Abstract. The practice of software development has evolved considerably in recent decades, with new programming technologies, the affordability of hardware, pervasive internet access and mobile computing all contributing to the emergence of new software development processes. The newer process initiatives, which include those which are sometimes referred to as agile or lean methods, have brought with them new terms, which sometimes reflect the introduction of novel concepts. Other times, new terms correspond to long established concepts that have been repackaged. The net position is that we have a proliferation of language and term usage in the software development process domain, a problem which has implications for assessors and assessment frameworks, and for the broader community. In this paper, we explore this problem, finding that it is worthy of further research. Plus, we identify a technique suited to addressing this concern: the establishment of a canonical software process ontological model.

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract. In work that is ongoing, the authors are examining the extent of software development process terminology drift. Initial findings suggest there is a degree of term confusion, with the mapping of concepts to terms lacking precision in some instances. Ontologies are concerned with identifying the concepts of relevance to a field of endeavour and mapping those concepts to terms such that term confusion is reduced. In this paper, we discuss how ontologies are developed. We also identify various sources of software process terminology. Our work to date indicates that the systematic development of a software development process ontology would be of benefit to the entire software development community. The development of such an ontology would in effect represent a systematic refactoring of the terminology and concepts produced over four decades of software process innovation.

No abstract

No abstract

Processes usually are defined according to the underlying standards (ISO 15504, ESA ECSS, ISO 9001, etc.) and are described with process steps to be performed by roles and producing results (outputs) from well‐defined inputs, methods and tools to support the process steps, and activities to be done and skills to be covered by roles (Messnarz Ret et al. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Quality Assurance, Vienna 10–12 April 1999). Assessments and the resulting improvement initiatives focus much on the processes and less on the human resources based strategies.In this article we want to emphasise that both issues are of equal importance, the processes and the highly skilled human force. We also highlight a currently running European strategy (European Qualification Network (EQN)) and a funded technology project PLATO which support the establishment of such a human resource and learning strategy in Europe. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

In 2005 Automotive SPICE (based on ISO 15504) has been published (see http://www.automot ivespice.com) and used in major automotive firms world wide. In parallel the topic 'Functional Safety' became important due to changes in liability law and the development of IEC 61508 as an application and branch independent standard for functional safety. As a result, ISO WD 26262 a ISO draft for functional safety has been initiated classifying systems with ASIL (automotive safety integrity levels) levels and requiring additional processes, techniques, and methods to illustrate the competence for managing systems that have an impact on the loss of lives.An Automotive SPICE assessment usually takes (for the processes defined in the scope of the German automotive manufacturing association) 4 days per project. Adding the scope of a safety assessment this dramatically increases the number of hours used in assessments. In a working group of major automotive suppliers and assessment tool suppliers, we developed from 2005 to 2009 an integrated assessment approach. Portals in the above-mentioned automotive suppliers already use this environment.The working group that elaborated the methods and tools described in this paper are part of the SOQRATES initiative (http://www.soqrates.de) where more than 20 leading German firms collaborate in cross-company task forces.In this paper, we want to explain the results of the analysis done, the assessment model applied, and what kind of reports the integrated assessment environment is producing. The results of all work (except of the proprietary assessment tools) will be made public to all suppliers in 2009.