FORM 2
THE PATENTS ACT, 1970
(39 of 1970)
&
THE PATENT RULES, 2003
COMPLETE SPECIFICATION
(See Section 10 and Rule 13)
Title of invention: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ASSESSING PRODUCT MATURITY
APPLICANT:
Tata Consultancy Services Limited A company Incorporated in India under The Companies Act, 1956
Having address:
Nirmal Building, 9th Floor,
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021,
Maharashtra, India
The following specification particularly describes the invention and the manner in which it is to be performed.

1. FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0001] The present invention relates generally to a method and system for evaluating
maturity level of a software product. More specifically, the present invention relates to assessment of maturity level of a software product based on four maturity levels, seven key focus areas, and aligned with four competency areas.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATED ART
[0002] Product development within stipulated time, cost and quality has always posed
a formidable challenge for the software industry. Several development methodologies along with automated tools are being used to engineer the product, also essential for the team is to follow a discipline method supported by processes, guide to architecture centric development, and adoption of product line approach, mindset for interoperable product, infrastructure and right People to engineer the product. Several methods have come up with automated tools to assess maturity level of a software product; however no known assessment methods and system teaches an approach that is supported and focused on key competency areas that include Process, Architecture, Infrastructure and People. Further, no such evaluation model is known to exist in the art that teaches assessment of software maturity based on a defined degree of maturity levels and key focus areas.
[0003] In view of the aforementioned limitation of the prior art, it would be desirable
to have a system to assess maturity level of a software product based on most appropriate maturity levels, key focus areas and key competency areas.
3. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0004] Embodiments of the present invention overcome shortcomings of prior
software product maturity systems to evaluate a software product. The invention is derived from four maturity levels of Basic, Established, Differentiated and Leadership, and further derived from seven key focus areas, the key focus areas being Product planning, Technology Tools & Methodology, Product Code & Quality, Release & Configuration Management, Usability, Security & Supply chain, and Intellectual Property Rights.

[0005] An objective of the invention is to provide a systematic method and a system
to assess maturity level of a software product, wherein the assessment includes providing an exhaustive checklist based on seven key focus areas to derive an optimum maturity level of the software product.
[0006] Another objective of the invention is to provide a systematic method and a
system for identifying maturity levels and key focus areas to maximize alignment with four competency areas of Process, Architecture, Infrastructure and People.
[0007] According to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, provided is a
method to evaluate maturity level of a software product, the method comprising: providing a category weightage to at least one key focus area (KFA) at atleast one maturity level, the weightage being based on its significance at a particular maturity level;
providing by at least one assessor product maturity model ratings based on ratings score calculated for each KFA based on a predefined checklist comprising of at least one question of a questionnaire;
calculating the maturity score of the each KFA based on the ratings score and the category weightage of said at least one KFA; and
for the maturity score for each level determined above a threshold score, aggregating the maturity score to the maturity scores determined for each maturity level below said level to obtain a single product maturity score, wherein at least one of the providing, calculating, and aggregating is performed by a processor.
In another embodiment, the system for evaluating maturity level of a software product at
atleast one maturity level, the maturity score being computed in terms of at least one Key
focus (KFA) area, at least one competency area, at least one maturity level, and at least one
assessment reading, the system comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory configured to execute software instructions to cause
following steps:
providing a category weightage to at least one key focus area (KFA) for at least one maturity
level, the weightage being based on its significance at a particular maturity level;

providing by an assessor product maturity model ratings based on ratings score calculated
for each KFA based on a predefined checklist comprising of at least one question of a
questionnaire;
calculating the maturity score of that KFA based on the ratings score and category weightage
of said at least one KFA; and
for the maturity score for each level determined above a threshold score, aggregating the
maturity score to the maturity scores determined for each maturity level below said level to
obtain a single product maturity score.
4. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0008) The above-mentioned and other features and advantages of the various
embodiments of the invention, and the manner of attaining them, will become more apparent and will be better understood by reference to the accompanying drawings, wherein:
[0009] FIG. 1 is a schematic view of a software product maturity model depicting
four maturity levels, seven key focus areas, and four competency areas..
[0010] FIG. 2 shows schematically the steps in applying the evaluation process to a
single level of a software product, according to the present invention.
5. DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0011] It is to be understood that the invention is not limited in its application to the
details of construction and the arrangement of components set forth in the following description or illustrated in the drawings. The invention is capable of other embodiments and of being practiced or of being carried out in various ways. Also, it is to be understood that the phraseology and terminology used herein is for the purpose of description and should not be regarded as limiting. The use of "including," "comprising," or "having" and variations thereof herein is meant to encompass the items listed thereafter and equivalents thereof as well as additional items.
[0012] Embodiments of the present invention are described below with reference to
flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods and apparatus (systems). It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, and/or

combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a "particular" machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create "particular" means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
[0013] These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-
readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readable memory produce a product including instruction means which implement the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block(s). Alternatively, computer program implemented steps or acts may be combined with operator or human implemented steps or acts in order to carry out an embodiment of the invention.
[0014] The purpose of the procedure illustrated is to establish the maturity level __
assessment of a software product and to analyze the level where exactly the software product fits in within the four maturity levels of Basic, Established, Differentiated, and Leadership. These four maturity levels are organized in a hierarchical manner such that the maturity level of a software product increases as the maturity level move from one maturity level to another in ascending order.
[0015] The maturity level of the software product is measured primarily with respect
to four key competency areas, namely: the processes it follows and complies with, architecture it adopts, interoperability standards, and infrastructure and people perspective.
[0016] A preferred embodiment of the present invention is directed to a method and
system for measuring maturity levels of a software product by utilizing a multidimensional product maturity model (PMM) that provides suggestive direction or path to achieve product maturity. The holistic model, herein, evaluates the product maturity talking into account various dimensions for product excellence.
[0017] The model provides a roadmap for the product team to achieve product
excellence in the dimension of process, architecture, infrastructure and people across seven key focus areas vis a vis product planning; technology, tools and methodology; product code

and quality; release and configuration management; usability, security and performance; secure engineering and supply chain: and intellectual property rights. The evaluation is goal driven wherein each maturity level has a goal statement that is further evaluated based on a specific goal of each key focus area within that maturity level.
[0018] The preferred embodiment of the present invention defines four maturity
levels of Basic, Established, Differentiated and Leadership contained within the product maturity model, as :
[0019] Basic Level: The methodologies, technologies and tools for the development
of the product are identified within this level. Project management processes are established to track cost, schedule, and functionality. Architecture centric development process is defined and reference architecture is finalized. Well defined approach for supporting multiple standards, protocol and integrating in a loosely coupled fashion with internal session also gets defined. The group acquires the capability to provide life cycle service (Analysis, Design, Development. Deployment and Support). The organization has significant number of consultants experienced in this technology. Training and certification standards and requirements are documented. Awareness for Product line approach for product development is created; reuse philosophy being adopted by the group. Basic infrastructure for development and hosting is documented.
[0020] Established Level: The methodologies, technologies and tools for the
development of the product are standardized, and integrated into a standard process. All work projects use an approved, tailored version of the standard process for developing and maintaining software. Detailed measures of the software process and product quality are documented and collected. Both the software process and products are quantitatively understood and controlled.
[0021] The group here, shows action and commitment to incorporate software
product lines in its' strategic plans and future direction. Overall, the group understands the importance of software product lines in achieving its strategic goals. The group aligns their business practices with product line engineering and product line practices gets documented and established. Reviews, management monitoring activities are in place to ensure adherence to project management activities. Reference architecture is in place, deployed, and adherence to reference architecture validated.

[0022] Product toll gates are established and product reviews conducted as per toll
gates defined. Maturity of the product is ascertained using Product Maturity Model. The group has internalized and established the processes for development and secure engineering.
[0023] The group conducts advanced training and defines process for sharing the
knowledge within the organization. A process is in place to track changes in the technology and market movements. The manpower quality and quantity is brought aboard and trained as per the standards established. Infrastructure for development and hosting is established.
[0024] Differentiated Level: Continuous process improvement is enabled by
quantitative feedback from the process and from piloting innovative ideas and technologies. The product has industry/functional specific offerings related to the solution addressed by the product, each of them being deployed and considered as a key differentiator. A significant number of "Customer Quotes" is available describing the strength of the group and the value it brings to the customer. The Group practices Product line approach for product development, core assets base being created by the group as part of reuse adoption.
[0025] Assets-are-well documented, reviewed and shared with customer on need
basis. The group regularly participates and contributes in Industry / Technical conferences and workshops.
[0026] Leadership Level: The products are cited in comparisons, reviews by experts
and covered in industry magazines regularly. They are rated in international comparison charts and their features set the benchmark for the market. The competitors consider the product line of the organization as a direct threat to their business. The Group exhibits the characteristics of early movers or even pioneers in product development.
[0027] Regular invitation to international conferences and workshops as speaker is
made. Global alliance with technology vendor (with highest level of partnership agreement) and revenue generation through the alliance is established. Evaluation and high rating is done by established / recognized international agencies. The products have built in proprietary tools that are used as solution accelerator in enhancing cost-benefits to the customers. The group publishes its research and market studies in premier international journals.
[0028] The group has specialized training program to institutionalize offerings. The
group has research methodology at place for continuous improvement on all fronts. The

