DOCSLIB.ORG

Joint Software Systems Safety Engineering Handbook ------Developed by the Joint Software Systems Safety Engineering Workgroup

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Joint Software Systems Safety Engineering Handbook ------Developed by the Joint Software Systems Safety Engineering Workgroup DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE JOINT SOFTWARE SYSTEMS SAFETY ENGINEERING HANDBOOK ----------------------------------------- DEVELOPED BY THE JOINT SOFTWARE SYSTEMS SAFETY ENGINEERING WORKGROUP Original published December 1999 Version 1.0 Published August 27, 2010 Naval Ordnance Safety and Security Activity 3817 Strauss Avenue, Building D-323 Indian Head, MD 20640-5555 Prepared for: Director of Defense Research and Engineering Distribution Statement A Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Software Systems Safety Engineering Handbook Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Overview ........................................................................................................... 1 2 Introduction to the Handbook ........................................................................... 3 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Scope ................................................................................................................. 4 2.4 Authority and Standards ................................................................................... 5 2.5 Handbook Overview ......................................................................................... 6 2.5.1 Historical Background ...................................................................................... 6 2.5.2 Management Responsibilities ........................................................................... 7 2.5.3 Introduction to the Systems Approach .............................................................. 7 2.5.3.1 The Hardware Development Lifecycle ............................................................. 8 2.5.3.2 The Software Development Lifecycle .............................................................. 9 2.5.3.2.1 Grand Design and Waterfall Lifecycle Model ................................................ 10 2.5.3.2.2 Modified V Lifecycle Model .......................................................................... 12 2.5.3.2.3 Spiral Lifecycle Model ................................................................................... 13 2.5.3.2.4 Object-Oriented Analysis and Design ............................................................ 16 2.5.3.2.5 Component-Oriented and Package-Oriented Design ...................................... 16 2.5.3.2.6 Extreme Programming .................................................................................... 17 2.5.3.3 The Integration of Hardware and Software Lifecycles ................................... 18 2.5.4 A Team Solution ............................................................................................. 18 2.5.5 Systems of Systems Hazards and Causal Factors ........................................... 20 2.5.5.1 Safety as a System Property ............................................................................ 20 2.5.5.2 Functional Hazard Causal Factors .................................................................. 20 2.5.5.3 Interface-Related Hazard Causal Factors........................................................ 21 2.5.5.4 Zonal Hazard Causes ...................................................................................... 21 2.5.5.5 Data Interfaces ................................................................................................ 22 2.5.5.6 COTS .............................................................................................................. 23 2.5.5.7 Technology Issues ........................................................................................... 23 2.6 Handbook Organization .................................................................................. 23 2.6.1 Planning and Management .............................................................................. 25 2.6.2 Task Implementation ...................................................................................... 26 2.6.3 Residual Safety Risk Assessment and Acceptance ......................................... 26 2.6.4 Supplementary Appendices ............................................................................ 26 3 Introduction to Risk Management and System Safety .................................... 27 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 27 3.2 A Discussion of Risk ...................................................................................... 27 3.2.1 Risk Perspectives ............................................................................................ 28 3.2.2 Safety Management Risk Review ................................................................... 28 3.3 Types of Risk .................................................................................................. 29 3.4 Areas of Program Risk .................................................................................... 30 3.4.1 Schedule Risk.................................................................................................. 31 3.4.2 Budget Risk ..................................................................................................... 33 3.4.3 Sociopolitical Risk .......................................................................................... 33 i Software Systems Safety Engineering Handbook Table of Contents 3.4.4 Technical Risk ................................................................................................ 34 3.5 System Safety Engineering ............................................................................. 35 3.6 Safety Risk Management ................................................................................ 38 3.6.1 Initial Safety Risk Assessment........................................................................ 39 3.6.1.1 Mishap, Hazard, and Failure Mode Identification .......................................... 39 3.6.1.2 Severity Categories ......................................................................................... 40 3.6.1.3 Probability Levels ........................................................................................... 41 3.6.1.4 Mishap Risk Index .......................................................................................... 42 3.6.2 Safety Order of Precedence ............................................................................ 44 3.6.3 Elimination or Risk Reduction........................................................................ 44 3.6.4 Quantification of Residual Safety Risk........................................................... 46 3.6.5 Managing and Assuming Residual Safety Risk .............................................. 47 4 Software System Safety Engineering.............................................................. 48 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 48 4.1.1 Section 4 Format ............................................................................................. 