The Development and Experimentation of an International Standard for Very Small Entities Involved in Software Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very Small Entities (VSEs) are enterprises, departments, or projects having up to 25 people. IT VSEs are very important to the world economy, as their software components are often integrated into the products of larger entities. A large percentage of software entities worldwide have up to 25 employees. In Europe, for instance, 85% of Information Technology (IT) sector companies have 1 to 10 employees. A survey of the Montreal, Canada, area has revealed that 78% of software development enterprises have up to 25 employees and 50% have fewer than 10 (Gauthier 2004). Their software components are often integrated into the products of larger entities. Failure to deliver a quality product on time and within budget threatens the competitiveness of VSEs and impacts customers. Also, with the current trend towards outsourcing, it is critical for customers to be able to depend on VSEs to deliver their products, or the business will go elsewhere. Failure to deliver a quality product on time and within budget threatens the competitiveness of organizations of all sizes. One way to mitigate these risks is for the suppliers of a product chain to put in place proven software engineering practices, such as those documented in standards. Many international standards and models, like ISO/IEC12207 or the Capability Maturity Model Integration developed by the Software Engineering Institute, have been developed to capture proven engineering practices. However, these standards and models were not designed having in mind VSEs and are consequently difficult to apply in such settings. Also, research shows that VSEs often find it difficult to relate ISO/IEC standards to their business needs and to justify the application of the standards to their business practices. Most of them cannot afford the resources in number of employees, cost, or time to establish software life cycle processes, or see a net benefit to doing so. An ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 1 Working Group, Working Group 24, was established in 2005 to address these difficulties by producing an international software engineering standard, the ISO/IEC 29110, which is specifically tailored to the problems and needs of VSEs. An international survey was developed and translated into 9 languages. It was conducted among VSEs and concerned their utilization of standards. The data collected were used to validate the list of needs and problems that had been documented by working group 24. Over 435 responses were received from 32 countries. The working group used the results to define the requirements that would form the basis for the standards to be developed for VSEs. This paper presents a perspective on the development of ISO/IEC 29110 standards and technical reports and outlines the development of a series of deployment packages facilitating the implementation of a set of ISO/IEC 29110 practices. A deployment package is a set of artifacts developed to facilitate the implementation of 1 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC7 stands for the International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission Joint Technical Committee 1 / Sub Committee 7, which is in charge of the development and maintenance of software and systems engineering standards
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".