group partners with alliances in complementing product development. Model to provided hosted infrastructure also gets deployed.
[0029] Now, the following detailed description refers to the accompanying drawings
which illustrate specific embodiments in accordance to the present the invention. Other embodiments having different structures and operations do not depart from the scope of the present invention.
[0030] Figure 1 is a block schematic representation of basic product maturity model
100 for measuring product maturity levels (10) as either of Basic (10a), Established (10b), Differentiated (10c) and Leadership (lOd) in dimensions of key competency areas (20) namely process (20a). architecture (20b), infrastructure (20c) and people (20d) ; across seven key focus areas (30) namely product planning (30a); technology, tools and methodology (30b); product code and quality (30c); release and configuration management (30d); usability, security and performance (30e); secure engineering and supply chain (30f); and intellectual property rights (30g).
Next, a relational mapping between-key competency areas (20) and key focus areas-(30)-that— serves as a basis for measuring product maturity levels is presented in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1 A) Product Planning (30 a)

Level Process (20a) Architecture (20b) Infrastructure (20c) People (20d)
Basic Architecture Infrastructure Training needs
(Level 1) related activities planned,
architecture vision defined . architecture Team available
Solution
Architecture
defined Planning is in place
Infrastructure budget approved" has been identified, training plan has been developed for the product team
Awareness of Product Line approach has been created

Established
Product Complete Infrastructure for The group
(Level 2) roadmap enterprise development and conducts

defined and architecture hosting has been advanced
reviewed, description done planned training and
Product toll Principles that has defined
gates govern the process for
established, architecture sharing the knowledge
Product planning process, govern the within the organization
activities are implementation of

automated architecture is in The manpower
through usage place quality and
of tools Architecture blue quantity has
Product using print defined been brought aboard and
tailored version Architecture trained as per
of the standard review process is the standards
processes, Product line in place and practiced establish
approach has
been
established
Both the software process and products have been
quantitatively (metrics) understood and controlled
Defect analysis conducted No architecture assessment review comments beyond 30 days
Reference architecture defined, Enterprise Continuum is being practiced
Differentiated Product Architecture Infrastructure The group has
(Level 3) reviews review of product benchmarking specialized
happens as per is established training
toll gates No gap between program to
Continuous baseline and target institutionalize
process improvement is architecture offerings. The group

enabled by Architecture regularly
quantitative change participates
feedback from management and contributes
the process
A significant number of process is in place in Industry /
Technical
conferences
and
workshops.
The group has
research
methodology
at place for
continuous
improvement
on all fronts.
"Customer Quotes" is available describing the strength of the group and the value it brings to the customer

— Core assets base has been created by the group as part of reuse adoption
Product is benchmarked in market place ----- The group partners with alliances in complementing product development
Leadership The products Architecture is Leadership in The group
(Level 4) are cited in comparisons, reviews by experts and covered in industry magazines regularly.
They are rated in international comparison charts and their features set the benchmark for the market Product is in leadership mature and market leader
Product is in magic quadrant of leading analyst report infrastructure published its research and market studies in premier international journals.

position in market place
The
competitors consider the product line of the
organization as a direct threat to their business
B) Technology, Tools and Methodologies (30 b)

