Assessment. Part 1 – Concepts and Vocabulary; Parte 2 – Performing an Assessment; Part 3 – Guidance on Performing an Assessment; Part 4 – Guidance on use for Process Improvement and Process Capability Determination; and Part 5 – An Exemplar Process Assessment Model.

Kroll, P. (2006), “Who will benefit from the Eclipse Process Framework”. Eclipse Process Framework, Eclipse Foundation.

Paulk, M.C. (2001), “Extreme Programming from CMM Perspective”, IEEE Software, November, p. 1-8.

Rocha, A.R., et al. (2007), Nationwide Program for Software Process Improvement in Brazil. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC’2007) (Lisbon New University, Lisbon, Portugal, Sep. 12-14, 2007), p. 449-460.

Santana, C.A., Timóteo, A.L. and Vasconcelos, A.M.L. (2006), Mapping of the MPS.BR Model for Companies that use XP as Development Methodology. In: V Simpósio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software (SBQS’2006) (Espírito do Santo, Brasil, 2006), p. 130-146.

Solinger, R. and Berghout, E. (1999), “The Goal/Question/Metric Method: a Practical Guide for Quality Improvement of Software Development”. McGraw-Hill.

Softex. (2007a), “MPS.BR General Guide” (versão 1.2). http:/, June.

Softex. (2007b), “MPS.BR Implementation Guide”, Part1: Level G; Part 2: Level F; Part 3: Level E; Part 4: Level D; Part 5: Level C; Part 6: Level B; Part 7: Level A., June.

Schwaber, K. and Beedle, M. (2002), “Agile Software Development with Scrum’. Prentice Hall.

Turner, R. and Jain, A. (2002), “Agile Meets CMMI: culture Clash or Common Cause”. XP/Agile Universe, p. 153-165.
Como Citar

Selecione um Formato
ARIMOTO, Maurício Massaru; MURAKAMI, Edson; DE CAMARGO, Valter Vieira; CAGNIN, Maria Istela. Adherence Analysis of Agile Methods According to the MR-MPS Reference Model. In: SIMPÓSIO BRASILEIRO DE QUALIDADE DE SOFTWARE (SBQS), 8. , 2009, Ouro Preto. Anais [...]. Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, 2009 . p. 241-255. DOI: