Premium
9.4.1 Synergies between INCOSE SE Handbook, CMMI and DO‐178B
Author(s) -
Monzon Antonio
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
incose international symposium
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2334-5837
DOI - 10.1002/j.2334-5837.2012.tb01404.x
Subject(s) - capability maturity model integration , accreditation , certification , scope (computer science) , avionics , systems engineering , engineering management , process (computing) , aerospace , engineering , computer science , maturity (psychological) , software , process management , software engineering , risk analysis (engineering) , software development process , software development , business , management , political science , economics , programming language , aerospace engineering , operating system , law
One of the biggest challenges in multi‐normative organizations, in the field of industrial areas like aerospace and defense, is to make all technical regulations compatible. A huge amount of effort is spent by these organizations to maintain their accreditations periodically. Although each standard has its own purpose and appraisal procedure, it seems to be useful to know about the commonalities among norms, as well as extracting best practices from the application of its requirements to the accomplishment of the others. Particularly the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook can be considered as general lifecycle framework for systems, the Capability Maturity Model for Integration (CMMI) is a reference model to assess the process efficiency and RTCA DO‐178B can be used as basis for software certification. In literature very few contributions can be found to explain how these standards interrelate and how they can work together to achieve more efficient organizations. This experience paper aims to shed some light on the common aspects of these three standards applicable for the production of on‐board software. The combination proposal included in this paper is the result of the experience of the author in the application of these standards (and others) in the military avionics domain. Conclusions could be useful for their application to other domains or even for future potential combined accreditations.