bannera

Book A.
Introduction

Book B.
7150 Requirements Guidance

Book C.
Topics

Tools,
References, & Terms

SPAN
(NASA Only)

Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Migration of unmigrated content due to installation of a new plugin


{alias:SWE-084} {tabsetup:1. The Requirement|2. Rationale|3. Guidance|4. Small Projects|5. Resources|6. Lessons Learned} {div3:id=tabs-1} h1. 1. Requirements
Wiki Markup
Tabsetup
1. The Requirement
1. The Requirement
12. Rationale
23. Guidance
34. Small Projects
45. Resources
56. Lessons Learned


Div
idtabs-1

1. Requirements

4.1.6

The

project

shall

ensure

that

software

configuration

audits

are

performed

to

determine

the

correct

version

of

the

configuration

items

and

verify

that

they

conform

to

the

documents

and requirements that

define

them.

h2. {color:#003366}{*}

1.1

Notes{*}{color} NPR

Notes

NPR 7150.2,

NASA

Software

Engineering

Requirements,

does

not

include

any

notes

for

this

requirement.

h2.

1.2

Applicability

Across

Classes

Classes

C

through

E

and

Safety

Critical

are

labeled,

"SO."

This

means

that

this

requirement

applies

to

the

safety-critical

aspects

of

the

software.

Class

G

is

labeled

with

"P

(Center)."

This

means

that

an

approved

Center-defined

process

which

meets

a

non-empty

subset

of

the

full

requirement

can

be

used

to

achieve

this

requirement.

{applicable:asc=1\|ansc=1\|bsc=1\|bnsc=1\|csc=*\|cnsc=0\|dsc=*\|dnsc=0\|esc=*\|ensc=0\|f=1\|g=p|h=0|} {div3} {div3:id=tabs-2} h1. 2. Rationale For software configuration, audits help ensure that configuration items (CIs) have been developed and completed in accordance with the documents that define them. Audits also help ensure that CIs achieve their performance and functional characteristics goals and that all associated operational and support documents are complete and meet their requirements. Audits also determine if all CIs that are supposed to be part of the baseline or release are actually in the baseline or release and are the correct version and revision. Configuration audits provide checks to ensure that the planned product is the developed product. {floatbox:width=full}{_}Configuration audits allow developers to "provide notice that contractual obligations are nearing completion, and to provide sufficient evidence for the clients or user organization to accept the product and initiate the transition into operational usage." (IEEE SA 1042-1987, IEEE Guide to Software Configuration Management{_}{sweref:212}) {floatbox}\\ {div3} {div3:id=tabs-3} h1. 3. Guidance There are two types of configuration audits: the Functional Configuration Audit (FCA) and the Physical Configuration Audit (PCA). Configuration audits are performed for all releases however, audits of interim, internal releases may be less formal and rigorous, as defined by the project. Per


applicable
f1
gp
h0
ansc1
asc1
bnsc1
csc*
bsc1
esc*
cnsc0
dnsc0
dsc*
ensc0



Div
idtabs-2

2. Rationale

For software configuration, audits help ensure that configuration items (CIs) have been developed and completed in accordance with the documents and requirements that define them. Audits also help ensure that CIs achieve their performance and functional characteristics goals and that all associated operational and support documents are complete and meet their requirements. Audits also determine if all CIs that are supposed to be part of the baseline or release are actually in the baseline or release and are the correct version and revision.

Configuration audits provide checks to ensure that the planned product is the developed product.


Floatbox
widthfull

Configuration audits allow developers to "provide notice that contractual obligations are nearing completion, and to provide sufficient evidence for the clients or user organization to accept the product and initiate the transition into operational usage." (IEEE SA 1042-1987, IEEE Guide to Software Configuration Management

sweref
212
212
)




Div
idtabs-3

3. Guidance

There are two types of configuration audits: the Functional Configuration Audit (FCA) and the Physical Configuration Audit (PCA). Configuration audits are performed for all releases; however, audits of interim, internal releases may be less formal and rigorous, as defined by the project.

