SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
This slide presentation reviews the Avionic Systems Division's implementation of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for improvements in the software development process. The presentation reviews the process involved in implementing the model and the benefits of using CMM to improve the software development process.
For businesses and organizations to remain competitive today they must have processes and systems in place that will allow them to first identify customer needs and then develop products/processes that will meet or exceed the customers needs and expectations. Customer needs, once identified, are normally stated as requirements. Designers can then develop products/processes that will meet these requirements. Several functions, such as quality management and systems engineering management are used to assist product development teams in the development process. Both functions exist in all organizations and both have a similar objective, which is to ensure that developed processes will meet customer requirements. Are efforts in these organizations being duplicated? Are both functions needed by organizations? What are the similarities and differences between the functions listed above? ISO 9000 is an international standard of goods and services. It sets broad requirements for the assurance of quality and for management's involvement. It requires organizations to document the processes and to follow these documented processes. ISO 9000 gives customers assurance that the suppliers have control of the process for product development. Systems engineering can broadly be defined as a discipline that seeks to ensure that all requirements for a system are satisfied throughout the life of the system by preserving their interrelationship. The key activities of systems engineering include requirements analysis, functional analysis/allocation, design synthesis and verification, and system analysis and control. The systems engineering process, when followed properly, will lead to higher quality products, lower cost products, and shorter development cycles. The System Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE-CMM) will allow companies to measure their system engineering capability and continuously improve those capabilities. ISO 9000 and SE-CMM seem to have a similar objective, which is to document the organization's processes and certify to potential customers the capability of a supplier to control the processes that determine the quality of the product or services being produced. The remaining sections of this report examine the differences and similarities between ISO 9000 and SE-CMM and make recommendations for implementation.
No abstract available
This slide presentation reviews the experience NASA has had in using Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). In particular this presentation reviews the agency's experience within the software engineering discipline and the lessons learned and key impacts from using CMMI.
The multidimensional design of the APEX program is the result of an extensive research and development effort dating back nearly a decade. "In the late 1990s and early 2000, we were pretty successful at getting new research and technology projects here at the center," Johnson says, "and we had a lack of critical mass of project managers. We were taking people who were primarily researchers and putting them in the position of managing projects." Smith and Johnson held a series of workshops across the center during 2000 and 2001 to gather feedback about how to address this issue. When they briefed the center's senior management on their findings, one of the top recommendations was to establish a project manager development program at Ames. At that point, they cast a wide net for ideas and information. "We did centerwide needs assessment, we did focus groups, we did surveys," Smith says. "We came up with a proposal for what a program would look like, tying in what we knew about the Academy of Program1 Project Leadership (now the Academy for Program/Project and Engineering Leadership, or APPEL), what we've seen at other centers, what other centers have tried. We were always checking to make sure our program mapped to APPEL. We also looked at the PMI [Project Management Institute] model, INCOSE [International Council on Systems Engineering], CMMI [Capability Maturity Model Integration], you name it." "We had a lot of conversations with the Jet Propulsion Lab and Goddard," Johnson adds. "We saw those centers as models for what Ames was aspiring to be in terms of a center for managing space flight missions." Their research confirmed what they already knew-that strong practitioner involvement would be critical to their program design process. 'XPEX is for the practitioner by the practitioner," Smith says. "They have to be a part of designing it. Otherwise there's no way we could design a program that meets their needs." At the same time that they worked at the grassroots level, they also solicited feedback from the center's senior management. "We recognized that in order for anything to succeed here, we needed to have a champion at the center management level," Johnson said. "You have to have champions, and you have to listen to what the senior managers are saying. They have their own ideas." In the case of APEX, one of those ideas fundamentally reshaped the program. "When we originally started, it was a project management development program," Johnson says, "but in our meeting with our center director, he said, 'Project management is important, but we also need to strengthen our systems engineering.' So we basically added that component to the program based on what he wanted."
A computer program has been written to facilitate appraisals according to the methodology of Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). [CMMI is a government/industry standard, maintained by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, for objectively assessing the engineering capability and maturity of an organization (especially, an organization that produces software)]. The program assists in preparation for a CMMI appraisal by providing drop-down lists suggesting required artifacts or evidence. It identifies process areas for which similar evidence is required and includes a copy feature that reduces or eliminates repetitive data entry. It generates reports to show the entire framework for reference, the appraisal artifacts to determine readiness for an appraisal, and lists of interviewees and questions to ask them during the appraisal. During an appraisal, the program provides screens for entering observations and ratings, and reviewing evidence provided thus far. Findings concerning strengths and weaknesses can be exported for use in a report or a graphical presentation. The program generates a chart showing capability level ratings of the organization. A context-sensitive Windows help system enables a novice to use the program and learn about the CMMI appraisal process.
