Validating the ISO/IEC 15504 measure of software requirements analysis process capability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISO/IEC 15504 is an emerging international standard on software process assessment. It defines a number of software engineering processes and a scale for measuring their capability. One of the defined processes is software requirements analysis (SRA). A basic premise of the measurement scale is that higher process capability is associated with better project performance (i.e., predictive validity). The paper describes an empirical study that evaluates the predictive validity of SRA process capability. Assessments using ISO/IEC 15504 were conducted on 56 projects world-wide over a period of two years. Performance measures on each project were also collected using questionnaires, such as the ability to meet budget commitments and staff productivity. The results provide strong evidence of predictive validity for the SRA process capability measure used in ISO/IEC 15504, but only for organizations with more than 50 IT staff. Specifically, a strong relationship was found between the implementation of requirements analysis practices as defined in ISO/IEC 15504 and the productivity of software projects. For smaller organizations, evidence of predictive validity was rather weak. This can be interpreted in a number of different ways: that the measure of capability is not suitable for small organizations or that the SRA process capability has less effect on project performance for small organizations.
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 | 0.046 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".