When scoring process components the following scale ratings are to be used:
- F – Fully Achieved
- There is consistent and convincing evidence found of compliance.
- The process is systematic and widespread.
- There are no obvious weaknesses in the distribution, application, or results of this process.
- L – Largely Achieved
- There is significant evidence of compliance.
- The process is likely to be systematic and widespread
- There may be some minor weaknesses in the distribution, application, or results of this process.
- P – Partially Achieved
- There is some evidence of compliance.
- The process may exhibit significant weaknesses, be incomplete, not widespread, or inconsistent in application or results.
- N – Not Achieved
- There is little or no evidence found of compliance in relation to a particular process attribute.
- NR – Not Rated
- This is to be used if the process component cannot be rated due to insufficient or inconsistent evidence or
- Falls outside the scope of the assessment due to a decision made by the Sponsor or agreed with the Lead Assessor. Note the difference between a NR and an NA rating.
- NA – Not Applicable
- To be used to score Process Areas for which there are justifiable reasons why it is not appropriate to implement the associated set of Practices in an organisation.
- For example, some organisations sub-contract their non-functional testing and have no control over how it is conducted. It may in these cases be appropriate to consider the Process Area 3.4 as not applicable. Similarly with Process Area 2.5 – Test Environment.
- It is difficult to envisage circumstances where any other Process Area could be genuinely rated as NA.
The table below shows the relationship between the ordinal scale and nominal ratings and to which process components they are applicable
Note that Sub-Practices are not scored, according to TAMAR, since they are informative components. With some assessment methods it can be considered useful to score them, particularly with assessments carried out on organisations that are immature or have poorly defined testing processes, since Sub-practices can be a way of reporting back to the Sponsor on the sort of activities that can be improved or begun in order for a test process to become more efficient and effective.