Level Process (20a) Architecture (20b) Infrastructure (20c) People (20d)
Basic The Architecture Hardware / Software .Significant
(Level 1) methodologies, centric requirements number of

technologies development Communicated to consultants
and tools for process has been Infrastructure team with
the defined experience in
development of the product have been identified.
Technology feasibility analysis conducted, found to be feasible to build the product with this tools, technology and methodology Tools for product developments has been defined & documented
Technology & Domain standard has been defined and documented the technology
Established The Tools, standard High available Competency
(Level 2) methodologies, alignment with deployment scenario group is

technologies Enterprise level defined involved in

and tools for Product developed conducting
the as per model technology
development of driven related
the product has been
standardized, and integrated into a standard process
A process is in place to track changes in the technology and market movements development (MDD/MDI)
Tools for product developments has been standardized trainings
Differentiated Product group Ensure changes to Product certified for Training
(Level 3) created architecture are deployment on dashboard is

Common managed in Multiple hardware maintained
service cohesive and and software and presented.
platforms to architected way platform to
store core assets collection and deployments Identified tools and standards have wide spread acceptance in industry
Tools for product developments has been automated Application require a disaster recovery deployment due to its business criticality to the customer management periodically
Leadership The Group Architecture is Product supports Training
(Level 4) exhibits the mature and market multi tenancy materials and

characteristics leader capabilities processes
of early movers or even pioneers in product development The products have built in tools that are used as solution
accelerator and enhancing cost-benefits to the customers being automated

C) Product Code and Quality (30 c)

Level Process (20a) Architecture (20b) Infrastructure (20c) People (20d)
Basic Coding standard Continuous Installation People are
(Level 1) available and is in practice
Tools for version management is in place
Test cases prepared . ensure test coverage
Awareness of Code quality created Integration is in place manual completed trained in product code
quality
Established Code CQC (Code Comply to Competency
walkthrough(reviews) <^\ i -, standard and
(Level 2)
quality
group is
standardized and Compliance) is regulation of the involved in
practiced 95% industry conducting
Version management tool religiously used
Test cases automated
Final inspection conducted before every release (Rule
compliance, Total quality, technical depth)
Total Quality (Architecture tangle index. design quality, testing quality, code quality) is 90%
Technical debt ratio is less than 10%
Automated Unit Testing is in practiced technology
related
trainings

Differentiated
Product or CQC is 99% Level of support Training
(Level 3) components shall meet appropriate quality criteria throughout the life cycle Automated Functional . testing is in practice
Total Quality (Architecture tangle index, design quality, testing quality, code quality) is 95%
Technical debt ratio is less than
5% for infrastructure dashboard is
maintained
and
presented to
management
periodically
Leadership Product released Product Infrastructure is
(Level 4) consistently with zero architecture is market leader

defects
Total Quality (Architecture tangle index, design quality, testing quality, code quality) is 99%
Technical debt ratio is less than
1%
D) Release and Configuration Management (30 d)

Level Process (20a) Architecture (20b) Infrastructure (20c) People (20d)

Basic
Release Stakeholders Infrastructure for People are
(Level 1) planning of the informed about release is in place trained in

product is in code freeze and release
place
Product release life cycle (Gold, Beta, Pre-Beta) defined with version number as per guidelines
Configurable Items identified, processes in place to manage CI release
Configuration
Manager
Identified
Release
promotion should be from Dev to Test to Production
Code Versioning is maintained for each release management
Established Toll gate Ease at which Infrastructure for

Competency
(Level 2) review product moves release management group is

completed from one version has been established involved in
before moving to another conducting
to ST & UAT environment
Release and configuration management is automated
Management of Post release issues
Baselines of identified work products should be established. Upgrade path from current version to new version
Release
management steps are automated & practiced technology
related
trainings
Differentiated Release Automation of Infrastructure for People for
(Level 3) management development to release management release

tools build to release has been management

standardized management institutionalized has been
Configuration management tools standardized
Changes to work products under
configuration management shall be tracked and controlled
Product sustainment services offered to customers while the Automated upgrade from current version to new version institutionalized
product is
generally
available
Leadership Product Release process Infrastructure for People process
(Level 4) features sets for architecture is release management are in market

benchmarked market leader is market leader leader
in the industry

interface. Product supports to be installed. and the team
Basic standard develops
documentations on interfaces available
The performance requirements for the product are captured and workload characterization has been done.
The product is developed so as to meet the performance requirements
Performance protocols expertise on performance testing tools.
Testing is conducted to make sure that the performance requirements are met
Performance testing reports analyzed and recommendations provided
Established Task flows UI Design based Infrastructure for People for
(Level 2) designed for on requirements usability has been usability has

