- the quality of artifacts (how good is a requirement/algorithm/test/etc.?)
- the quality of relations between artifacts (can I justify the existence of an artifact by tracing it to other artifacts?)
- the evidence a well-defined process has been followed (was I faithful to my plan?)
So far, I’ve seen two major experiments to support lean and agile DO-178 certification/qualification. The first is through the use of complete tools such as OSEE. OSEE is able to track each user activity along with the artifacts it involves: it is “basically” an Application Lifecycle Management System integrated with an Action Tracking System, an Automated Testing Framework, a Requirement Management System and advanced Version Control System. Evidence of the quality of artifacts and of their mutual relations is provided by checking that appropriate verification activities have been performed; on the other side, evidence that a given plan has been followed is provided by analyzing the flow of tracked actions against a user-defined workflow. OSEE has been extensively used at Boeing for the Apache Program.
An alternative approach can be applied for more lightweight processes, for example the qualification of a verification tool. We have been using an hacked version of FitNesse (a web-based tool for acceptance testing) to support:
- requirements, test cases and (unit) tests management;
- tests execution;
- editing of qualification documentation (Tool Qualification Plan, Quality Assurance Plan, etc.);
- tracking of verification and quality assurance activities when needed.
Applying lean and agile methodologies to DO-178 certification/qualification requires investing on tools – but the reward is well worth the cost. What is your experience with this? Which tools do you use? Comments are welcome!
3 Comments
You can follow the discussion also on the DO-178b’ists Group on LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers&discussionID=3994712&gid=102937&commentID=4519612&trk=view_disc
i am working for avoincs, i am looking for advanced tools/improvements in the avoincs. Right now i am working for RBT(requirement based testing )using rational tools(IBM).suggest me!!!!
It really depends on which part of an avionic system you are developing. For example, depending on the DO-178 level, you may need to provide different degrees of evidence (and perform different activities) to achieve certification/qualification. As I said in the article, lightweight processes such as verification tool qualification can rely on tool for behaviour-driven development or test0driven development, like FitNesse, Cocumber (http://cukes.info/), etc. Of course, you are likely to need to hack those tools for your specific platform.
Alternatively, heavyweight processes requires complete tools such as OSEE. On the IBM side, you can have a look at the Jazz platform. My understanding of that technology seems to indicate it could help in this context.