1. Requirements

2.1.1.1 The NASA OCE shall lead and maintain a NASA Software Engineering Initiative to advance software engineering practices. 

1.1 Notes

NPR 7150.2, NASA Software Engineering Requirements, does not include any notes for this requirement.

1.2 History

2. Rationale

Software engineering is a core capability and a key enabling technology for NASA's missions and supporting infrastructure. 

SWE-002 mandates that the NASA Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) shall lead and maintain a NASA Software Engineering Initiative to advance software engineering practices. This requirement is critical to achieving NASA’s mission objectives, given the agency’s increasing reliance on software to enable scientific exploration, spacecraft operations, safety-critical systems, and innovative technologies. Below is the rationale for its inclusion:

1. Ensuring Consistent and High-Quality Software Across NASA

NASA projects involve collaboration between a wide range of teams, centers, contractors, and mission types, each with varying complexity and software requirements. Without a unified initiative:

• Inconsistent software engineering practices could emerge among centers and projects.
• Quality, reliability, and safety standards may vary, leading to increased risk for software failure, schedule delays, or cost overruns.

By leading a cohesive Software Engineering Initiative, the OCE ensures the development and maintenance of standardized practices, processes, and requirements, such as those outlined in NPR 7150.2 ⁰⁸³. These standards help maintain uniformity and high quality across all NASA software projects.

2. Adapting to Emerging Technologies and Practices

Software technology evolves rapidly, with new methodologies, tools, and paradigms emerging regularly. Examples include advancements in:

• Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML)
• Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)
• Cloud Computing
• Agile and DevOps Methodologies

The Software Engineering Initiative ensures NASA stays at the forefront of these advancements, incorporating cutting-edge practices that improve efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation. Through leadership and coordination, the OCE can proactively incorporate these changes while ensuring they align with NASA mission priorities.

3. Mitigating Risks in Safety-Critical Systems

Many NASA missions include highly complex, safety-critical software, such as that used for:

• Human spaceflight (e.g., Artemis, International Space Station systems)
• Robotic spacecraft (e.g., Mars Rovers, James Webb Space Telescope)
• Launch systems and vehicle control

Failures in such software could compromise human life, result in mission loss, or cause significant environmental or financial damage. The Software Engineering Initiative enables NASA to continuously refine and enhance processes to manage these risks better, including processes for safety analysis, fault-tolerance, robust testing, and hazard mitigation.

4. Promoting Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing

NASA's missions are often decentralized across multiple centers and involve diverse teams of scientists, engineers, and contractors. By maintaining a Software Engineering Initiative, the OCE fosters:

• Inter-center collaboration
• Shared learning and best practices
• Unified approaches to addressing recurring challenges

The initiative ensures that lessons learned from one project or center are communicated and adopted across the broader NASA community. This avoids duplication of effort and promotes the consistent application of proven solutions.

5. Meeting Evolving Mission Requirements and Increasing Software Dependence

Software is becoming an increasingly critical enabler of complex NASA missions, as hardware systems often depend entirely on software for control, automation, and adaptability. Additionally, as NASA explores new domains, such as extended long-term human presence on the Moon and Mars, requirements for software robustness, autonomy, and scalability are increasing.

The Software Engineering Initiative ensures that software solutions can scale and adapt to these growing demands, enabling missions to achieve their scientific, technical, and operational goals.

6. Supporting Workforce Development and Expertise Retention

The initiative plays a vital role in continuously growing NASA’s software engineering workforce by:

• Identifying and addressing gaps in skills and training.
• Providing development opportunities to ensure the workforce is well-versed in modern techniques and tools.
• Facilitating knowledge retention and transfer, especially in the face of turnover or retirement of experienced personnel.

This focus ensures NASA maintains a robust pipeline of skilled engineers ready to meet the demands of current and future missions.