Per NASA/SP-2007-6105,

Rev

1,

NASA

Systems

Engineering

Handbook

{

sweref

:273}, {sweref:273}, the FCA "examines the functional characteristics of the configured product and verifies that the product has met, via test results, the requirements specified in its functional baseline documentation approved at the {term:PDR}and {term:CDR}. FCAs will be conducted on both hardware or software configured products and will precede the PCA of the configured product." The PCA "(also known as a configuration inspection) examines the physical configuration of the configured product and verifies that the product corresponds to the build-to (or code-to) product baseline documentation previously approved at the CDR. PCAs will be conducted on both hardware and software configured \\ products." {sweref:273} Audit plans, including goals, schedules, participants, contractor participation, and procedures are documented in the configuration management (CM) plan (see [SWE-103|SWE-103]). When planning audits, it is important to remember that audits are samplings, not a look at every record.  It is also important to remember that auditors should not have any direct responsibility for the software products they audit. The basic steps in an audit are: !SWE-084_Image.jpg|border=0! The Department of Defense Configuration Management Guidance Handbook{sweref:351}includes tables of activities for audit planning, preparation, performance, and close-out (generating the audit report and addressing corrective actions). These tables address both the Government and contractor roles in these activities and can be tailored as applicable for a project. The {term:STEP}Level 2 Software Configuration Management and Data Management course taught by the Westfall Team{sweref:343}suggests that the following be included in an FCA: * "An audit of the formal test documentation against test data. * "An audit of the {term:V&V}reports. * "A review of all approved changes. * "A review of updates to previously delivered documents. * "A sampling of design review outputs. * "A comparison of code with documented requirements. * "A review to ensure all testing was accomplished." {sweref:343} * Additional sample testing or rerunning of tests, as appropriate for the project. The STEP 2 course suggests that the following be included in a PCA{sweref:343}: * "An audit of the system specification for completeness \[and removal of all to-be-determineds (TBDs)\]. * "An audit of the FCA report for discrepancies & actions taken. * "A comparison of the architectural design with the detailed design components for consistency. * "A review of the module listing for compliance with the approved coding standards. * "An audit of the manuals for format completeness & conformance to system & functional descriptions." {sweref:343} Additional audit topics to consider include: * As coded, software products reflect their design. * User documentation complies with standards as specified. * Activities have been conducted according to applicable requirements, plans, and contract. NASA/SP-2007-6105, NASA Systems Engineering Handbook,{sweref:273}includes the following table showing the data typically reviewed during each of these audits: !SWE-084_Image 2.jpg|align=center,width=729,height=424! Consider the following options when deciding when to conduct audits: * At the time a product is released. * Prior to delivery to assure that all delivered products are complete, contain the proper versions and revisions, and that all discrepancies, open work, and deviations and waivers are properly documented and approved; can be FCA or PCA. * At the end of a life cycle phase per Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMI). * Prior to the release of a new or revised baseline. * As the project progresses to prevent finding major issues at the end when it's more costly to fix them and to identify systemic issues. such as meeting coding standards that could affect large segments of the project. * Incrementally for very large, complex systems focusing on specific functional areas with a summary audit held to address status of all identified action items (FCA). {panel}When reporting the results of an audit, it is important to remain unbiased and include positive observations as well as issues found. Findings are grouped as major or minor depending on the range and effect of the non-conformance.  {panel}\\ {panel}Non-conformances result in corrective actions that address and correct the root cause of the non-conformances. Follow-up needs to be conducted to ensure the corrective actions were completed and are effective.  {panel}\\ {note}Consult Center Process Asset Libraries (PALs) for Center-specific guidance and resources related to configuration audits. {note} Additional guidance related to configuration audits may be found in the following related requirements in this Handbook: | [SWE-079|SWE-079] | Develop CM Plan | | [SWE-083|SWE-083] | Status Accounting | | [SWE-103|SWE-103] | Software Configuration Management Plan | \\ {div3} {div3:id=tabs-4} h1. 4. Small Projects For projects with limited personnel, consider sharing lead auditors or audit team members among projects. Another suggestion is for members of small projects to conduct configuration audits of other small projects. {div3} {div3:id=tabs-5} h1. 5. Resources {refstable} {toolstable} {div3} {div3:id=tabs-6} h1. 6. Lessons Learned A documented lesson from the NASA Lessons Learned database notes the following: *Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board - Phase I Report. Lesson Number 0641:* Configuration audits are called out as one of several mitigations for the root cause of the Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) mishap.  One of the Recommendations states to "Conduct \[a\] software audit for specification compliance on all data transferred between JPL and \[contractor\]." {sweref:513} {div3} {tabclose}

273
273
, the FCA "examines the functional characteristics of the configured product and verifies that the product has met, via test results, the requirements specified in its functional baseline documentation approved at the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Review (CDR). FCAs will be conducted on both hardware or software configured products and will precede the PCA of the configured product."

The PCA "(also known as a configuration inspection) examines the physical configuration of the configured product and verifies that the product corresponds to the build-to (or code-to) product baseline documentation previously approved at the CDR. PCAs will be conducted on both hardware and software configured
products."

sweref
273
273

Audit plans, including goals, schedules, participants, contractor participation, and procedures are documented in the configuration management (CM) plan (see SWE-103).

When planning audits, it is important to remember that audits are samplings, not a look at every record.  It is also important to remember that auditors should not have any direct responsibility for the software products they audit.

The basic steps in an audit are:

Image Added

The Department of Defense Configuration Management Guidance Handbook

sweref
351
351
includes tables of activities for audit planning, preparation, performance, and close-out (generating the audit report and addressing corrective actions). These tables address both the Government and contractor roles in these activities and can be tailored as applicable for a project.

The SMA (Safety and Mission Assurance) Technical Excellence Program (STEP) Level 2 Software Configuration Management and Data Management course taught by the Westfall Team

sweref
343
343
suggests that the following be included in an FCA:

  • "An audit of the formal test documentation against test data.
  • "An audit of the Verification and Validation (V&V) reports.
  • "A review of all approved changes.
  • "A review of updates to previously delivered documents.
  • "A sampling of design review outputs.
  • "A comparison of code with documented requirements.
  • "A review to ensure all testing was accomplished."
    sweref
    343
    343
  • Additional sample testing or rerunning of tests, as appropriate for the project.

The STEP 2 course suggests that the following be included in a PCA

sweref
343
343
:

  • "An audit of the system specification for completeness [and removal of all to-be-determineds (TBDs)].
  • "An audit of the FCA report for discrepancies & actions taken.
  • "A comparison of the architectural design with the detailed design components for consistency.
  • "A review of the module listing for compliance with the approved coding standards.
  • "An audit of the manuals for format completeness & conformance to system & functional descriptions."
    sweref
    343
    343

Additional audit topics to consider include:

  • As coded, software products reflect their design.
  • User documentation complies with standards as specified.
  • Activities have been conducted according to applicable requirements, plans, and contract.

NASA/SP-2007-6105, NASA Systems Engineering Handbook,

sweref
273
273
includes the following table showing the data typically reviewed during each of these audits:

Image Added

Consider the following options when deciding when to conduct audits:

  • At the time a product is released.
  • Prior to delivery to assure that all delivered products are complete, contain the proper versions and revisions, and that all discrepancies, open work, and deviations and waivers are properly documented and approved; can be FCA or PCA.
  • At the end of a life cycle phase per Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI).
  • Prior to the release of a new or revised baseline.
  • As the project progresses to prevent finding major issues at the end when it's more costly to fix them and to identify systemic issues. such as meeting coding standards that could affect large segments of the project.
  • Incrementally for very large, complex systems focusing on specific functional areas with a summary audit held to address status of all identified action items (FCA).


Panel

When reporting the results of an audit, it is important to remain unbiased and include positive observations as well as issues found. Findings are grouped as major or minor depending on the range and effect of the non-conformance. 



Panel

Non-conformances result in corrective actions that address and correct the root cause of the non-conformances. Follow-up needs to be conducted to ensure the corrective actions were completed and are effective. 



Note

Consult Center Process Asset Libraries (PALs) for Center-specific guidance and resources related to configuration audits.


Additional guidance related to configuration audits may be found in the following related requirements in this Handbook:


SWE-079

Develop CM Plan

SWE-083

Status Accounting

SWE-103

Software Configuration Management Plan




Div
idtabs-4

4. Small Projects

For projects with limited personnel, consider sharing lead auditors or audit team members among projects. Another suggestion is for members of small projects to conduct configuration audits of other small projects.


Div
idtabs-5

5. Resources


refstable

toolstable


Div
idtabs-6

6. Lessons Learned

A documented lesson from the NASA Lessons Learned database notes the following:

Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board - Phase I Report. Lesson Number 0641: Configuration audits are called out as one of several mitigations for the root cause of the Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) mishap.  One of the Recommendations states to "Conduct [a] software audit for specification compliance on all data transferred between JPL and [contractor]."

sweref
513
513