A Technical History of the SEI

In the late 1970s, research demonstrated that compiler technology could produce optimized object
code that was efficient enough to handle real-time needs and that higher-level languages could include
features to interface with hardware devices. The Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Research
and Advanced Technology ((DUSD (R&AT)) chartered a High Order Language Working
Group consisting of representatives from the military departments and DARPA. The working
group’s charter was to manage the development of a high-level language that would meet the
needs of real-time software developers as well as other system developers and that would support
the development of a robust software development environment (a collection of supporting tools
for developers). DARPA was assigned responsibility for managing the development. This language
was eventually called Ada [Carlson 1980].
During the five-year development of the Ada language and supporting environment, specialists
with a variety of computer language, compiler, and tools expertise were needed. That expertise
was simply not resident in any quantity within the DoD. Likewise, the existing FFRDCs were
generally focused on specific system capabilities, such as space, electronics, radar, and logistics.
While each had some software expertise, there were too few people with the relevant capability
available. The defense industry and university community were willing to assist, but the mechanisms
for rapid access to the needed expertise were cumbersome.
DARPA solved this problem by creating a group of distinguished reviewers who were effective in
bringing the necessary expertise to the effort. DARPA was able to create such a mechanism because
of its broad influence with the computing community at that time. That solution was not
available to the military departments, however, and therefore could not be easily replicated; in any
case, it would not scale. As the joint task force that produced the STARS proposal began its deliberations,
the same lack of available expertise was evident. A large part of the motivation for proposing
the SEI was the need to have an organization of software engineers and software researchers
familiar with DoD-related problems available to assist the DoD. As such, the SEI was
intended to enable the DoD to gain a long-term benefit from the DoD software initiative by continuing
to transition evolving technology.
Although the STARS program was well received within DoD and by the defense industry, resistance
to the idea of a new FFRDC threatened to delay the entire initiative. The DUSD(R&AT),
therefore, pressed forward with the STARS program and chartered a blue ribbon panel to further
evaluate the proposed Software Engineering Institute. The panel, which was composed of senior
industry and university leaders with support from senior DoD people, returned with a strong recommendation
that the DoD establish the SEI [Eastman 1983].
Although the Ada program and the STARS program provided context for initiating the creation of
the SEI, the SEI was independent of both programs. Over time, the SEI provided technical support
to both efforts, but its operation and direction were clearly separate.
SEI Charter—Improve the State of the Practice of Software Engineering
The blue ribbon panel affirmed the joint task force recommendation that the SEI mission have
four components: technology transition, research, direct support, and education, with the principal
focus on technology transition. The mission statement clearly said, “...The Institute shall accelerate
the reduction to practice of modern software engineering techniques and methods and shall
CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 | SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE | CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 4
Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited