Validating the ISO/IEC 15504 measure of software requirements analysis process capability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it