50 4.1.2 Process Charts ................................................................................................. 51 4.1.3 Software Safety Engineering Products ........................................................... 52 4.2 Software Safety Planning and Management ................................................... 52 4.2.1 Planning .......................................................................................................... 54 4.2.1.1 Establish the System Safety Program ............................................................. 59 4.2.1.2 Defining Acceptable Levels of Risk ............................................................... 60 4.2.1.3 Planning for Two Distinct Processes .............................................................. 60 4.2.1.3.1 Software Safety Assurance and Integrity Process .......................................... 61 4.2.1.3.2 Software Safety Hazard Analysis Process ...................................................... 63 4.2.1.4 Defining and Using the Software Criticality Matrix....................................... 64 4.2.1.5 Defining the Requirements for Level of Rigor ............................................... 69 4.2.1.6 Program Interfaces .......................................................................................... 73 4.2.1.6.1 Management Interfaces ................................................................................... 75 4.2.1.6.2 Technical Interfaces ........................................................................................ 76 4.2.1.6.3 Contractual Interfaces ..................................................................................... 77 4.2.1.7 Contract Deliverables...................................................................................... 78 4.2.1.8 Development of the Mishap Risk Index ......................................................... 79 4.2.1.8.1 Mishap Severity .............................................................................................. 81 4.2.1.8.2 Mishap Probability .......................................................................................... 81 4.2.2 Managing the Software Safety Program ......................................................... 83 4.3 Software Safety Task Implementation ............................................................ 87
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ASSESSING the MAINTAINABILITY of C++ SOURCE CODE by MARIUS SUNDBAKKEN a Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requireme
    ASSESSING THE MAINTAINABILITY OF C++ SOURCE CODE By MARIUS SUNDBAKKEN A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Computer Science WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science DECEMBER 2001 To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the thesis of MARIUS SUNDBAKKEN find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. Chair ii ASSESSING THE MAINTAINABILITY OF C++ SOURCE CODE Abstract by Marius Sundbakken, M.S. Washington State University December 2001 Chair: David Bakken Maintenance refers to the modifications made to software systems after their first release. It is not possible to develop a significant software system that does not need maintenance because change, and hence maintenance, is an inherent characteristic of software systems. It has been estimated that it costs 80% more to maintain software than to develop it. Clearly, maintenance is the major expense in the lifetime of a software product. Predicting the maintenance effort is therefore vital for cost-effective design and development. Automated techniques that can quantify the maintainability of object- oriented designs would be very useful. Models based on metrics for object-oriented source code are necessary to assess software quality and predict engineering effort. This thesis will look at C++, one of the most widely used object-oriented programming languages in academia and industry today. Metrics based models that assess the maintainability of the source code using object-oriented software metrics are developed. iii Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................1 1.1. Maintenance and Maintainability.......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Standardizing Functional Safety Assessments for Off-The-Shelf Instrumentation and Controls
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 5-2016 STANDARDIZING FUNCTIONAL SAFETY ASSESSMENTS FOR OFF-THE-SHELF INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS Andrew Michael Nack University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Other Computer Engineering Commons, and the Systems Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Nack, Andrew Michael, "STANDARDIZING FUNCTIONAL SAFETY ASSESSMENTS FOR OFF-THE-SHELF INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2016. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/3793 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Andrew Michael Nack entitled "STANDARDIZING FUNCTIONAL SAFETY ASSESSMENTS FOR OFF-THE-SHELF INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Computer Engineering. Gregory D. Peterson, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Qing C. Cao, Mingzhou Jin Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) STANDARDIZING FUNCTIONAL SAFETY ASSESSMENTS FOR OFF-THE-SHELF INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS A Thesis Presented for the Master of Science Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Andrew Michael Nack May 2016 Copyright © 2016 by Andrew Michael Nack All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Tools: a Building Block Approach
    SOFTWARE TOOLS: A BUILDING BLOCK APPROACH NBS Special Publication 500-14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Bureau of Standards ] NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS The National Bureau of Standards^ was established by an act of Congress March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to pro- mote public safety. The Bureau consists of the Institute for Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials Research, the Institute for Applied Technology, the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, the Office for Information Programs, and the ! Office of Experimental Technology Incentives Program. THE INSTITUTE FOR BASIC STANDARDS provides the central basis within the United States of a complete and consist- ent system of physical measurement; coordinates that system with measurement systems of other nations; and furnishes essen- tial services leading to accurate and uniform physical measurements throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry, and commerce. The Institute consists of the Office of Measurement Services, and the following center and divisions: Applied Mathematics — Electricity — Mechanics — Heat — Optical Physics — Center for Radiation Research — Lab- oratory Astrophysics^ — Cryogenics^ — Electromagnetics^ — Time and Frequency*. THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measure- ment, standards, and data on the properties of well-characterized materials needed by industry, commerce, educational insti- tutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government agencies; and develops, produces, and distributes standard reference materials.
