A Technical History of the SEI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Consequence: Effective Evaluation of Architecture Designs Building on the SAAM, the ATAM represents a further evolutionary development in the use of scenarios to perform architecture evaluation. Major defense contractors, such as Boeing and Raytheon, now have architecture evaluation teams and architecture evaluation as an element of their architect certification processes. The U.S. Army has reported that use of the ATAM and other scenario-based architecture evaluation methods reduced risk in schedule and cost, improved documentation, and resulted in a higher quality product [SEI 2010]. Both General Motors and the Air Force Space Surveillance Network Model (SSNAM) used the results of SEIconducted ATAM evaluations to inform crucial decisions about system-evolution paths. Many published case studies document positive results from the use of the ATAM to evaluate software architectures, including architectures for the U.S. Army’s Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) system [Clements 2005]; the Common Avionics Architecture System (CAAS) for a family of U.S. Army Special Operations helicopters [Barbacci 2003]; the Wargame 2000 system at the Joint National Integration Center (formerly known as the Joint National Test Facility [JNTF]) in Colorado [Jones 2001]; and a reference architecture for ground-based command-and-control systems [Gallagher 2000]. The SEI completed a study of the impact of the ASSIPsponsored Quality Attribute Workshops (QAWs) and architecture evaluations using the ATAM. Ten of the eleven programs responding to the survey indicated that the ATAM/QAW produced better results than they traditionally obtained. Six of the ten indicated that the ATAM/QAW costs no more than their traditional approaches. The study also provided evidence of the potential for the ATAM/QAW having even more impact if done “proactively.” The SEI Contribution The View from Others The year [2008] also saw a scaling up of the Army’s interest in learning and applying the SEI’s software architecture knowledge through ASSIP. A concerted effort conducted through the SEI helped the Army grow its ranks of software experts trained in the SEI Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM). Army personnel have taken part in about a dozen ATAM evaluations to date. The Army has also seen an added, immediate benefit from the architecture training: The PEOs have used them to reveal software risks early in projects’ lifetimes. [SEI 2009, p. 17] It’s a towering accomplishment to get everyone’s heads wrapped around this and get all of these important issues distilled in this amount of time. – General Motors staff on the ATAM The development of the ATAM and its ultimate codification as a methodology for dealing with tradeoffs among quality attributes, was influenced by a 1996 workshop that the SEI conducted. Participants from the Georgia Institute of Technology, Motorola, IBM T.J. Watson Research, Carnegie Mellon University, Siemens, Nortel, Rational, AT&T Bell Laboratories, and Performance Engineering Services met with SEI staff members to discuss and validate an SEI report on best practices in architecture evaluation [Abowd 1996]. The workshop helped to shape the structure of the evaluation method that evolved into the ATAM, which includes the Quality Attribute Workshop. The SEI also published case studies documenting the use of QAWs in source selection for a CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 | SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE | CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 259 Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited.
DoD system acquisition [Bergey 2002] and as a tool to evaluate architectural design approaches in a major system acquisition [Bergey 2000]. A measure of the influence of the SEI architecture methods and techniques is that they have been incorporated into a handbook for practitioners on the practice of architecting written by an Open Group Master Certified IT architect [Eeles 2010]. The book advises practitioners on the importance of quality attributes and refers the reader to SEI techniques and methods (including quality attribute scenarios, architectural tactics, attribute-driven design, and ATAM). Additionally, of the scholarly articles on the ATAM, the three most-popular [Kazman 1998, 1999, 2001] were cited, oldest to more recent, 490, 198, and 153 times. Many architecture evaluation methods emerged after the SEI published and disseminated the ATAM, and most acknowledge its influence. Bosch, Boeing, and Raytheon have publicly acknowledged their adoption of the ATAM and the strong influence the ATAM has had on their approach to developing software-reliant systems. The ATAM is generally acknowledged today to be the leading method in the area of software architecture evaluation. References [Abowd 1996] Abowd, Gregory; Bass, Len; Clements, Paul; Kazman, Rick; Northrop, Linda; & Zaremski, Amy. Recommended Best Industrial Practice for Software Architecture Evaluation (CMU/SEI-96-TR-025). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 1997. http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?AssetID=12653 [Barbacci 2003] Barbacci, Mario; Clements, Paul; Lattanze, Anthony; Northrop, Linda; & Wood, William. Using the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) to Evaluate the Software Architecture for a Product Line of Avionics Systems: A Case Study (CMU/SEI-2003-TN-012). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2003. http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?AssetID=6447 [Bergey 2000] Bergey, John; Barbacci, Mario; & Wood, William. Using Quality Attribute Workshops to Evaluate Architectural Design Approaches in a Major System Acquisition: A Case Study (CMU/SEI-2000-TN-010). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2000. http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?AssetID=5123 [Bergey 2002] Bergey, John & Wood, William. Use of Quality Attribute Workshops (QAWs) in Source Selection for a DoD System Acquisition: A Case Study (CMU/SEI-2002-TN-013). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2002. http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?AssetID=5933 [Clements 2005] Clements, Paul; Bergey, John; & Mason, David. Using the SEI Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method to Evaluate WIN-T: A Case Study (CMU/SEI-2005-TN-027). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2005. http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?AssetID=7467 [Eeles 2010] Eeles, Peter & Cripps, Peter. The Process of Software Architecting. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2010 (ISBN 0321357485). CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 | SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE | CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 260 Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited.