7. Compliance with Presidential and Organizational Mandates

NASA is subject to federal directives and mandates for improving software engineering, risk management, and overall mission assurance. The Software Engineering Initiative aligns with overarching government goals to:

• Increase accountability and oversight in software-intensive projects.
• Drive innovation while reducing risk.
• Ensure agencies operate at the cutting edge of science and technology.

By demonstrating strong leadership in software engineering advancements, the NASA OCE fulfills its obligations to meet these policy goals.

Conclusion

The NASA OCE's leadership in maintaining the Software Engineering Initiative is vital for ensuring consistent, reliable, and innovative software development across the agency. This requirement enables NASA to adapt to emerging technologies, mitigate risk in safety-critical systems, and promote a culture of collaboration and excellence, ultimately supporting NASA's mission to explore, discover, and expand human knowledge.

3. Guidance

The primary objective of the NASA Software Initiative is to provide structured support for NASA programs and projects to successfully achieve their planned objectives—mission success, safety, adherence to schedules, and budget constraints—while satisfying specified software requirements. This initiative emphasizes the importance of software engineering as a core competency for the agency, defined as the systematic, disciplined, and quantifiable application of engineering principles to the development, operation, and maintenance of software.

A key goal of the initiative is to establish and maintain a state-of-the-art workforce proficient in technical competencies, particularly software engineering, which plays a vital role in NASA’s mission-critical activities.

3.1 Objectives and Key Motivations

The activities of the NASA Software Initiative are driven by the following motivations:

1. Reduce the Risk of Software Failures and Enhance Mission Safety:

   • By leveraging best practices and applying systematic software engineering methods, NASA aims to minimize software-related risks and ensure safe and reliable mission operations.

2. Promote Process Improvements:

   • Adopt improvements based on lessons learned and best practices from industry and government to enhance software engineering processes across the agency.

3. Improve Risk Management:

   • Develop methodologies to proactively identify, assess, and mitigate software-related risks in NASA projects.

4. Achieve Predictable Cost Estimates and Schedules:

   • Foster the use of CMMI frameworks and evidence-based software engineering practices to improve the accuracy of cost estimates and reduce resource growth over a project’s lifecycle.

5. Educate NASA Personnel:

   • Ensure that NASA develops an informed workforce capable of not only managing internal software development but also acting as a "smart buyer" during the acquisition and oversight of contractor-developed software.

6. Detect and Remove Software Defects Early:

   • Establish early defect detection and resolution processes to minimize downstream impact and reduce development costs.

7. Avoid Duplication of Efforts Across Projects:

   • Encourage inter-project and inter-center collaboration to avoid redundant efforts and maximize efficiency.

8. Adapt to Evolving Technology:

   • Invest in the capacity and training needed to address the challenges of rapidly evolving software technologies and development frameworks.

9. Improve Development Planning and Monitoring:

   • Strengthen the planning of software projects and enhance real-time progress monitoring to achieve greater accountability and predictability.

10. Enhance Communication with Contractors:

    • Work to improve the software engineering practices of NASA’s contractor community to foster stronger partnerships and alignment with NASA’s goals.

By meeting these objectives, NASA can increase the reliability, cost-effectiveness, and performance of its software-intensive systems, ensuring mission success as software grows in complexity and criticality.

3.1.1  Applicability

Organizational Roles and Responsibilities

This requirement primarily applies to the NASA Headquarters Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE), which has designated leadership over the NASA Software Initiative. The OCE is tasked with leading, maintaining, and funding software improvement initiatives across the agency. Specific responsibilities include:

• Leading the development, implementation, and ongoing maintenance of agency-wide software engineering improvement activities.
• Defining the overarching direction, priorities, and approaches for the initiative.
• Facilitating the flow-down of agency-level requirements and policies to NASA Centers.

Center-Specific Responsibilities

NASA Centers are responsible for:

• Leading and funding their Center-specific software process improvement efforts in alignment with agency policies.
• Developing and maintaining Center-level software processes, guidelines, and training activities.
• Reporting progress and compliance to the OCE.

