Design and Assessment for Agile Auditing Model: The Case of ISO 9001 Traceability Requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.More specifically, these organizations need to demonstrate 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.Agile software organizations which want to be ISO 9001 certified must therefore provide evidence of ISO 9001 conformity, and they need to develop their own procedures, tools, and methodologies to do so.This paper proposes an auditing model for ISO 9001 traceability requirements that is applicable in agile (XP) environments.The design of this auditing model is based on the evaluation theory and includes the use of several auditing "yardsticks" derived from the principles of engineering design, the SWEBOK Guide and the CMMI-DEV guidelines for requirements management and traceability.This auditing model has been assessed based on case studies selected from the literature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".