The concepts of quality improvements have permeated many businesses. It is clear that the nineties will be the quality era for software and there is a growing need to develop or adapt quality improvement approaches to the software business. Thus we must understand software as an artifact and software as a business. Since the business we are dealing with is software, we must understand the nature of software and software development. The software discipline is evolutionary and experimental; it is a laboratory science. Software is development not production. The technologies of the discipline are human based. There is a lack of models that allow us to reason about the process and the product. All software is not the same; process is a variable, goals are variable, etc. Packaged, reusable, experiences require additional resources in the form of organization, processes, people, etc. There have been a variety of organizational frameworks proposed to improve quality for various businesses. The ones discussed in this presentation include: Plan-Do-Check-Act, a quality improvement process based upon a feedback cycle for optimizing a single process model/production line; the Experience Factory/Quality Improvement Paradigm, continuous improvements through the experimentation, packaging, and reuse of experiences based upon a business's needs; Total Quality Management, a management approach to long term success through customer satisfaction based on the participation of all members of an organization; the SEI capability maturity model, a staged process improvement based upon assessment with regard to a set of key process areas until you reach a level 5 which represents a continuous process improvement; and Lean (software) Development, a principle supporting the concentration of the production on 'value added' activities and the elimination of reduction of 'not value added' activities.
Monte is a software set designed for use in mission design and spacecraft navigation operations. The system can process measurement data, design optimal trajectories and maneuvers, and do orbit determination, all in one application. For the first time, a single software set can be used for mission design and navigation operations. This eliminates problems due to different models and fidelities used in legacy mission design and navigation software. The unique features of Monte 040 include a blowdown thruster model for GRAIL (Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory) with associated pressure models, as well as an updated, optimalsearch capability (COSMIC) that facilitated mission design for ARTEMIS. Existing legacy software lacked the capabilities necessary for these two missions. There is also a mean orbital element propagator and an osculating to mean element converter that allows long-term orbital stability analysis for the first time in compiled code. The optimized trajectory search tool COSMIC allows users to place constraints and controls on their searches without any restrictions. Constraints may be user-defined and depend on trajectory information either forward or backwards in time. In addition, a long-term orbit stability analysis tool (morbiter) existed previously as a set of scripts on top of Monte. Monte is becoming the primary tool for navigation operations, a core competency at JPL. The mission design capabilities in Monte are becoming mature enough for use in project proposals as well as post-phase A mission design. Monte has three distinct advantages over existing software. First, it is being developed in a modern paradigm: object- oriented C++ and Python. Second, the software has been developed as a toolkit, which allows users to customize their own applications and allows the development team to implement requirements quickly, efficiently, and with minimal bugs. Finally, the software is managed in accordance with the CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration), where it has been ap praised at maturity level 3.
This paper discusses return on investment (ROI) generated from software process improvement programs. It details the steps needed to compute ROI and compares these steps from the perspective of two process improvement approaches: the widely known Software Engineering Institute's capability maturity model and the approach employed by NASA's Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL). The paper then describes the specific investments made in the SEL over the past 18 years and discusses the improvements gained from this investment by the production organization in the SEL.
We believe that the key success elements are related to our recognition that Software Process Improvement (SPI) can and should be organized, planned, managed, and measured as if it were a project to develop a new process, analogous to a software product. We believe that our process improvements have come as the result of these key elements: use of a rigorous, detailed requirements set (Capability Maturity Model, CMM); use of a robust, yet flexible architecture (IEEE 1074); use of a SPI project, resourced and managed like other work, to produce the specifications and implement them; and development of both internal and external goals, with metrics to support them.
Views from the NASA CIO NASA Software Engineering Workshop on software development from the past, present, and future are presented. The topics include: 1) Software Past; 2) Software Present; 3) NASA's Largest Software Challenges; 4) 8330 Software Projects in Industry Standish Groups 1994 Report; 5) Software Future; 6) Capability Maturity Model (CMM): Software Engineering Institute (SEI) levels; 7) System Engineering Quality Also Part of the Problem; 8) University Environment Trends Will Increase the Problem in Software Engineering; and 9) NASA Software Engineering Goals.
The Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL) is currently engaged in a Methodology and Metrics program for the Information Systems Center (ISC) at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). This paper addresses the Methodology portion of the program. The purpose of the Methodology effort is to assist a software team lead in selecting and tailoring a software development or maintenance process for a specific GSFC project. It is intended that this process will also be compliant with both ISO 9001 and the Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model (CMM). Under the Methodology program, we have defined four standard ISO-compliant software processes for the ISC, and three tailoring criteria that team leads can use to categorize their projects. The team lead would select a process and appropriate tailoring factors, from which a software process tailored to the specific project could be generated. Our objective in the Methodology program is to present software process information in a structured fashion, to make it easy for a team lead to characterize the type of software engineering to be performed, and to apply tailoring parameters to search for an appropriate software process description. This will enable the team lead to follow a proven, effective software process and also satisfy NASA's requirement for compliance with ISO 9001 and the anticipated requirement for CMM assessment. This work is also intended to support the deployment of sound software processes across the ISC.
At Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), we have chosen to use Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) to guide our process improvement program. Projects at GSFC consist of complex systems of software and hardware that control satellites, operate ground systems, run instruments, manage databases and data and support scientific research. It is a challenge to launch a process improvement program that encompasses our diverse systems, yet is manageable in terms of cost effectiveness. In order to establish the best approach for improvement, our process improvement effort was divided into three phases: 1) Pilot projects; 2) Staged implementation; and 3) Sustainment and continual improvement. During Phase 1 the focus of the activities was on a baselining process, using pre-appraisals in order to get a baseline for making a better cost and effort estimate for the improvement effort. Pilot pre-appraisals were conducted from different perspectives so different approaches for process implementation could be evaluated. Phase 1 also concentrated on establishing an improvement infrastructure and training of the improvement teams. At the time of this paper, three pilot appraisals have been completed. Our initial appraisal was performed in a flight software area, considering the flight software organization as the organization. The second appraisal was done from a project perspective, focusing on systems engineering and acquisition, and using the organization as GSFC. The final appraisal was in a ground support software area, again using GSFC as the organization. This paper will present our initial approach, lessons learned from all three pilots and the changes in our approach based on the lessons learned.
NASA is intending for its future software development agencies to have at least a Level 3 rating in the Carnegie Mellon University Capability Maturity Model (CMM). The CMM has built-in Verification and Validation (V&V) processes that support higher software quality. Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) of software developed by mature agencies can be therefore more effective than for software developed by less mature organizations. How is Independent V&V different with respect to the maturity of an organization? Knowing a priori the maturity of an organization's processes, how can IV&V planners better identify areas of need choose IV&V activities, etc? The objective of this research is to provide a complementary set of guidelines and criteria to assist the planning of IV&V activities on a project using a priori knowledge of the measurable levels of maturity of the organization developing the software.
External development of software has oftc n led to unsatisfactory results and great frustration for the assurE 7ce community. Contracts frequently omit critical assuranc 4 processes or the right to oversee software development activitie: At a time when NASA depends more and more on software to in plement critical system functions, combination of three factors ex; cerbate this problem: I ) the ever-increasing trend to acquire rather than develop software in-house, 2) the trend toward performance based contracts, and 3) acquisition vehicles that only state softwar 2 requirements while leaving development standards and assur! ince methodologies up to the contractor. We propose to identify specific methods at d tools that NASA projects can use to mitigate the adverse el ects of the three problems. TWO broad classes of methoddt ~ols will be explored. The first will be those that provide NASA p ojects with insight and oversight into contractors' activities. The st cond will be those that help projects objectively assess, and thus i nprwe, their software acquisition capability. Of particular interest is the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI) Software Acqt isition Capability Maturity Model (SA-CMMO).
This viewgraph presentation discusses the Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) is an integrated framework for maturity models and associated products that integrates the two key disciplines that are inseparable in a systems development activity: software engineering and systems engineering.
We have developed a prototype of tool support for risk assessment that uses selected components of the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) information, specifically: Capability Maturity Model (CMM) process activities, CMM process goals and the SEI taxonomy of software project risks.
This slide presentation reviews seven processes that NASA uses to ensure that software is developed, acquired and maintained as specified in the NPR 7150.2A requirement. The requirement is to ensure that all software be appraised for the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). The enumerated processes are: (7) Product Integration, (6) Configuration Management, (5) Verification, (4) Software Assurance, (3) Measurement and Analysis, (2) Requirements Management and (1) Planning & Monitoring. Each of these is described and the group(s) that are responsible is described.