usability. Uses of real users. established been
capabilities like Designs and task The dedicated established
session memory, flow validation environment for The team
smart defaults with end users in product develops
etc. an iterative benchmarking is expertise on
Interoperability manner set up. performance
standard are in The product is The performance oriented
place architected and design with engineering tools - architecture and

performance requirements in consideration. The product has been sized based on the performance requirements.
Coding and database design are also done based on the performance requirements.
The response time break up for each of the technology components are available and the code profiling and performance monitoring tools are set up. design


product provides
performance
controls
Differentiated User experience The performance Infrastructure for Infrastructure
(Level 3) fills an existing based design usability has been for usability has

gap or provides a principles and institutionalized been
superior design patterns institutionalized
experience are incorporated The team
compared to peer in the develops expertise on
product. The development of

desirability is the product code
indicated by comparing usability of the product with peers as well as accounting for factors like uniqueness, persuasiveness, onJine branding Code
Optimization and Database tuning are carried out to improve the performance of the product optimization and database tuning

and differentiators
Product
performance
benchmarked
Leadership The product User centered Infrastructure for People process
(Level 4) creates a design process usability is market are in market

consistently well integrated leader leader
positive
experience for end users. Has or shows potential of creating a cult following. User loyalty is strong and the product becomes a statement rather than a utility... with the product development lifecycle. Innovative User Experience 'firsts' set a trend for others to follow
Product is used as benchmark for Security Standards in the




The product is used as a benchmark for Performance standards in the market segment. market segment
Some of the performance design
components are patented. The product is capable of adopting to new / futuristic technologies
F) Secure Engineering & Supply Chain (30 f)

Level Process (20a) Architecture (20b) Infrastructure (20c) People (20d)

Basic
The product provides Product has incorporated Infrastructure Background
(Level 1) role based access to the security in requirement for Secure check &

users and architecture engineering NDA are
Supply chain risk is defined done for
identification. Risk based employees
assessment. and procedure for and
prioritization shall be physical contractors
completed security & Product team
The Product has access is aware and
identified Security control are in trained in
Requirements & place SSA
collected as per Infrastructure processes &
requirement collection for System Security & Network security are in place Supply Chain integrity
Information Security training are conducted for
-- ■-• -- emplovees
Established The Product is Threat and risk models Dedicated Training
(Level 2) developed using Secure are created in the context infrastructure Secure

Coding Practices. of the product for Security Engineering
Security Testing done & architecture type and the Testing is in & Supply
sign-off from Security target deployment place Chain
CoE (Source Code environment integrity has
Analysis and VAPT) Run time protection been
Supply Chain information systems shall protect confidential data through an appropriate set of security controls
A Trusted Technology Provider evaluates supplied components to assure that they meet specified quality and integrity requirements techniques are established performed and records documented
(SSA
Identifying Security Requirements
SSA Secure
Design
Principles
SSA Security Review of

The Product has developed Secure Deployment Guidelines
Documented processes for supply chain security are in place and tailored Architecture
SSA Secure
Coding
Practice
SSA Security Testing
SSA Secure
Deployment
Guidelines)
Differentiated Secure The Product incorporates Infrastructure Training for
(Level 3) development/engineering Domain Specific is updated as Secure

methods are specified Security Requirements. per threat Engineering
and refined to best fit the Product comply to Domain Specific Security Standards
Secure
development/engineering practices and techniques including the guidance and tools which support them, are periodically reviewed and updated as landscape & Supply
development/engineering
chain has
characteristics of the target product / domain
Secure development techniques integrated into the vendor's development method and inform and guide the test processes.
been automated
Peoples are certified on Software Security
appropriate in light of changes in the threat landscape
Leadership Leader in Secure Leader in Secure Infrastructure People for
(Level 4) engineering & Supply engineering & Supply for secure secure

Chain processes Chain architecture engineering engineering
is market leader is market leader

Basic
Product team Architecture group Infrastructure group Basic training
(Level I) aware about the work towards work towards on IPR is in

