MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1499414128

Auditing for iso 9001 requirements in the context of agile software processes

2012· article· en· W1499414128 sur OpenAlexaff
Alain Abran, Malik Qasaimeh

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Établissements canadiensÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSoftware engineeringCertificationSoftware developmentSoftware development processComputer scienceProcess managementAgile software developmentSoftwareSystems engineeringEngineering
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ISO 9001 demands of (software) organizations that a rigorous demonstration of their software processes be implemented and a set of guidelines followed at various levels of abstraction. What these organizations need to show, in other words, is that their software processes have been designed and implemented in a way that allows for a level of configuration and operation that complies with ISO 9001 requirements. For software organizations needing ISO 9001 certification, it is important that they establish a software process life cycle that can manage the requirements imposed by this certification standard. However, software organizations that develop their software products using the agile software processes, such as Extreme Programming (agile-XP), face a number of challenges in their effort to demonstrate that their process activities conform to ISO 9001 requirements, major ones being: product construction, traceability, and measurement. Agile software organizations must provide evidence of ISO 9001 conformity, and they need to develop their own procedures, tools, and methodologies to do so. As yet, there is no consensus on how to audit the agile software organization to ensure that their software processes have been designed and implemented in conformity with ISO 9001 requirements. Moreover, it is challenging to ensure that such lightweight documentation methodologies meet these requirements for certification purposes. The motivation of this research is to help software organizations that use agile software processes in their effort to meet the ISO 9001 certification requirements. This research project is also aimed at helping IS auditors extract auditing evidence that demonstrates conformity to the ISO 9001 requirements that must be met by agile software organizations. Extreme programming (agile-XP) has been selected for improvement as a candidate agile process. This selection was based on the literature indicating a higher adoption of agile-XP over other agile software processes. The goal of this research project is to improve the ability of the agile-XP process to meet the auditing requirements of ISO 9001. The goal of the research also focuses on helping agile software organizations in their effort to become ISO 9001 certified. The main objective of this research project is to design an auditing model that covers the measurement and traceability requirements of ISO 9001. The auditing model should provide IS auditors with auditing evidence that the software projects developed with the agile-XP process have fulfilled the requirements of ISO 9001. The objective also proposes several sub processes to enhance the early planning activities of agile-XP according to ISO 9001 requirements. To achieve these objectives, the main phases of the research methodology are: Investigation of the capability of agile-XP to achieve the requirements of ISO 9001 software process certification; modification of the early phases of agile-XP (i.e. release planning phase) using CMMI-DEV; and design of an auditing model for ISO 9001 traceability and measurement requirements. The main outcome of this research study, which is an auditing model that is aligned with the principles of agile-XP and focuses on ISO 9001 traceability and measurement requirements to provide the IS auditors with a methodological approach for the auditing process. The auditing model has been assessed based on case studies selected from the literature.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,768
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,176

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,051
Tête enseignante GPT0,315
Écart entre enseignants0,264 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesTravaux en français237 207