    [Show full text]
  • A Quantitative Reliability, Maintainability and Supportability Approach for NASA's Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle
    A Quantitative Reliability, Maintainability and Supportability Approach for NASA's Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle Fayssai M. Safie, Ph. D. Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Alabama Tel: 256-544-5278 E-mail: Fayssal.Safie @ msfc.nasa.gov Charles Daniel, Ph.D. Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Alabama Tel: 256-544-5278 E-mail: Charles.Daniel @msfc.nasa.gov Prince Kalia Raytheon ITSS Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Alabama Tel: 256-544-6871 E-mail: Prince.Kalia @ msfc.nasa.gov ABSTRACT The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is in the midst of a 10-year Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program to improve its space transportation capabilities for both cargo and crewed missions. The objectives of the program are to: significantly increase safety and reliability, reduce the cost of accessing low-earth orbit, attempt to leverage commercial launch capabilities, and provide a growth path for manned space exploration. The safety, reliability and life cycle cost of the next generation vehicles are major concerns, and NASA aims to achieve orders of magnitude improvement in these areas. To get these significant improvements, requires a rigorous process that addresses Reliability, Maintainability and Supportability (RMS) and safety through all the phases of the life cycle of the program. This paper discusses the RMS process being implemented for the Second Generation RLV program. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The 2nd Generation RLV program has in place quantitative Level-I RMS, and cost requirements [Ref 1] as shown in Table 1, a paradigm shift from the Space Shuttle program. This paradigm shift is generating a change in how space flight system design is approached.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Quality Management
    Software Quality Management 2004-2005 Marco Scotto ([email protected]) Software Quality Management Contents ¾Definitions ¾Quality of the software product ¾Special features of software ¾ Early software quality models •Boehm model • McCall model ¾ Standard ISO 9126 Software Quality Management 2 Definitions ¾ Software: intellectual product consisting of information stored on a storage device (ISO/DIS 9000: 2000) • Software may occur as concepts, transactions, procedures. One example of software is a computer program • Software is "intellectual creation comprising the programs, procedures, rules and any associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a data processing system" •A software product is the "complete set of computer programs, procedures and associated documentation and data designated for delivery to a user" [ISO 9000-3] • Software is independent of the medium on which it is recorded Software Quality Management 3 Quality of the software product ¾The product should, on the highest level… • Ensure the satisfaction of the user needs • Ensure its proper use ¾ Earlier: 1 developer, 1 user • The program should run and produce results similar to those expected ¾ Later: more developers, more users • Need to economical use of the storage devices • Understandability, portability • User-friendliness, learnability ¾ Nowadays: • Efficiency, reliability, no errors, able to restart without using data Software Quality Management 4 Special features of software (1/6) ¾ Why is software ”different”? • Does not really have “physical” existence
    [Show full text]
  • Software Maintainability and Usability in Agile Environment
    Software Maintainability and Usability in Agile Environment {tag} {/tag} International Journal of Computer Applications © 2013 by IJCA Journal Volume 68 - Number 4 Year of Publication: 2013 Authors: Monika Agarwal Rana Majumdar 10.5120/11569-6873 {bibtex}pxc3886873.bib{/bibtex} Abstract This research is based on software maintainability and usability in the agile environment. Maintainability of the system is the ability to undergo changes relatively easily. These changes can affect components, services, interfaces and functionality when adding or changing functions, errors, and respond to business needs. Usability is defined as the application that meets the requirements of users and consumers by providing an intuitive, easy to locate and globalize and provides good access for disabled users and leads to a good overall user experience. In the conventional method of the software development, there are many metrics to calculate the maintenance and use of software. This research is to determine whether the same measures apply to Agile, or there is a need to change some metrics used for the agile environment. The goal of software engineering is to develop good quality maintainable software in schedule and budget. Inflated software costing, delayed time frame, or not meeting quality standards express a failure. A survey suggests about 45% of software fails due to the lack of quality. It is therefore one of the most important aspects for the success of software. Refer ences 1 / 3 Software Maintainability and Usability in Agile Environment - P. Antonellis, D. Antoniou, Y. Kanellopoulos, C. Makris, E. Theodoridis, C. Tjortjis, and N. Tsirakis, "A data mining methodology for evaluating maintainability according to ISO/IEC-9126 software engineering – product quality standard," in Special Session on System Quality and Maintainability - SQM2007, 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Employee Management System
