How to Cite:
Dhanush, "Sustainable Quality Engineering through ASPICE, CMMI, and Six Sigma Integration" International Journal of Machine Intelligence, Data Science and AI, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-9, 2026.

Abstract:
The increasing complexity of software-intensive systems, particularly in safety-critical and highly regulated industries, has intensified the need for sustainable quality engineering practices that ensure long-term process capability, organizational resilience, and continuous improvement. Traditional quality management approaches frequently address isolated dimensions of quality, such as process compliance, defect reduction, or organizational maturity, thereby creating fragmented improvement initiatives with limited sustainability outcomes. This study proposes an integrated Sustainable Quality Engineering Framework (SQEF) that combines Automotive Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination (ASPICE), Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), and Six Sigma methodologies to establish a holistic approach for continuous quality enhancement. ASPICE provides structured process capability assessment mechanisms for engineering lifecycle activities, CMMI offers organizational maturity guidance for process institutionalization, and Six Sigma delivers statistically driven defect prevention and variation reduction capabilities. Although these frameworks have independently demonstrated substantial benefits across industrial sectors, limited research has investigated their integrated implementation from a sustainability perspective. This research employs a qualitative conceptual methodology supported by systematic literature analysis, comparative framework evaluation, and synthesis-based model development. The proposed framework aligns ASPICE process capability levels, CMMI maturity dimensions, and the Six Sigma DMAIC cycle to create an adaptive quality engineering ecosystem. The integration enables organizations to establish sustainable process governance, optimize resource utilization, improve product quality, reduce waste, and strengthen long-term competitiveness. The findings indicate that integrated implementation can significantly enhance process predictability, defect containment efficiency, knowledge retention, customer satisfaction, and organizational learning. Furthermore, the framework contributes to economic, operational, and environmental sustainability through reduced rework, improved process efficiency, and optimized engineering resource consumption. The study advances existing quality engineering literature by introducing a unified perspective that bridges process assessment models and data-driven improvement methodologies. The proposed framework offers practical guidance for organizations seeking to achieve sustainable excellence in software and systems engineering environments.

Keywords: Sustainable Quality Engineering, ASPICE, CMMI, Six Sigma, Process Improvement, Software Quality, Organizational Maturity, DMAIC, Continuous Improvement, Automotive Software Engineering.

References:
[1] Antony, J. (2014). Readiness factors for the Lean Six Sigma journey in the higher education sector. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(2), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-04-2013-0077
[2] Chrissis, M. B., Konrad, M., & Shrum, S. (2011). CMMI for development: Guidelines for process integration and product improvement (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
[3] Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. MIT Press.
[4] Harry, M., & Schroeder, R. (2000). Six Sigma: The breakthrough management strategy revolutionizing the world's top corporations. Currency.
[5] Humphrey, W. S. (1989). Managing the software process. Addison-Wesley.
[6] ISO/IEC. (2015). ISO/IEC 33020: Information technology—Process assessment—Process measurement framework for assessment of process capability. International Organization for Standardization.
[7] Juran, J. M., & Godfrey, A. B. (1999). Juran's quality handbook (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
[8] Kwak, Y. H., & Anbari, F. T. (2006). Benefits, obstacles, and future of Six Sigma approach. Technovation, 26(5–6), 708–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.10.003
[9] Montgomery, D. C. (2020). Introduction to statistical quality control (8th ed.). Wiley.
[10] Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., & Weber, C. V. (1993). Capability maturity model for software, version 1.1. IEEE Software, 10(4), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.219617
[11] Pyzdek, T., & Keller, P. A. (2018). The Six Sigma handbook (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
[12] Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J., & Becker, J. (2012). Maturity models in business process management. Business Process Management Journal, 18(2), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151211225225
[13] Siviy, J., Penn, M. L., & Stoddard, R. W. (2007). CMMI and Six Sigma: Partners in process improvement. SEI Technical Report CMU/SEI-2007-TN-005. Carnegie Mellon University.
[14] Software Quality Systems AG, Procurement Forum, & Volkswagen Group. (2017). Automotive SPICE process assessment model version 3.1. VDA QMC Working Group 13.
[15] Tarí, J. J., Molina-Azorín, J. F., & Heras, I. (2012). Benefits of the ISO 9001 and EFQM model: The view of Spanish organizations. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(7–8), 741–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2012.669549