Ultimately, the final decision regarding the direction of the initiative lies with the OCE.

Refer to the following resources for more on Center responsibilities:

• SWE-003 - Center Improvement Plans
• SWE-095 - Report Engineering Discipline Status: Status Reporting of Center Software Engineering Disciplines.
• SWE-005 - Software Processes: Establishment of SEPGs (Software Engineering Process Groups) and Process Asset Libraries (PALs).

3.1.2  Engineering Infrastructure and Software Working Group

Building Engineering Infrastructure

NASA employs a robust engineering infrastructure framework to standardize and enhance software process improvement across the agency. This framework includes:

• Advanced methodologies for software engineering.
• Integration of comprehensive training programs on cutting-edge software practices.
• Creation of consistent and integrated requirements.

The OCE oversees funding and coordination to ensure the successful rollout and enhancement of these initiatives across Centers.

Role of the Software Working Group (SWG)

The Agency Software Working Group (SWG), under the leadership of the OCE, provides guidance and support for implementing and assessing the Software Engineering Initiative. Key functions of the SWG include:

• Coordinating organizational software process improvements across NASA Centers.
• Reviewing benchmark results for Center progress, as outlined in SWE-004 - OCE Benchmarking and SWE-209 - Benchmarking Software Assurance and Software Safety Capabilities.
• Providing oversight on updates to software engineering improvement plans.
• Facilitating the distribution and adoption of best practices across NASA projects.

The NESC Technical Fellow for Software plays a critical role in reviewing and approving Center software improvement plans, ensuring alignment with agency goals.

3.1.3  Compliance Reviews

Continuous Assessment of Best Practices

The OCE performs compliance reviews to assess the application and effectiveness of software engineering practices across Centers. This ensures consistent implementation of NPR 7150.2 ⁰⁸³ requirements, as well as alignment with industry best practices. These assessments are designed to:

• Identify gaps in compliance.
• Provide actionable feedback for improvement.
• Share successful practices across Centers.

Relevant resources for compliance reviews:

• SWE-129 - OCE NPR Appraisals
• SWE-221 - OSMA NPR Appraisals

Transition of Responsibilities

While the OCE maintains leadership over the initiative, responsibilities for sustained software improvement efforts transition to Centers once the OCE-led initiative concludes. Centers are expected to capture, maintain, and independently support software improvement initiatives as part of their ongoing missions.

3.1.4  Example of Best Practices

In coordination with the Software Assurance and Safety Initiative (SWE-208), the NASA Software Initiative integrates other critical goals, such as improving software reliability, managing assurance risks, and embedding safety practices to prevent high-consequence failures.

See also related guidance: 

• SWE-100 - Software Training Funding
• SWE-222 - Software Assurance Training

NASA’s commitment to advancing software engineering processes and workforce capabilities reflects its focus on reliability, safety, and innovation as software becomes increasingly central to the success of its missions.

3.2 Additional Guidance

Additional guidance related to this requirement may be found in the following materials in this Handbook:

3.3 Center Process Asset Libraries

See the following link(s) in SPAN for process assets from contributing Centers (NASA Only). 

4. Small Projects

When applied to small projects, the intent of this requirement — for the NASA Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) to lead and maintain the Software Engineering Initiative — remains the same: to ensure mission success, safety, and compliance with software engineering best practices. However, the implementation of this requirement must be scaled appropriately to reflect the scope, resources, and complexity of small projects. The following guidance outlines a simplified and focused approach for small projects under the umbrella of the NASA Software Engineering Initiative.

4.1 Guidance for Small Projects

4.1.1. Understand the Project Scope and Criticality

Small projects often have fewer resources and simpler systems than large-scale programs, but they may still interact with safety-critical systems, mission-critical hardware, or high-risk objectives. Analyze the key attributes of the small project to determine its specific needs:

• The criticality of the software (e.g., Does a failure affect safety or mission success?).
• The scope and complexity of the software being developed.
• The project's budget and schedule constraints.

This initial understanding helps focus efforts where they are most impactful.

4.1.2. Tailored Software Engineering Processes

For small projects to adhere to the NASA Software Engineering Initiative, processes must be right-sized to reduce unnecessary burdens while still ensuring compliance with NASA's software requirements. Tailor software engineering practices as follows:

a. Simplified Software Engineering Lifecycle

• • Use streamlined lifecycle models (e.g., Agile, lightweight waterfall) to manage development within time and budget.
  • Focus on the early identification of risks and ensure critical requirements are thoroughly validated.
  • Scope documentation requirements to avoid excessive overhead. For example, combine requirements, design, and testing artifacts into lightweight, multi-purpose documents where appropriate.

b. Adapted Standards

• • Reference NPR 7150.2 ⁰⁸³ and NASA-STD-8739.8 ²⁷⁸ and scale the application of requirements based on the classification of the software.
  • Use Center and project-specific processes to simplify adherence to agency-level policies.

c. Incremental Verification and Validation

• • Prioritize validation of high-risk or safety-critical features early in the lifecycle.
  • Conduct peer reviews and informal test sessions for design, code, and testing phases to catch and resolve issues quickly.

4.1.3. Leverage Agency-Wide Resources

Small projects may lack dedicated expertise, but they can benefit from resources and infrastructure made available through the NASA Software Initiative. Some opportunities include:

a. Use of Pre-Developed Assets

• • Access reusable Process Asset Libraries (PALs) and tools provided by the OCE or NASA Centers to reduce effort on custom processes.
  • Leverage templates, checklists, software libraries, and reusable components to accelerate development.

b. Engineering Support

• • Collaborate with the Software Working Group (SWG) or other cross-agency teams for guidance on best practices and tailored solutions.
  • Engage the NESC Technical Fellow for Software for assistance in aligning small project practices with agency expectations.

4.1.4. Risk Reduction Practices

Small projects, like larger ones, face risks related to software failures, cost overruns, and schedule slips. Use a scaled-down risk management approach to monitor and mitigate these challenges:

• Risk Identification and Prioritization: Focus on the most significant risks (e.g., critical software failures, integration challenges).
• Early Defect Detection: Incorporate peer reviews and unit testing to identify and resolve defects as close to their origin as possible.
• Iterative Development: Release incremental builds, allowing the team to test and address risks earlier.

4.1.5. Training and Workforce Development

Small project teams often have limited personnel, making specialized training crucial. The Software Initiative provides opportunities to ensure the team is equipped with the required skills:

• Take advantage of agency-provided training programs to educate staff on modern software engineering and assurance best practices (see SWE-100 - Software Training Funding and SWE-222 - Software Assurance Training).
• Pair less experienced team members with subject matter experts (SMEs) within the Center or agency to share knowledge and build competencies.

4.1.6. Improve Planning and Communication

Small projects benefit from clear, concise planning and frequent communication within the team and with stakeholders, while avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy:

• Simplify planning documents: Project plans, schedules, and requirements documents should be brief but complete.
• Define performance metrics: Establish simple metrics (e.g., % requirements tested, % defects resolved) to track project progress.
• Set clear expectations with contractors: For small projects utilizing external contractors, ensure the software requirements and quality expectations are clearly defined at the outset.

4.1.7. NASA Tools and CMMI Support

While smaller projects may not have the resources to fully implement Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) frameworks, they can still leverage simplified principles:

• Use CMMI-inspired checklists to assess and monitor software process maturity at a basic level.
• Adopt only the key practices that align with the project’s needs (e.g., risk management, configuration management, verification and validation).

Additionally, small projects can use free or low-cost tools to support the automation of processes like defect tracking, version control, and testing.

4.1.8. Continuous Evaluation and Simplified Compliance

For small projects, compliance with the Software Initiative does not need to involve excessive reviews or documentation. However, periodic evaluation and reporting on compliance progress is still required:

• Use SWE-129 - OCE NPR Appraisals and SWE-003 - Center Improvement Plans to conduct lightweight evaluations of software processes at Center and agency levels.
• Ensure compliance efforts remain proportional to the project scale (time, cost, and risk).