    School of Mathematics and Systems Engineering Reports from MSI - Rapporter från MSI Employee Management System Kancho Dimitrov Kanchev Dec MSI Report 06170 2006 Växjö University ISSN 1650-2647 SE-351 95 VÄXJÖ ISRN VXU/MSI/DA/E/--06170/--SE Abstract This report includes a development presentation of an information system for managing the staff data within a small company or organization. The system as such as it has been developed is called Employee Management System. It consists of functionally related GUI (application program) and database. The choice of the programming tools is individual and particular. Keywords Information system, Database system, DBMS, parent table, child table, table fields, primary key, foreign key, relationship, sql queries, objects, classes, controls. - 2 - Contents 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………4 1.1 Background……………………………………………………....................4 1.2 Problem statement ...…………………………………………………….....5 1.3 Problem discussion………………………………………………………....5 1.4 Report Overview…………………………………………………………...5 2. Problem’s solution……………………………………………….....6 2.1 Method...…………………………………………………………………...6 2.2 Programming environments………………………………………………..7 2.3 Database analyzing, design and implementation…………………………10 2.4 Program’s structure analyzing and GUI constructing…………………….12 2.5 Database connections and code implementation………………………….14 2.5.1 Retrieving data from the database………………………………....19 2.5.2 Saving data into the database……………………………………...22 2.5.3 Updating records into the database………………………………..24 2.5.4 Deleting data from the database…………………………………...26 3. Conclusion………………………………………………………....27 4. References………………………………………………………...28 Appendix A: Programming environments and database content….29 Appendix B: Program’s structure and code Implementation……...35 Appendix C: Test Performance…………………………………....56 - 3 - 1. Introduction This chapter gives a brief theoretical preview upon the database information systems and goes through the essence of the problem that should be resolved.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Requirements Specification to Distribute Manufacturing Data
    NIST Advanced Manufacturing Series 300-2 Software Requirements Specification to Distribute Manufacturing Data Thomas Hedberg, Jr. Moneer Helu Marcus Newrock This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AMS.300-2 NIST Advanced Manufacturing Series 300-2 Software Requirements Specification to Distribute Manufacturing Data Thomas Hedberg, Jr. Moneer Helu Systems Integration Division Engineering Laboratory Marcus Newrock Office of Data and Informatics Material Measurement Laboratory This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AMS.300-2 December 2017 U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Walter Copan, NIST Director and Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology SRS to Distribute Manufacturing Data Hedberg, Helu, and Newrock ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose ...................................... 1 1.2 Disclaimer ..................................... 1 This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AMS.300-2 1.3 Scope ....................................... 1 1.4 Acronyms and abbreviations ........................... 1 1.5 Verbal Forms ................................... 3 1.5.1 Must .................................... 3 1.5.2 Should ................................... 3 1.5.3 May .................................... 3 1.6 References ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptability Evaluation at Software Architecture Level Pentti Tarvainen*
    The Open Software Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 1-30 1 Open Access Adaptability Evaluation at Software Architecture Level Pentti Tarvainen* VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Kaitoväylä 1, P.O. Box 1100, FIN-90571 Oulu, Finland Abstract: Quality of software is one of the major issues in software intensive systems and it is important to analyze it as early as possible. An increasingly important quality attribute of complex software systems is adaptability. Software archi- tecture for adaptive software systems should be flexible enough to allow components to change their behaviors depending upon the environmental and stakeholders' changes and goals of the system. Evaluating adaptability at software architec- ture level to identify the weaknesses of the architecture and further to improve adaptability of the architecture are very important tasks for software architects today. Our contribution is an Adaptability Evaluation Method (AEM) that defines, before system implementation, how adaptability requirements can be negotiated and mapped to the architecture, how they can be represented in architectural models, and how the architecture can be evaluated and analyzed in order to validate whether or not the requirements are met. AEM fills the gap from requirements engineering to evaluation and provides an approach for adaptability evaluation at the software architecture level. In this paper AEM is described and validated with a real-world wireless environment control system. Furthermore, adaptability aspects, role of quality attributes, and diversity of adaptability definitions at software architecture level are discussed. Keywords: Adaptability, adaptation, adaptive software architecture, software quality, software quality attribute. INTRODUCTION understand the system [6]. Examples of design decisions are the decisions such as “we shall separate user interface from Today, quality of a software system plays an increasingly the rest of the application to make both user interface and important role in the domain of software engineering.
