Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Benefits and Effective Application of Software Engineering Standards

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many years of effort have been expended by experienced practitioners and academic experts in developing software engineering standards. Organizations should see it as a positive advantage—rather than as a costly negative necessity—when they are required to develop software to a recognized standard. A genuine, constructive program of measures to ensure compliance with an objective standard will achieve development process improvements that would otherwise be difficult to motivate and bring to fruition. Drawing on the author's experience in software development for the Space and Civil Aviation industries, this paper provides an overview and comparison of a number of the available software engineering standards. It goes on to describe implications and benefits that flow from these standards. Suggestions are made for effective practical application of the standards, both at individual project and at organization level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Chu-Carroll, M. C. and Sprenkle, S. 2000. Coven: Brewing better collaboration through software conguration management, Software Engineering Notes, 25(6): 88-97.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESA PSS-05-0. 1991. ESA Software Engineering Standards. Issue 2. European Space Agency (ESA).

  • FAA JobAid. 1998. Conducting Software Project Reviews Prior to Certification. Federal Aviation Authority (FAA).

  • FDA. 1998. Guidance for FDA Reviewers and Industry. Guidance for the Content of Pre-market Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices. Version 1. U. S. Department of health and human services, Food and Drink Administration (FDA), Center for devices and radiological health (CDRH), Office of device evaluation.

  • Hayhurst, K. J., Holloway, C. M., Dorsey, C. A., Knight, J. C., Leveson, N. G., McCormick, G. F., and Yang, J. C. 1998. Streamlining Software Aspects of Certi cation: Technical Team Report on the First Industry Workshop, NASA/TM-1998-207648.

  • IEC 61508-3. 1998. Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems-Part 3: Software Requirements. First edition. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).

  • ISO/IEC TR 15504-1. 1998/1999. Information Technology—Software Process Assessment (Parts 1 to 9), International Standards Organization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).

  • ISO 9001. 1994. Quality System—Model for Quality Assurance in Design/Development, Production, Installation, and Servicing, International Standards Organization (ISO).

  • Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P., and Övergaard, G. 1992. Object-Oriented Software Engineering. A Use Case Driven Approach, Addison-Wesley.

  • Leveson, N. G. 1995. Safeware, System Safety and Computers, Addison-Wesley.

  • Martin, J-P. 1992. Qualité du Logiciel et Système Qualité, l 'Industrialisation par la Certification, Paris, Masson.

  • McGibbon, T. 1999. A business case for software process improvement revised-measuring return on investment from software engineering and management, Air Force Research Laboratory contract no. SP0700-98-4000, http: //dacs.dtic.mil/techs/roispi2, Data & Analysis Center for Software (DACS), ITT Industries, Advanced Engineering and Sciences Division, 775 Daedalian Drive, Rome, NY 13441-4909.

  • MIL-STD-498. 1994. Military standard: Software development and documentation, AMSC NO. N7069, US Department of Defense.

  • Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., Curtis, B., and Chrissis, M. B. 1995. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improvement of the Software Process, Addison-Wesley.

  • Ropponen, J. and Lyytinen, K. 2000. Components of software development risk: How to address them? A project manager survey. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 26(2): 98-112.

    Google Scholar 

  • RTCA/DO-178B. 1992. Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, Washington, RTCA Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S. A., Harter, D. E., and Krishnan, M. S. 1998. Evaluating the cost of software quality. Communications of the ACM 41(8): 67-73.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Genuchten, M., van Dijk, C., Scholten, H., and Vogel, D. 2001. Using group support systems for software inspections. IEEE Software, pp. 60-65.

  • Wichmann, B. 1999. Digest of discussion on IEC 61508. http: ///www.cs.york.ac.uk/hise/sclist/ IEC61508.html.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Applications, Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, IRELAND

    William G. Tuohey

Authors
  1. William G. Tuohey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tuohey, W.G. Benefits and Effective Application of Software Engineering Standards. Software Quality Journal 10, 47–68 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015772816632

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015772816632

Search

Navigation