IPR concepts, innovations innovations place
already initiated
process of identifying IPR components
Guidelines for licensing of product is in place Awareness of IPR created
Established Product team Team has Team has identified Team has
(Level 2) folly identified infrastructure identified

conversant with architecture components to be infrastructure
IPR concepts components to be patented components
All components for IPR filing has been patented to be patented



identified
IPR filing of components has been initiated
30% of the total components developed are patentable
Product follows guidelines for licensing religiously
Differentiated Product team is Team has made Team has made Team has
(Level 3) working keeping considerable progress in patent considerable progress in patent made considerable
innovation in filing, all filing, all patentable progress in
mind patentable items items are patent filing,
60% of the total components are documented in Invention documented in Invention Disclosure all patentable items are

Disclosure form form and reviewed documented

developed of and reviewed from from IPR Cell and in Invention
the product are IPR Cell and submitted in Patent Disclosure
identified as submitted in Patent office form and
patentable
Team has made considerable progress in patent filing, all patentable items are documented in Invention Disclosure form and reviewed from IPR Cell and submitted in Patent office office reviewed from IPR Cell and submitted in Patent
office
Leadership Product ._. is. Product is Product js_ Product is
(Level 4) considered as considered as considered as market considered as

market leader market leader in leader in patent market leader
in patent filing patent filing filing infrastructure in patent
80% of the total components developed of the product are identified as patentable architecture point of view point of view filing people point of view
[0031] In another aspect of the present invention, the maturity score of each Key
focus area (30) at each level is computed. For the said purpose, software product maturity model 100 includes a computation system that computes the maturity score based on weights assigned to each of the key focus areas and assessment score entered by the assessor further based upon his assessment findings.
[0032] The computation system firstly provides weightage to each key focus area at
each level depending upon their significance in the corresponding maturity level (10). Referring now to Table 2 below, an example of weights being assigned to each of the key focus areas (30) is illustrated. For example. Product planning (30a) is assigned a score of 8 at

the basic level since here the product roadmap is to be defined and clarity that has to be developed on product functionality and positioning is still in a nascent stage, which establishes its utmost significance at Basic level. Similarly, the Intellectual Property (30d) is being assigned a weight of 8 at the leadership level since now the product has emerged as a market leader from the perspective of patent filing.

Theme Cianty on
product
functionality &
positioning.
Clear product
dev methodology
& tools identified Processes, tools,
technologies are
stabie Securing
engineering and
Supply Chain for a
high performing
product Legally protected
industry leading
end user
experience
Product Planning 8 6 4 3 20
Technology, Tools & Methodology 7 7 4 2 20
Product & Code Quality 6 6 4 4 20
Release & Configuration Manaqement 6 5 4 5 20
Usability, Interoperability & Performance 3 3 € 8 20
Secure Engineering & Supply Chain 3 5 7 5 20
Intellectual Property 2 4 G 8 20
'■>... £ sf _ 'kM .___.. & 11
[0033] Accordingly maturity score of each particular key factor area at a particular
level is calculated based on the score and category weight of key focus area and assessed at what level the software product is with respect to the weightage given and maturity score is computed.
[0034] Secondly, the assessor makes his assessment based on two criteria's, i.e.
"Compliance' and "Non-compliance'. This attribute enhances the accuracy of assessing the software product wherein the software product is assessed for each of the conformance requirements. A comprehensive checklist for all four levels is prepared covering all the four competencies (20) and seven key focus areas (30) to assess for conformance requirements appropriate to the software product that needs to be assessed. The checklist items can be applicable or not-applicable for a specific software product. All applicable checklist items are evaluated to check if the specific software product meets or don't meets the criteria. Any irrelevant conformance requirement for a particular software product is excluded from the checklist, thereby reducing any chance of discrepancy in assessing the software product.