    [Show full text]
  • A Software Safety Process for Safety-Critical Advanced Automotive Systems
    PROCEEDINGS of the 21st INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM SAFETY CONFERENCE - 2003 A Software Safety Process for Safety-Critical Advanced Automotive Systems Barbara J. Czerny, Ph.D.; Joseph G. D’Ambrosio, Ph.D., PE; Paravila O. Jacob, Ph.D.; Brian T. Murray, Ph.D.; Padma Sundaram; Delphi, Corp.; Brighton, Michigan Keywords: SW Safety, Safety-Critical Advanced Automotive Systems, By-Wire Systems Abstract A new generation of advanced automotive systems are being implemented to enhance vehicle safety, performance, and comfort. As these new, often complex systems are added, system safety programs are employed to help eliminate potential hazards. A key component of these advanced automotive systems is software. Software itself cannot fail or wear out, but its complexity coupled with its interactions with the system and the environment can directly and indirectly lead to potential system hazards. As such, software safety cannot be considered apart from system safety, but the unique aspects of software warrant unique development and analysis methods. In this paper we describe the main elements of a software safety process for safety-critical advanced automotive systems. We describe how this proposed process may be integrated with an established system safety process for by-wire automotive systems, and how it may be integrated with an established software development process. Introduction Expanding demand for further improvements in vehicle safety, performance, fuel economy and low emissions has led to a rapid and accelerating increase in the amount and sophistication of vehicle electronics. Emerging vehicle electronics systems are programmable, with a substantial software component, and are highly complex distributed systems. Increasingly, they are receiving driver inputs and directly controlling essential vehicle functions like braking and steering.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Maintainability and Reusability Using Cohesion Metrics
    International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT) – Volume 54 Issue 2-December2017 Software Maintainability and Reusability using Cohesion Metrics Adekola, O.D#1, Idowu, S.A*2, Okolie, S.O#3, Joshua, J.V#4, Akinsanya, A.O*5, Eze, M.O#6, EbiesuwaSeun#7 #1Faculty, Computer Science Department, Babcock University,Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State, Nigeria *2Faculty, Computer Science Department, Babcock University,Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State, Nigeria #3Faculty, Computer Science Department, Babcock University,Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State, Nigeria #4Faculty, Computer Science Department, Babcock University,Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State, Nigeria *5Faculty, Computer Science Department, Babcock University,Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State, Nigeria #6Faculty, Computer Science Department, Babcock University,Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State, Nigeria #7Faculty, Computer Science Department, Babcock University,Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State, Nigeria Abstract - Among others, remarkable external software’s lifetime. Ahn et al., (2003) estimated that quality attributes of interest to software practitioners/ maintenance takes up to 80% of the total costof engineers include testability, maintainability and producing software applications. Expectation of reusability.Software engineers still combat achieving more reliable, quicker time-to-market and softwarecrisis and even chronic software affliction maintainable systems. A lot of research has gone into not because there is no standardized software the areas of software reuse and maintenance due to development process but because enough attention is the fact that these among other issues concern not given to seemingly insignificant but crucial intimately system developers/architects/engineers details of internal design attributes such as cohesion rather than end-users. Therehas been enormous and coupling especially in object-oriented systems. growth in software reuse research from the days of Consequently, the aftermath is increased structured programming concepts to object-oriented maintenance cost, effort and time which negatively methods and beyond (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Software Maintainability
    Aalto University School of Science Degree Programme in Computer Science and Engineering Juha Viljanen Measuring software maintainability Master's Thesis Espoo, August 10, 2015 Supervisor: Professor Marjo Kauppinen, Aalto University Advisor: Robert Brotherus Lic.Phil. (Chem.) Timo Lehtinen D.Sc. (Tech) Aalto University School of Science ABSTRACT OF Degree Programme in Computer Science and Engineering MASTER'S THESIS Author: Juha Viljanen Title: Measuring software maintainability Date: August 10, 2015 Pages: 94 Major: Software Engineering Code: T241-3 Supervisor: Professor Marjo Kauppinen Advisor: Robert Brotherus Lic.Phil. (Chem.) Timo Lehtinen D.Sc. (Tech) Maintenance forms the major part of the software's development costs. Keep- ing the software's code base in a good shape, i.e. maintainable, speeds up and reduces the cost of making changes and makes them less risky. Refactoring and reengineering are practices to improve a software's maintainability. An essential part of keeping a software's maintainability at a desired level or systematically improving its maintainability is to measure the progress and to find the parts of code whose improvement would have the biggest affect on the overall maintainability. This can be done by using metrics. It is crucial to make sure the metrics are actively used by the company personnel. This can be done by providing useful deployment practices for the metrics. A literature review and a case study was conducted using a simplified version of the Design Science. The aim was to find a relevant set of metrics and useful ways of deploying them at the case company. In the case study, workshops were organized at the case company to fulfill the aim.
    [Show full text]