After project completion, capture and document lessons learned to benefit future projects.

4.2 Example Tailored Approach for a Small Project

Project Scenario: A small CubeSat mission is being developed to test a scientific instrument. The project has a $5 million budget, a two-year schedule, and software that is not safety-critical but plays a key role in instrument operation.

1. Software Process Guidance:
   • Use Agile approaches to develop the flight software incrementally.
   • Combine requirements and test plans into a single lightweight artifact.
   • Validate functionality through unit and integration testing in prototype simulations.
2. Risk Management:
   • Identify critical risks, such as CubeSat communication loss or faults in the scientific instrument software.
   • Implement redundancy in software functions associated with high-risk components.
3. Engage NASA Resources:
   • Use the OCE-provided PALs and CubeSat-relevant software assets where available.
   • Train the team on software assurance basics using resources from SWE-222 - Software Assurance Training.
4. Evaluation and Reporting:
   • Submit a simplified compliance report to the OCE demonstrating adherence to core principles without excessive documentation.
   • Conduct an end-of-project lesson-learned exercise to share findings within the center and contribute to the broader NASA Software Initiative.

4.3 Conclusion

The small project guidance for the NASA Software Engineering Initiative emphasizes tailored, efficient, and effective practices to ensure the program's objectives of mission success, safety, and quality are met without overburdening small teams. By scaling requirements appropriately, focusing on critical areas, leveraging existing resources, and fostering team expertise, small projects can achieve compliance while maximizing value and efficiency.

5. Resources

5.1 References

5.2 Tools

6. Lessons Learned

6.1 NASA Lessons Learned

NASA recognized the critical need for a robust software engineering improvement initiative due to a combination of inconsistent software development practices, insufficient adherence to established procedures, and a series of high-profile mission failures attributable to software errors. Lessons learned from these failures demonstrate the importance of improving software engineering processes to ensure mission success. The NASA Lessons Learned database provides valuable insights into past challenges, offering guidance on why the NASA Software Engineering Initiative (NSEI) is critical for preventing recurring issues.

6.1.1 Mars Missions

This section highlights two significant lessons learned from the Mars Polar Lander (MPL) and Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) missions, where software-related deficiencies directly contributed to mission failures. Both cases illustrate the need for rigorous requirements capture, testing, validation, and compliance with software engineering practices.

Lesson 1: Probable Scenario for Mars Polar Lander Mission Loss (1998). Lesson Number: 0938 ⁵²⁹

Problem: The Mars Polar Lander (MPL) mission was lost primarily due to software deficiencies arising from incomplete requirements capture, insufficient software testing, and improper handling of known hardware behaviors. Specifically:

• • The flight software did not account for transient signals generated by touchdown sensors during leg deployment. These spurious signals were momentarily interpreted as valid touchdown events, leading to the shutdown of the spacecraft's descent engines at an altitude of 40 meters.
  • This uncontrolled free fall to the Martian surface resulted in the loss of the spacecraft.
  • An additional factor was the failure to account for retesting of software following changes made due to prior test failures, which meant certain mission-critical failure modes went undetected.

Lessons Learned:

1. 1. Requirement Capture and Analysis:
      • All known hardware behaviors, particularly critical operational characteristics and potential failure modes, must be explicitly reflected in software requirements. Failure to do so creates design gaps and increases the likelihood of mission-critical failures.
   2. Comprehensive Testing Protocols:
      • Software test procedures must account for edge cases and retesting needs after modifications or updates. This includes thoroughly validating fixes through regression testing and simulating real-world operational conditions.
      • Robust verification systems are necessary to prevent fundamental hardware-software mismatches.
   3. Failure Mode Consideration:
      • Test cases must explore and address potential failure modes, especially those introduced by hardware/software interactions that are specific to unique mission environments.

