Advertisement

A Methodology for Software Process Improvement Roadmaps for Regulated Domains – Example with IEC 62366

  • Derek Flood
  • Fergal Mc Caffery
  • Valentine Casey
  • Gilbert Regan
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 364)

Abstract

Software process improvement initiatives offer many benefits in terms of productivity, cost savings and quality. As part of these initiatives organisations undergo an assessment and then embark on a software process improvement program to improve their existing processes to meet a desired target. These programs can be improved by the use of process improvement roadmaps that are tailored to the organisation and are usually non-transferrable. Within regulated domains, such as the medical device industry, adherence to international standards must be achieved before products can be placed on the market. This work proposes the use of software process improvement roadmaps to assist organisations achieve compliance with medical device standards. These proposed roadmaps will be generic in nature to meet the requirements of the standard, but will be subsequently tailored to meet the specific requirements of an individual organisation. In this paper we introduce the concept of the software process improvement roadmaps for the implementation of standards and detail a methodology for developing these roadmaps.

Keywords

Software Process Improvement Software Process Improvement Roadmaps Medical Device software IEC 62366 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Humphrey, W.S., Snyder, T.R., Willis, R.R.: Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Software 8(4), 11–23 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dion, R.: Process Improvement and the Corporate Balance Sheet. IEEE Software 10(4), 28–35 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herbsleb, J., Carleton, A.: Rozum J., Siegel J., Zubrow D, Benefits of CMM-Based Software Process Improvement: Executive Summary of Results. Software Engineering Institute (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: Business success in software sMEs: Recommendations for future SPI studies. In: Winkler, D., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2012. CCIS, vol. 301, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harter, D.E., Krishnan, M.S., Slaughter, S.A.: Effects of Process Maturity on Quality, Cycle Time, and Effort in Software Product Development. Management Science 46(4), 451–466 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paulisch, F., Ebert, C.: Business Impact of Process Improvements Workshop ICSE Companion 2008, Companion of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 1073–1074 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IEC 62304:2006, Medical device software—Software life cycle processes, Geneva, Switzerland, IEC (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO 13485:2003, Medical devices — Quality management systems — Requirements for regulatory purposes, 2nd edn., Geneva, Switzerland, ISO (2003) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO 14971 – Medical Devices – Application of risk management to medical devices, Switzerland, ISO (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IEC 62366:2007 “Medical Devices – Application of usability engineering to medical devices”Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ziehe, T., Wohlwnd, H., Gettel, G., McGowan, D.: “Software Process Improvement (SPI) guidance for Improving software: Release 4.0” SEMATECH report. Technology Transfer # 95082943A-ENG (October 31, 1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McFeeley, R., McKeehan, D.: Software Process Improvement Roadmap, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, User’s Guide CMU/SEI-95-UG-001 (1995), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/95ug001.cfm
  13. 13.
    ISO/IEC 15504-5:2012, Information technology - Process Assessment - Part 5: An Exemplar Process Assessment Model. Geneva, Switzerland, ISO (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    CMMI Product Team, Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Development Version 1.2. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburch PA (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Casey, V., Richardson, I.: A Practical Application of the IDEAL Model. Software Process Improvement and Practice 9(3), 123–132 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    HIMSS Usability Task Force, “Promoting usability in Health Organisations: Initial Steps and Progress towards a Healthcare Usability Maturity Model” Health Information and Management Systems Society (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Denger, C., Feldmann, R., Host, M., Lindholm, C., Shull, F.: A Snapshot of the State of Practice in Software Development for Medical Devices. In: First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, Madrid, Spain (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCaffery, F., Dorling, A.: Medi SPICE Development. Software Process Maintenance and Evolution. Improvement and Practice Journal 22, 255–268 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Casey, V.: Virtual Software Team Project Management. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society 16, 83–96 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO/IEC 12207:2008, Systems and software engineering - Software life cycle proc-esses. Geneva, Switzerland, ISO (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ISO/IEC 15504-2, - Software engineering — Process assessment — Part 2: Performing an assessment. 2003: Geneva, Switzerland (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Casey, V., Mc Caffery, F.: Medi SPICE and the development of a Process Reference Model for inclusion in IEC 62304. In: ICSOFT 2012 – The 7th International Conference on Software Paradigm Trends, Rome, Italy, July 24-27 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burton, J., Mc Caffery, F., Richardson, I.: A risk management capability model for use in medical device companies. In: International Workshop on Software Quality (WoSQ 2006). ACM, Shanghai (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    European Council, Council Directive 2007/47/EC (Amendment). Official Journal of The European Union: Luxembourg (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McHugh, M., McCaffery, F., Casey, V.: Standalone Software as an Active Medical Device. In: O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., McCaffery, F., Dorling, A., et al. (eds.) SPICE 2011. CCIS, vol. 155, pp. 97–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barafort, B., Renault, A., Picard, M., Cortina, S.: A transformation process for building PRMs and PAMs based on a collection of requirements – Example with ISO/IEC 2000. In: SPICE 2008, Nuremberg, Germany (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bogdanich, W.: As Technology Surges, Radiation safeguards lag, January 26. New York Times (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Food and Drugs Administration, Infusion Pumps Improvement Initiative (2010), http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/GeneralHospitalDevicesandSupplies/InfusionPumps/ucm205424.htm (accessed: December 07, 2012)
  29. 29.
    Casey, V., McCaffery, F.: Development of the Medi SPICE PRM. In: Mas, A., Mesquida, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2012. CCIS, vol. 290, pp. 265–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derek Flood
    • 1
  • Fergal Mc Caffery
    • 1
  • Valentine Casey
    • 1
  • Gilbert Regan
    • 1
  1. 1.Dundalk Institute of TechnologyIreland

Personalised recommendations