[0035] Another attribute of the present invention includes one to "N; conformance
requirement wherein each of the conformance requirement is assessed 4 x 7 x 4 (4 maturity levels, 7 key focus areas, and 4 competency areas) to arrive at a conclusion on the maturity level of the software product.
[0036] The software product computation involves reviewing the product and
documentations by the assessor prior to the assessment. The assessment is based on the checklist that includes a set of questionnaires and is analyzed based on whether the software product is compliant with the set of requirements. The set of questions are gauged by collecting data that supports each of the conformance requirements applicable for assessment of the software product.
[0037] To conduct the assessment based on the checklist, the assessor needs to
provide ratings based on each question. In order to achieve a particular level, any software product is required to meet all the checklist criteria of that particular level as well as of all the levels below it.
[0038] The maturity scores are then computed-for-each key focus area and aggregated
to identify the maturity level of the software product. In order to move from a lower maturity level to a higher maturity level in a hierarchy, all the requirements listed in the lower maturity levels should be met. The threshold score is determined for each level, and only if the score observed at each level is found above the threshold for that level, they get aggregated to obtain a final maturity score. For example, if the score at established level is found lower than the threshold decided for this level, the aggregated score will include scores only of the basic maturity level.
[0039] Those skilled in the art will recognize that the basic objectives achieved by the
present invention need not have attributes as described above having fixed number of maturity levels, fixed number of key focus areas, and fixed number of key competency areas, and may vary based on the evaluation needs and the type of software product that is to be evaluated.
[0040] Reference will now be made in detail to the exemplary embodiment(s) of the
present invention, as illustrated in the accompanying drawings. Whenever possible, the same reference numerals will be used throughout the drawings to refer to the same or like parts.

[0041] Turning to Figure 2. a flow diagram 100 depicting the process of assessing a
software product is illustrated. The assessment process includes five stages, the five stages being Initiate stage 110. Collect stage 120, Analyze stage 130, Prepare & Playback stage 140, and Submit stage 150, and the duration for the assessment process to conclude is approximately 5 weeks from the start date. At the initiate stage 110, the process includes initiating management approvals, forming assessment team, preparing processes, and sharing initial documents. At the collection stage 120, the process includes collecting business drivers, conducting product demos, collecting architecture, documentation and assessing the product maturity model. At the Analyzing stage 130, the four key competency areas of Process, Architecture. Infrastructure, and People are analyzed. At the Prepare & Playback stage 140, the summarizing of the analysis obtained, preparing draft assessment reports are worked upon. The submit stage 150 includes preparing and submitting the final assessment report and based on the evaluation recommending for further improvements.
[0042] As an example, at Basic level 20a, for a key focus area, say, product planning,
the checklist comprising questions on a competency area, say, process, may be:
[0043] Is the product feasible to develop from functional point of view?
[0044] Is the product estimated at different stages of lifecycle using function points
and reviewed?
[0045] Is the pricing model and pricing in line with market expectation?
[0046] At Leadership level lOd for the same key focus area i.e. Product planning, the
checklist on a process perspective could comprise questions such as:
[0047] Is the product performing as #1 product in the market?
[0048] Has the product occupied leadership position in market place?
[0049] For key focus area Usability, Interoperability & Performance, at a
Differentiated level 10c, the checklist based on architecture, the questionnaire could be:
[0050] Has the product been sized based on the performance requirements?
[0051] Does code optimization and Database tuning carried out to improve the
performance of the product?

[0052] For the same key focus area i.e. Usability, Interoperability & Performance, but
at a Leadership level lOd, the checklist based on same dimension i.e. architecture, the questionnaire could be:
[0053] Does user center designed process integrate with the product development
lifecycle?
[0054] Is the product capable of adopting to new / futuristic technologies?
[0055] The answers for all the questionnaires are marked as either 'Compliance' or
"Non- compliance' based on whether the software product is compliant or non-compliant to that specific conformance requirement.
[0056] Based upon above exemplary questions if it is ascertained that all the
compliance items are met, it would be defined "Compliant' and further based on the weightage, if it is concluded that the software product meets the criteria of the Basic level 10a, the assessment will then be proceeded to the next level i.e. Established level 10b and thereon till Leadership level lOd. However, if the software product has not been fully institutionalized based on the outcome of the assessment, assessment for the next maturity levels would not be performed and remedial measures would be taken to ensure the software product meets the criteria of Basic level 10a.
[0057] The checklist prepared at each maturity level for each key factor area is based
on the four competency areas of Process, Architecture, Infrastructure, and People. For each of the conformance requirement, at each stage it is assessed if the checklist needs to be edited by either deleting or adding few questions based on the software product that needs to be assessed. The checklist includes all the questions that are required to be assessed and marked as "applicable'. The questions that need not have to be assessed are marked as "Not Applicable' and hence will not be assessed for the software product. Next, as discussed above, the assessment on whether the software product meets the checklist criteria is assessed. If the software product meets the criteria, the same would be marked as "Conformance criteria met' and would be further assessed on other checklist questionnaires to check the criteria assessment. Once the entire checklist is assessed, weightage would be provided based on the maturity level, the key focus area, and the competency area. If the software product does not meet the criteria, the same would be marked as "Conformance criteria not met'. The result of the assessment is then summarized and a set of