Page 1 and 2:
A Technical History of the SEI Larr
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents Foreword Preface
Page 5 and 6:
The Consequence: Undergraduate Soft
Page 7 and 8:
References 131 Expanding the CMMI P
Page 9 and 10:
The Challenge: Configuration Suppor
Page 11 and 12:
References 275 Operational Support
Page 13 and 14:
Foreword Angel Jordan University Pr
Page 15 and 16:
to the SEI on a part-time basis as
Page 17 and 18:
Blaise Durante Deputy Assistant Sec
Page 19 and 20:
synergy between the TRA team’s ob
Page 21 and 22:
Preface This report chronicles the
Page 23 and 24:
Abstract This report chronicles the
Page 25 and 26:
1 Introduction CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027
Page 27 and 28:
Introduction In December 1984, the
Page 29 and 30:
promulgate use of modern techniques
Page 31 and 32:
Interpreting the Charter In creatin
Page 33 and 34:
of Defense and flag officers from t
Page 35 and 36:
(CRADA) funding is available to exp
Page 37 and 38:
Another effective mechanism has bee
Page 39 and 40:
2 Real-Time Embedded Systems Engine
Page 41:
Figure 3: Real-Time Embedded System
Page 44 and 45:
Introduction to Real-Time Embedded
Page 46 and 47:
in those developments. The SEI was,
Page 48 and 49:
general-purpose techniques but with
Page 50 and 51:
Summary DoD systems have traditiona
Page 52 and 53:
Ada/Real-Time Embedded Systems Test
Page 54 and 55:
enchmark. Results of testbed experi
Page 56 and 57:
Distributed Ada Real-Time Kernel Th
Page 58 and 59:
Ada Adoption Handbook The Challenge
Page 60 and 61:
[Hefley 1992] Hefley, William; Fore
Page 62 and 63:
processor utilization. The sample a
Page 64 and 65:
References [AFSAB 1988] Air Force S
Page 66 and 67:
also known as using simplicity to c
Page 68 and 69:
Software for Heterogeneous Machines
Page 70 and 71:
[Barbacci 1986b] Barbacci, Mario &
Page 72 and 73:
The increase in processing capacity
Page 74 and 75:
[Lakshmanan 2011] Lakshmanan, Karth
Page 76 and 77:
analysis as well as model tuning fo
Page 78 and 79:
References [Hansen 2004] Hansen, J.
Page 80 and 81:
or asynchronous networked computer
Page 82 and 83:
3 Education and Training CMU/SEI-20
Page 84:
Figure 4: Education and Training Ti
Page 87 and 88:
making materials available to allow
Page 89 and 90:
course offering, while at other uni
Page 91 and 92:
[DoD 1984] Statement of Work for Im
Page 93 and 94:
The curriculum guidelines also sugg
Page 95 and 96:
Undergraduate Software Engineering
Page 97 and 98:
SEI adapted the Personal Software P
Page 99 and 100:
Software Assurance Curriculum for C
Page 101 and 102:
how they relate to business needs.
Page 103 and 104:
Survivability and Information Assur
Page 105 and 106:
The SEI curriculum and others’ co
Page 107 and 108:
The CSEE conference series also bro
Page 109 and 110:
CMU Master of Software Engineering
Page 111 and 112:
Executive Education Program The Cha
Page 113 and 114:
Professional Training The Challenge
Page 115 and 116:
Education and Training Delivery Pla
Page 117 and 118:
[Ardis 2005] Ardis, Mark. “An Inc
Page 119 and 120:
practical for keeping content curre
Page 121 and 122:
[Johnson 2012] Johnson, Col. Rivers
Page 123 and 124:
4 Management CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 |
Page 125:
Figure 5: Management Timeline CMU/S
Page 128 and 129:
Introduction to Management When the
Page 130 and 131:
neering CMM [SEI 1995] to describe
Page 132 and 133:
under SEI stewardship in 2009. Deve
Page 134 and 135:
References [Averill 1993] Averill,
Page 136 and 137:
[SEI 1995] A Systems Engineering Ca
Page 138 and 139:
The SEI developed a more explicit m
Page 140 and 141:
[Humphrey 1988] Humphrey, Watts; Sw
Page 142 and 143:
opinion leaders and senior managers
Page 144 and 145:
[Hayes 1995] Hayes, William & Zubro
Page 146 and 147:
move from maturity level to maturit
Page 148 and 149:
The People Capability Maturity Mode
Page 150 and 151:
The SEI Contribution As is the case
Page 152 and 153:
and security process improvement. T
Page 154 and 155:
[Caralli 2004] Caralli, Richard. Ma
Page 156 and 157:
4.6.2.1 CMMI Constellations For CMM
Page 158 and 159:
ity and widespread use of the CMMI
Page 160 and 161:
Expanding the CMMI Product Suite to
Page 162 and 163:
key leaders within that organizatio
Page 164 and 165:
The Smart Grid The Challenge: The N
Page 166 and 167:
ecoming more widespread. As utiliti
Page 168 and 169:
Continuous Risk Management training
Page 170 and 171:
[Alberts 2009] Alberts, Christopher
Page 172 and 173:
The principal motivator for the dev
Page 174 and 175:
References [Carleton 2010] Carleton
Page 176 and 177:
Measurement and Analysis The Challe
Page 178 and 179:
Carnegie Mellon University, 2002. h
Page 180 and 181:
activities. The final set of activi
Page 182 and 183:
[Rombach 1989] Rombach, H. Dieter &
Page 184 and 185:
5 Security CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 | SO
Page 186:
Figure 6: Security Timeline CMU/SEI
Page 189 and 190:
Introduction to Security In the ear
Page 191 and 192:
The CERT/CC helps guard against dev
Page 193 and 194:
The SEI concern about risks posed t
Page 195 and 196:
Teams (FIRST), which was formed in
Page 197 and 198:
[Killcrece 2008] Killcrece, Georgia
Page 199 and 200:
The CERT/CC built on its vast colle
Page 201 and 202:
Malicious Code Analysis The Challen
Page 203 and 204:
have put advanced tools in the hand
Page 205 and 206:
Secure Coding The Challenge: Preven
Page 207 and 208:
end, the SEI has developed training
Page 209 and 210:
Network Situational Awareness The C
Page 211 and 212:
In 2007, the Comprehensive National
Page 213 and 214:
study. In 2011, the DoD began fundi
Page 215 and 216:
[CSO 2004] CSO Magazine, in coopera
Page 217 and 218:
People who work in small organizati
Page 219 and 220:
[Violino 2010] Violino, Bob. “IT
Page 221 and 222:
Since its initial development in 20
Page 223 and 224:
References [Alberts 2005] Alberts,
Page 225 and 226:
6 Software Engineering Methods CMU/
Page 227 and 228:
Introduction to Software Engineerin
Page 229 and 230:
were delivered to Army and Air Forc
Page 231 and 232:
Configuration Management The Challe
Page 233 and 234:
The SEI Contribution The SEI recogn
Page 235 and 236:
CASE Environments The Challenge: Ma
Page 237 and 238: The SEI Contribution The CASE work
Page 239 and 240: Software Technology Reference Guide
Page 241 and 242: Reengineering The Challenge: Legacy
Page 243 and 244: [Bergey 1999] Bergey, John; Smith,
Page 245 and 246: 2. Influence is more important than
Page 247 and 248: [Brownsword 2004] Brownsword, Lisa;
Page 249 and 250: Developing Systems with Commercial
Page 251 and 252: The SEI Contribution When the SEI s
Page 253 and 254: [Tyson 2003] Tyson, Barbara; Albert
Page 255 and 256: system is safe); (2) evidence suppo
Page 257 and 258: 7 Architecture CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027
Page 259: 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996
Page 262 and 263: Introduction to Software Architectu
Page 264 and 265: cation description language, in the
Page 266 and 267: AFSC/ESD conducted a source selecti
Page 268 and 269: [Brown 1995] Brown, Alan; Carney, D
Page 270 and 271: Structural Modeling The Challenge:
Page 272 and 273: The SEI Contribution As a result of
Page 274 and 275: Federal Aviation Administration Stu
Page 276 and 277: evolving understanding of software
Page 278 and 279: The basic features of Serpent were
Page 280 and 281: Software Architecture Analysis Meth
Page 282 and 283: A survey of software architecture e
Page 284 and 285: Quality Attributes The Challenge: M
Page 286 and 287: [Barbacci 1995] Barbacci, Mario; Kl
Page 290 and 291: [Gallagher 2000] Gallagher, Brian.
Page 292 and 293: design with some variation built in
Page 294 and 295: Software Product Lines The Challeng
Page 296 and 297: A software product line curriculum.
Page 298 and 299: 8 Forensics CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 | S
Page 300: Figure 8: Forensics Timeline CMU/SE
Page 303 and 304: Introduction to Computer Forensics:
Page 305 and 306: ultimate contribution of SEI digita
Page 307 and 308: The SEI’s experience with cases s
Page 309 and 310: Digital Intelligence and Investigat
Page 311 and 312: that not only apply to the specific
Page 313 and 314: 9 The Future of Software Engineerin
Page 315 and 316: A Vision of the Future of Software
Page 317 and 318: In each case, impact is achieved th
Page 319 and 320: e-estimation as a means to assess p
Page 321 and 322: and complexity of these systems are
Page 323 and 324: 10 Conclusion CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 |
Page 325 and 326: Highlighting 30 Years of Contributi
Page 327 and 328: developed network situational aware
Page 329 and 330: Direct Support to Government System
Page 331 and 332: In the course of these reviews, the
Page 333 and 334: Appendix Authors Contributing to th
Page 335: REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Appr
show all

A Technical History of the SEI

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?