Lesson 2: Deficiencies in Mission-Critical Software Development for Mars Climate Orbiter (1999) Lesson Number: 0740 ⁵²¹

Problem: The Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) mission failed due to a critical software error stemming from unit inconsistency and poor adherence to software engineering practices:

• • During the Mars Orbit Insertion (MOI) maneuver, software delivered data in incorrect engineering units ("pounds-force seconds" instead of "Newton-seconds") to the navigation system, leading to an erroneous trajectory.
  • The discrepancy was not identified during the requirements, design, code, and testing walkthroughs due to gaps in the Software Management and Development Plan (SMDP).
  • Specific failures in software walkthrough processes included:
    • Missing participants required to validate interfaces and computations (e.g., key personnel were absent).
    • Failure to use the Software Interface Specification (SIS) to validate the agreement between interfacing systems.
    • Lack of formal documentation (e.g., no minutes or action items to track identified issues).

Lessons Learned:

1. 1. Unit Consistency in Software:
      • Software systems and interfaces must explicitly define and verify unit consistency (e.g., metric vs. imperial). Automated tools or processes should be used to validate correct unit conversions.
   2. Rigorous Software Walkthroughs:
      • Walkthroughs of requirements, design, and code are critical to ensuring software quality and conformity to mission requirements. Effective walkthroughs require:
        • Full attendance by all relevant stakeholders, including software teams, systems engineers, and subject matter experts.
        • Documentation of findings, including meeting minutes, identified issues, and associated action items, to ensure accountability and resolution.
   3. Adherence to a Software Management and Development Plan (SMDP):
      • The SMDP must be rigorously followed and periodically audited. Deviations from the plan (e.g., inadequate walkthroughs, missing participants) introduce errors that can cascade into mission failures.
   4. System-Level Validation:
      • Validation efforts must span across software, hardware, and operational domains to identify discrepancies caused by incomplete interface specifications or assumptions.
   5. Software Training:
      • All team members should receive consistent training in software development and validation processes, including the proper execution of walkthroughs and analysis of critical interfaces. This ensures that best practices are uniformly followed.

6.1.2  Broader Lessons Learned and Their Implications for NSEI

The MPL and MCO mission failures highlight common root causes that inform the core objectives of the NSEI. These include deficiencies in requirements management, testing, risk identification, oversight, and communication. By examining these lessons learned, NASA has implemented the following improvements as part of the Software Engineering Initiative:

1. Strengthening Requirements Engineering:
   • Emphasize rigorous requirements elicitation, validation, and traceability, ensuring that all hardware behaviors, operational scenarios, and failure modes are captured in software design.
2. Enhancing Testing and Validation:
   • Employ robust verification and validation (V&V) processes, including test case design for edge cases and failure modes.
   • Mandate comprehensive regression testing after software changes, including testing fixes in simulated mission environments.
3. Promoting Process Discipline:
   • Standardize procedures for requirements walkthroughs, design/code reviews, and interface analysis, ensuring that they are conducted with full participation and proper documentation.
4. Training and Education:
   • Expand workforce training on industry-leading software engineering practices, focusing on requirements management, risk-based testing, and validation tools.
   • Train personnel in clear, actionable processes to handle interface specifications and unit conversions.
5. Establishing Accountability in Software Development:
   • Enforce adherence to Software Management and Development Plans and strengthen oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance with best practices.
6. Supporting Early Defect Detection:
   • Promote tools and processes for detecting software defects earlier in the lifecycle, minimizing downstream risks and costs.
7. Improving Interdisciplinary Communication:
   • Foster collaboration between software, systems, and operations teams to ensure interface consistency, unit compatibility, and alignment with mission requirements.

6.1.3  Conclusion: Leveraging Lessons Learned to Shape the Future

The MPL and MCO mission failures serve as stark reminders of the critical role software plays in mission success. These lessons underscore the importance of NASA’s Software Engineering Initiative in driving process improvement, enhancing workforce training, and promoting discipline and collaboration. By integrating lessons learned into current practices, NASA is better positioned to mitigate risks, reduce software-related failures, and increase the likelihood of mission success for future space exploration endeavors.