recommendations are made for the software product, if the software product does not fulfill the three maturity levels of Basic, Established, and Differentiated levels. For example, if a software product does not meet the Differentiated level of maturity, a certain set of recommendations would be made based on identifying the conformance requirements that were not compliant and accordingly suggestions would be provided on overcoming those conformance requirements.
[0058] Example embodiments of the process and components of the current subject matter have been described herein. As noted, these example embodiments have been described for illustrative purposes only, and are not limiting. Other embodiments are possible and are covered by the invention. Such embodiments will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant art(s) based on the teachings contained herein. Thus, the breadth and scope of the current subject matter should not be limited by any of the above-described exemplary embodiments, but should be defined in accordance with the following claims and their equivalents.

WE CLAIM:
1. A method for evaluating maturity level of a software product at atleast one maturity
level in dimensions of at least one Key focus (KFA) area, at least one competency area, at
least one maturity level, the method comprising:
providing a category weightage to at least one key focus area (KFA) for at least one maturity
level, the weightage being based on its significance at a particular maturity level;
providing by at least one assessor product maturity model ratings based on ratings score
calculated for each KFA based on a predefined checklist comprising of at least one question
of a questionnaire;
calculating the maturity score of the each KFA based on the ratings score and the category
weightage of said at least one KFA; and
for the maturity score for each level determined above a threshold score, aggregating the
maturity score to the maturity scores determined for each maturity level below said level to
obtain a single product maturity score, wherein at least one of the providing, calculating, and
aggregating is performed by a processor. ~
2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the competency area is selected from a group consisting of process, architecture, infrastructure and people.
3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the key focus area is selected from a group consisting of Product Planning, Technology. Tools & Methodology, Product Code & Quality, Release & Configuration Management, Usability, Security & performance, Secure Engineering & Supply Chain, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).
4. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the maturity level is selected from a group consisting of basic level, established level, differentiated level, and leadership level.
5. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein checklist items are ascertained to determine their applicability for the software product.
6. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the assessor provides the rating score based on options of "compliance" and "non compliance" of the product to corresponding question in the checklist.

7. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the checklist is provided for all four levels covering all the four competences and seven KFA of software product maturity model (SPMM).
8. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein in order to achieve a particular maturity level, the product is required to meet all the checklist criteria of that particular maturity level as well as of all the levels below it.
9. A system for evaluating maturity level of a software product at least one maturity level, the maturity score being computed in terms of at least one Key focus (KFA) area, at least one competency area, at least one maturity level, and at least one assessment reading, the system comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory configured to execute software instructions to cause
following steps:
providing a category weightage to at least one key focus area (KFA) for at least one maturity
level, the weightage being based on its significance at a particular maturity level;
providing by an assessor product maturity model ratings based on ratings score calculated
for each KFA based on a predefined checklist comprising of at least one question of a
questionnaire;
calculating the maturity score of that KFA based on the ratings score and category weightage
of said at least one KFA; and
for the maturity score for each level determined above a threshold score, aggregating the
maturity score to the maturity scores determined for each maturity level below said level to
obtain a single product maturity score.
10. The system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the competency area is selected from a group consisting of process, architecture, infrastructure and people.
11. The system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the key focus area is selected from a group consisting of Product Planning, Technology, Tools & Methodology, Product Code & Quality,

Release & Configuration Management, Usability, Security & performance, Secure Engineering & Supply Chain, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).
12. The system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the maturity level is selected from a group consisting of basic level, established level, differentiated level, and leadership level.
13. The system as claimed in claim 9, wherein a checklist is provided for all four levels covering all the four competences and seven KFA of software product maturity model (SPMM).
14. The system as claimed in claim 9, wherein checklist items are ascertained to determine their applicability for the product, wherein the assessor provides the rating score based on options of "compliance" and "non compliance" of the product to corresponding question in the checklist.
15. The systermas-claimed in claim 9, wherein in order to achieve"a particular level, the product is required to meet all the checklist criteria of that particular level as well as of all the levels below it.