A Technical History of the SEI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

or asynchronous networked computer hardware. The annotated architecture model supports analysis of functional and nonfunctional properties, including schedulability, safety, and reliability, as well as code generation of runtime executives integrated with application components. Derivation of different analytical models from the annotated architecture model assures consistency of analysis results. The ability to model and analyze the architecture early and throughout the development at increasing levels of fidelity leads to an incremental approach of end-to-end system validation and verification. The Consequence: Architecture-Centric Engineering Beyond Documentation Several industry initiatives initiated pilot projects as soon as the AADL standard was published. The first industrial initiative using AADL as a core technology was the ASSERT project, led by the European Space Agency in cooperation with 29 partners, from 2004-2007. The initiative developed a tool chain for the model-based analysis and auto-generation of satellite systems from these reference architecture models and applied it to two families of satellite systems. In 2005, a five-year industry initiative of 28 partners, led by Airbus and called TOPCASED, developed an industrial open source tool infrastructure for model-based engineering of embedded systems, with OSATE as part of the tool suite (http://www.topcased.org/). In 2006, the three-year ITEA SPICES initiative of 15 research and industrial partners began to develop a model-based engineering method that integrates modeling in CORBA Component Model (CCM) and AADL for analysis and auto-generation into SystemC. From 2008-2011, the COMPASS Project (http://compass.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/), an international research project funded by the European Space Agency, developed a theoretical and technological basis and approach for the system-software co-engineering. This co-engineering approach focused on a coherent set of specification and analysis techniques evaluating system-level correctness, safety, dependability, and performability of on-board computer-based aerospace systems. These techniques have significantly improved the reliability of modern and future space missions. Since 2008, under the umbrella of the Aerospace Vehicle Systems Institute (AVSI)—a consortium of aerospace companies, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Embraer, and a number of suppliers, including BAE Systems, Rockwell Collins, Honeywell, GE Aviation, as well as the FAA, NASA, and the DoD—started the multi-phase System Architecture Virtual Integration (SAVI) initiative to establish a architecture-centric, model-based “integrate then build” practice throughout the lifecycle. SAVI uses a multi-notation model repository approach that assures model consistency and interchange based on industry standards without forcing participants into the same tool set. For the proof-of-concept phase, AADL and OSATE were chosen as key technologies for a case study to (1) analyze multiple quality attribute dimensions at several levels of fidelity on a multi-tier aircraft model, and to (2) illustrate the ability to support integrator/supplier interactions through architecture model interchange via a model repository [Redman 2010]. SAVI is in the process of performing shadow projects within member companies and establishing buy-in from commercial tool venders into the SAVI approach. CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 | SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE | CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 55 Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited
The SEI Contribution As technical lead of the SAE AADL standard, the SEI integrated several research technologies into the AADL standard, making it an extensible, semantically well-defined, and consistent standard suite. Through strong participation and feedback of potential users of AADL from the avionics and space industries, features have been included in the AADL standard to accommodate application to large-scale systems. Through the creation of OSATE, the SEI has fostered pilot applications of AADL in a range of industrial pilot projects. It also has fostered the use of AADL and the OSATE toolset as a technology transition platform, as evidenced by the integration of a number of formal analytical frameworks with AADL (https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/aadl). The SEI has created presentation and training materials for architecture-centric, model-based engineering with AADL, applied AADL in a number of customer pilot projects, developed the Virtual Upgrade Validation method to investigate known root cause problem areas in embedded software systems, and used AADL in combination with other SEI architecture-centric methods. The SEI continues to work with the aerospace industry on the SAVI initiative and the transition of this model-based, architecture-centric practice into military programs. References [AVSI Feiler 2010] Feiler P.; Wrage L.; & Hansson J. “Toward Model-Based Embedded System Validation through Virtual Integration.” DoD Data Analysis Center for Software (DACS). Journal of Software Technology (January 2010). [Feiler 2009] Feiler, Peter H. “Challenges in Validating Safety-Critical Embedded Systems.” Proceedings of SAE International AeroTech Congress, Seattle, WA, November 10-12, 2009. [NRC Jackson 2007] Jackson, Daniel, ed. Software for Dependable Systems: Sufficient Evidence? Committee on Certifiably Dependable Software Systems, National Research Council. National Academic Press, 2007 (ISBN: 0-309-10857-8). [Redman 2010] Redman, David; Ward, Donald; Chilenski, John; & Pollari, Greg. “Virtual Integration for Improved System Design.” Proceedings of The First Analytic Virtual Integration of Cyber-Physical Systems Workshop in conjunction with the Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS 2010), San Diego, CA, November 30-December 3, 2010. [SAE AADL 2009] Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Avionics Systems Division (ASD) AS-2C Subcommittee. Avionics Architecture Description Language Standard. SAE Documents AS 5506A in January 2009, AS 5506/1 in June 2006, and AS 5506/2 in January 2011. http://www.sae.org. [SEI News 2009] Software Engineering Institute. “Creating a Framework for Reliability Validation” (SEI News story). November 24, 2009. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/newsitems/amrdec_roadmap.cfm [Vestal 1993] Vestal, S. & Binns, P. “Scheduling and Communication in MetaH,” 194-200. Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Symposium. RSTS, Durham, NC, December 1-3, 1993. IEEE, 1993. CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 | SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE | CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 56 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 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 288 and 289:
The Consequence: Effective Evaluati
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?