6.2 Other Lessons Learned

No other Lessons Learned have currently been identified for this requirement.

7. Software Assurance

7.1 Tasking for Software Assurance

7.2 Software Assurance Products 

Software Assurance (SA) products are tangible outputs created by Software Assurance personnel to support oversight, validate compliance, manage risks, and ensure the quality of delivered products. These products are essential to demonstrate that SA objectives are being met, and they serve as evidence of the thoroughness and effectiveness of the assurance activities performed.

No specific deliverables are currently identified.

7.3 Metrics

No standard metrics are currently specified.

7.4 Guidance

7.4.1 Objective of Software Assurance Guidance

The role of Software Assurance (SA) in supporting this requirement is to ensure that advancements in software engineering practices are translated into actionable, measurable improvements for software assurance activities. The NASA Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) leads this initiative at an organizational level to enhance engineering practices, but SA ensures that these practices bolster software reliability, safety, and quality assurance.

7.4.2 Software Assurance Guidance Activities

This guidance aligns with NPR 7150.2 ⁰⁸³ requirements, enabling consistent evaluation, implementation, and improvement of advanced software assurance processes.

1. Align Software Assurance Practices with NASA OCE Initiatives
   • Engage Actively in the NASA Software Engineering Initiative:
     
     • SA personnel should collaborate with the OCE and other stakeholders to align assurance workflows, testing, and verification practices with emerging software engineering advancements. This includes adopting low-risk practices and advocating for refinements where needed.
   • Focus Areas of Practice Improvement:
     • Automation in software testing and assurance.
     • Early defect detection and elimination techniques (shift-left assurance and analysis).
     • Advanced tools for static/dynamic analysis and continuous integration.
     • Risk-based assurance approaches for iterative/agile software development.
       
       
2. Ensure Standards Incorporate Assurance Perspectives
   • Map Initiative Goals with NPR Guidance on Assurance:
     
     • The NASA Software Engineering Initiative should inform updates to software assurance-specific NPRs (e.g., NPR 7150.2⁰⁸³, NPR 7120.5⁰⁸², NPR 8739.8²⁷⁸). SA teams ensure that assurance-related requirements evolve alongside engineering practices.
   • Software Assurance Inputs to OCE-driven Improvements:
     • Recommend improvements to NPR appendices specific to software assurance activities (e.g., testing, review criteria, or safety assessments).
     • Advocate for capturing software assurance gaps uncovered during post-mission analysis in iterative refinements of engineering initiatives.
       
       
3. Promote Knowledge Dissemination and Training in Assurance Innovations
   • Participation in Training and Workshops:
     • SA personnel should actively engage in OCE-led workshops and knowledge-sharing sessions to ensure assurance-specific improvements are addressed and widely disseminated across NASA Centers.
     • Contribute to and utilize Agency-wide knowledge sharing platforms such as NASA Engineering Network (NEN) or SATERN (System for Administration, Training, and Educational Resources for NASA).
   • Promote Assurance Workforce Skills in New Practices:
     • Maintain close collaboration with OCE to provide training content tailored to software assurance activities, focusing on:
       • Advanced assurance tools and techniques.
       • Agile or DevSecOps assurance practices.
       • Risk-aware assurance strategies.
         
         
4. Monitor the Integration of New Practices into SA Workflows
   •  Facilitate Adoption of OCE-Driven Tools and Methods:
     
     • Ensure software assurance-specific tools (e.g., SAST/DAST for security validation, coverage analysis tools, etc.) integrate seamlessly into software lifecycle processes advanced by the OCE software engineering initiative.
   • Assess Practice Implementation across Projects:
     • Document how new initiatives align, augment, or improve existing software assurance and risk management workflows.
     • Establish metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of new practices in improving assurance goals, such as reduced defect escape rates, improved software reliability, or enhanced operational safety.
       
       
5. Perform Continuous Process Improvement for Integrated Engineering and Assurance
   • Collaborate on Lessons Learned and Best Practices:
     • SA teams maintain their involvement in the NASA Lessons Learned Information System (LLIS) and ensure feedback loops exist for lessons applicable to both engineering and assurance.
     • Identify assurance-specific gaps (e.g., challenges in automating assurance processes) and collaborate with the OCE to close these gaps.
   • Adapt SA Guides and Standards Regularly:
     • Incorporate new engineering practices into NASA Software Assurance Guidelines (e.g., NASA-STD-8739.8) while ensuring compliance with overarching policies.
       
       
6. Advocate for Assurance Requirements in Emerging Methodologies 
   Collaborate with OCE to establish assurance-specific requirements for modernized engineering methodologies being championed under the software engineering initiative:
   • Agile Software Development:
     • Ensure iterative workflow assurances include in-sprint assurance activities (test case development, automated test scripting, continuous risk monitoring).
   • Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE):
     • Discuss assurance touchpoints as MBSE processes adopt advanced models for simulation, analysis, and code generation.
   • Artificial Intelligence/ML Software:
     • Propose assurance guidelines unique to AI-based systems (e.g., bias audits, explainability, robustness verification as an extension of engineering).
       
       
7. Support Safety-Critical and Mission-Critical Changes 
   • Tailor Improvements for Critical Missions:
     For safety-critical (Class A/B) and mission-critical (Class C/D) systems, ensure the initiative integrates specific assurance demands:
     • Mandatory recovery factors.
     • Higher coverage for hazard and anomaly detection tools.
     • Formalized fault injection for mission assurance.
   • Engage in Pre-Mission Engineering Readiness Checks: Ensure assurance is included in readiness assessments under new practices being adopted.
     
     
8. Provide Assurance Metrics to Measure Initiative Success 
   • Advocate for metrics to evaluate the impact of the initiative on software assurance and quality:
     • Number of detected defects per lifecycle phase.
     • Number of residual safety-critical risks post-assurance.
     • Measurable reduction in rework to address assurance gaps in later phases.
       
       
9. Provide Guidance for Lightweight Projects
     For small or resource-limited projects:
   • Prioritize assurance adoption of OCE software practices that provide the highest risk-reduction value.
   • Advocate for waiver-appropriate tailoring where full-fledged engineering advancements cannot be applied without introducing undue burden.
   • Focus on automating lightweight testing/shakedown assurance in small projects.
     
     
10. Establish a Feedback Loop with the OCE
     Software Assurance personnel are well-positioned to evaluate gaps, barriers, or successes in new practices during project application. Regularly:
    • Report assurance-specific findings from projects incorporating NASA Software Engineering Initiative workflows.
    • Contribute metrics and assurance-focused lessons learned to the OCE for continuous program improvement.

7.4.3 Key Benefits of Software Assurance Engagement

By aligning with the NASA OCE software engineering initiative, Software Assurance aids in:

1. Improving Risk Accountability: Assurance strengthens new practices with risk assessments, particularly in safety-critical environments.
2. Strengthening Mission Success: Ensures engineering advancements translate directly into higher-quality, safe, and reliable systems.
3. Driving Continuous Improvement: Assurance plays a key role in scaling new tools and approaches Agency-wide, ensuring robust quality improvements rooted in aligned engineering strategies.

7.4.4 Conclusion

The NASA Software Assurance (SA) role underpins the NASA OCE’s software engineering initiative by providing critical oversight, implementation feedback, and process alignment. Through close collaboration and active participation, SA ensures advancements improve software safety, reliability, and compliance across all project types. By integrating assurance principles into the initiative, NASA strengthens its ability to deliver mission and safety-critical systems for future programs.

7.5 Additional Guidance

Additional guidance related to this requirement may be found in the following materials in this Handbook: