######## NASA Software Engineering Initiative Implementation Plan {#nasa-software-engineering-initiative-implementation-plan .unnumbered}

**Responsible Office: Code AE/Office of the Chief Engineer**

*original signed by 1/11/02*

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**W. Brian Keegan Date**

##### Chief Engineer  {#chief-engineer .unnumbered}

NASA Software Engineering Initiative Implementation Plan\
Change History

  ------------ ---------- ------------------------------------------------------
  **Change**   **Date**   **Description**

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          

                          
  ------------ ---------- ------------------------------------------------------

NASA Software Engineering Initiative\
Implementation Plan

Table of Contents

1\. Introduction............. [1](#introduction)

2\. Goal [1](#goal)

3\. Guiding Principles.. [1](#guiding-principles)

4\. Scope [2](#scope)

5\. Ownership of Plan.......... [2](#ownership-of-plan)

6\. Summary of Strategies, Objectives, and Approaches
[3](#summary-of-strategies-objectives-and-approaches)

7\. Funding [10](#funding)

Appendix A: Schedule Summary [11](#appendix-a-schedule-summary)

Appendix B: Funding Breakdown [13](#appendix-b-funding-breakdown)

Appendix C: Center Plan Required Content
[14](#appendix-c-center-plan-required-content)

Appendix D: Criteria for Using CMM As A Benchmark In Support Of This
Plan's Goal
[16](#appendix-d-criteria-for-using-cmm13-as-a-benchmark-in-support-of-this-plans-goal)

Appendix E: Risk Management Plan..
[18](#appendix-e-risk-management-plan)

Appendix F: Definitions [19](#appendix-f-definitions)

Appendix G: Acronyms [20](#appendix-g-acronyms)

Risk Spreadsheet
Template..........................................................................21

# Introduction

Software engineering is a core capability and a key enabling technology
necessary for the support of NASA\'s Enterprises. Ensuring the quality,
safety, and reliability of NASA software is of paramount importance in
achieving mission success. Through surveys[^1] and assessments, many
software challenges within the Agency have been identified and
documented. Additionally, the exponential growth in the scope,
complexity, and importance of software within NASA systems experienced
over the years is expected to continue, challenging our ability to
manage it effectively. As a result, the NASA Software Engineering
Initiative[^2] was formed. This Plan specifies how the NASA Software
Engineering Initiative will be implemented. In coordination with Center
Software Engineering Improvement Plans, this Plan defines a NASA-wide
comprehensive approach for improving software engineering to a
quantifiable maturity level commensurate with mission criticality in
order to meet the software challenges of NASA.

# Goal 

***The goal of this Plan is to advance software engineering***[^3]
***practices to effectively meet the scientific and technological
objectives of NASA.***

This initiative strives to achieve the following through advancing
software engineering practices:

-   Improved cost and schedule predictability. Accurate schedules and
    budgets will ensure that software engineers are provided with
    adequate resources and realistic schedules to develop and maintain
    NASA products.

-   Improved software reliability.

-   Improved software quality.

-   Reduced software cost.

# Guiding Principles

NASA will employ common frameworks for software process improvement.

-   Standard methods: Initiating, Diagnosing, Establishing, Acting, and
    Learning (IDEAL) Model; Process Change Method (PCM); Software
    Acquisition-Capability Maturity Model (SA-CMM); Software-Capability
    Maturity Model (SW-CMM); CMM Integrated (CMMI); Institute of
    Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 12207,Standards for
    Information Technology-Software Life Cycle Processes; and
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9000. The IDEAL
    Model and PCM provide guidance and structure for Agency and
    Center-level Software Process Improvement plans.

NASA will employ standard methods of assessment.

-   CMM--Based Appraisal for Internal Process Improvement (CBA-IPI)

-   Software Capability Evaluation (SCE)---performed by external source.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Standard CMMI Assessment Method for Process Improvement.

NASA recognizes that the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Software
Capability Maturity Model^®^ (CMM^®^)[^4] and CMM-Integrated (CMMI^SM^)
provide a proven framework for advancing software engineering practices
and are key elements in achieving this Plan\'s goal. The criteria in
Appendix D (and in pending NPG 2820, NASA Software Guidelines and
Requirements) specifies the use of CMM or CMMI as a standard measurement
of the capability to produce quality software engineering products.
Appendix D shows the Centers' and offerors' flexibility in implementing
software process improvement. The CMM's will be used as a benchmark to
objectively measure progress toward software improvement; however,
simply achieving a CMM/CMMI Level rating is not the objective. Software
products must effectively meet NASA's scientific and technological
objectives. As part of this initiative, metrics will be gathered to
quantitatively measure improvements in software processes and products.

For software process improvement to be effective, it must be continuous
and should not be considered complete, upon the establishment of any
particular assessment milestone. The Centers' plans discussed below
should prioritize software engineering improvement activities according
to organization and program needs, making appropriate use of both CMM-
and non-CMM-based software engineering improvement activities. The
Centers' plans will include activities to infuse software research
results as well as new methods and tools to advance their software
engineering practices.

# Scope

The scope of this Plan covers software process improvement as well as
items related to software research; software safety, reliability, and
quality; attraction and retention of software engineers; and improving
NASA\'s software engineering knowledge and skills. This Plan covers both
mission-critical and nonmission-critical software. Each Center will
define the extent to which this Plan will be applied to their own
nonmission-critical software classes. Improvements related to systems
engineering will be addressed by the NASA Systems Engineering Working
Group (SEWG) in coordination with the NASA Software Working Group
(SWG)[^5].

# Ownership of Plan

NASA's Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) is the sponsor of the NASA
Software Engineering Initiative and this supporting implementation Plan.
OCE is responsible for coordinating the creation, execution, and
maintenance of this Plan and is accountable for its overall success.
This Plan will be revised on an annual basis and as deemed necessary,
based on lessons learned in implementing the strategies.

NASA's Chief Information Officer (CIO), the Office of Safety and Mission
Assurance (OSMA), and Institutional Program Offices (IPO) jointly
support the Software Engineering Initiative.

Centers shall coordinate with their IPO's on Center Software Engineering
Improvement Plans.

Activities performed under this Plan will leverage off and closely
coordinate with research and software activities funded by the CIO, OSMA
and the Office of Aerospace Technology (OAT).

Each Center Director is accountable for the success of their Center\'s
Software Engineering Improvement Plan.

The SWG has a significant role in the development, coordination,
maintenance, and deployment of this Plan under the leadership the OCE.

*The purpose of the SWG is to develop and oversee the formulation and
implementation of an Agencywide plan to work toward continuous,
sustained software engineering process and product improvements in NASA;
and to ensure appropriate visibility of software issues within the
Agency.* NASA SWG Charter, URL
http://swg.jpl.nasa.gov/charter/index.shtml.

# Summary of Strategies, Objectives, and Approaches

This section defines the strategies, objectives, and approaches to
achieve the goal of this Plan. The strategies state how the goal will be
achieved. The objectives provide measurable, time-related statements of
what is to be accomplished. The approaches provide a set of tasks used
to achieve the objective. [Appendix A: Schedule Summary]{.underline}
provides a high-level overview of the Plan schedule and [Appendix B:
Funding Breakdown]{.underline} contains a detailed profile of the
funding for this Plan. The numbering of strategies and objectives does
not necessarily reflect their order of priority. The schedule for
objectives, approaches, and tasks, as well as the associated responsible
groups for each, are provided at URL:
<http://ip-strategies.jpl.nasa.gov/>. The Approach Details, a file
containing a summary of the major deliverables and the resources
required to achieve the approaches in FY 2002, is also provided at the
same URL.

**Strategy 1. Implement a continuous software process and product
improvement program across NASA and its contract community.**

[S1. Objective 1.]{.underline} Have an approved Center Plan for each
Center for advancing software engineering practice by September 2001,
and annually updated each August.

> [S1.O1. Approach 1.]{.underline} Develop and refine Center Plans,
> align with Enterprises, and obtain Center Director and OCE approval.
> Examine Information Technology Security status at the Center and
> determine if any activities related to implementing the following need
> to be incorporated into the Center Plan: IT Security policies,
> procedures, and guidance for ensuring the security of the Agency's IT
> resources (data, information, applications, and systems) as defined in
> NPG 2810.1, Security of Information Technology.

[S1. Objective 2.]{.underline} Monitor and track implementation of NASA
Software Engineering Initiative Improvement Plan and annually revise the
Plan. The first revision will be by March 2003.

> [S1.O2. Approach 1.]{.underline} Revise OCE's Program Operating Plan
> (POP) proposals and review Center Plan progress with OCE and SWG. The
> SWG summarizes the data from Center progress reports for the Agency's
> Annual Status Report Presentation. [Appendix C: Center Plan Required
> Content]{.underline} contains an outline with the required content to
> be included in each Center Plan submitted to OCE. Center Plans must
> adhere to the numbering scheme and titles provided in the outline.
> Additional sections may be added at the end of the Center Plans.
>
> [S1.O2. Approach 2.]{.underline} Review progress on NASA Software
> Engineering Initiative implementation against the Plan. Analyze status
> data on all Plan strategies, obtain feedback from Center Software
> Engineering Process Groups (SEPG)[^6], review failure reports, NASA
> Software Metrics Report, Independent Verification and Validation
> Summary Report, and usage data. Deliver briefing to the Engineering
> Management Council and appropriate Headquarters elements on progress
> and recommendations on Plan changes. OCE approves Plan updates.

[S1. Objective 3.]{.underline} Put initial infrastructure in place to
support the NASA Software Engineering Initiative by January 2002.
Maintain ongoing infrastructure activities according to the annually
updated NASA Software Engineering Initiative Implementation Plan.

> [S1.O3. Approach 1.]{.underline} Put Agency infrastructure in place.
> This includes gaining advocacy from the Enterprises; securing a
> budget; working with the Training and Development Division to secure
> training, putting NPG 2820.x, NASA Software Guidelines; NPD 8730.4,
> NASA Software Independent Verification and Validation Policy; and NPG
> 8730.x, Software Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V)
> Management, in place; and coordinating activities between the SEWG and
> SWG.
>
> [S1.O3. Approach 2.]{.underline} Put the SWG infrastructure in place.
> This includes securing the full level of support from the Centers for
> the SWG, training SWG members to become subject matter experts in
> software process improvement and CMM, developing contract wording for
> Centers, providing information exchange opportunities between Center
> SEPG's, providing a process asset library for the Centers to use,
> putting Center infrastructure in place, drafting and revising NASA
> standards, policies, and guidelines, and supporting OCE in the
> management of this Plan.

[S1. Objective 4.]{.underline} Develop and phase in a long-term metrics
collection and analysis program and fully implement it by October 2003.
Metrics analysis and identification of new participating projects are
performed annually in January.

> [S1.O4. Approach 1.]{.underline} Establish project metrics collection
> capability. This includes designing an initial set of metrics and
> metrics reports, developing a metrics collection system, piloting the
> metrics and using the results to develop an operational Agencywide
> system.
>
> [S1.O4. Approach 2.]{.underline} Establish Agency-level metrics
> analysis capability. This includes developing advanced metrics
> reports, documenting analysis methods, and developing metrics analysis
> training.
>
> [S1.O4. Approach 3.]{.underline} Roll out the Agency Metrics Program.
> This includes briefing Senior Management, delivering metrics training,
> and phasing in project participation.
>
> [S1.O4. Approach 4.]{.underline} Initiate and maintain regular metrics
> collection and reporting of analysis results. This includes the
> continuing functions of entering the metrics, maintaining the
> helpdesk, performing the analysis, and developing the reports.
>
> [S1.O4. Approach 5.]{.underline} Refine metrics set and collection
> techniques, if necessary, based on trends and user feedback.

**Strategy 2. Improve safety, reliability, and quality of software
through the establishment and integration of sound software engineering
principles and standards.**[^7]

[S2. Objective 1.]{.underline} Update and extend Agency policy,
standards, and guidebooks on safety, reliability, and quality of
software by May 2003, with periodic updates.

> [S2.O1. Approach 1.]{.underline} Collaborate with OSMA on the update
> of Software Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance (SW SR&QA)
> policy based on requirements of NPD 2820.1, NASA Software Policies;
> NPG 2820.x; NPG 8730.x, IEEE 12207; and CMM/CMMI. This includes
> performing a gap analysis to determine differences between existing
> and required roles, processes, and tasks.

##  {#section .unnumbered}

> [S2.O1. Approach 2]{.underline}. Identify missing/needed software
> engineering principles, tools, and techniques for improving safety,
> reliability, and quality of software and infuse them into standards,
> and guidebooks.

[S2. Objective 2.]{.underline} Put in place mechanisms to capture,
document, and promote proven software engineering practices for
improving safety, quality, and reliability of software by January 2003,
with periodic updates.

> [S2.O2. Approach 1.]{.underline} Encourage submittals of software
> engineering best practices and lessons learned to the NASA Lessons
> Learned Information System.
>
> [S2.O2. Approach 2]{.underline}. Create/Utilize forums to have
> Software Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance (SW SR&QA)
> engineers and software engineers meet to present and share problems
> and successes. Strategy 4, Objective 2, Approach 1 will be utilized to
> perform this Approach.

[S2. Objective 3]{.underline}. Collaborate with OSMA in the
establishment of a continuous improvement program for the advancement of
software safety, reliability, and quality research by April 2003, with
annual reviews. This objective will be conducted through exercising
Strategy 3, Objective 1, Approach 2.

[S2. Objective 4.]{.underline} Collaborate with OSMA in the
establishment of an infrastructure to improve software safety,
reliability, and quality assurance across the Agency and Centers by July
2004, with annual updates.

> [S2.O4. Approach 1.]{.underline} Provide assistance to OSMA in the
> management, oversight, and control of software quality assurance,
> safety, and reliability policies across the Agency.
>
> [S2.O4. Approach 2.]{.underline} At each Center, incorporate the
> functions defined in the updated Agency SW SR&QA policy and initiate
> the functions. Each Center augments its Center Plan to address this.
>
> [S2.O4. Approach 3]{.underline}. Process Verification Audits are
> reviewed to determine Center compliance with Agency SW SR&QA policy.

**Strategy 3. Improve NASA's software engineering practices through
research.**

[S3. Objective 1.]{.underline} Implement and transfer mature software
engineering research results and new technologies to operational use
within NASA, starting January 2002, and annually updated each October.

> [S3.O1. Approach 1.]{.underline} Identify a limited number of
> currently funded mature Agency research products that demonstrate
> exceptional potential for adding value to software engineering within
> NASA.
>
> [S3.O1. Approach 2.]{.underline} Identify promising new tools and
> technologies for pilot infusion within NASA.
>
> [S3.O1. Approach 3.]{.underline} Match the identified research
> products and new technologies with the Centers\' interests and needs.
> Support pilots and transfer the identified research products and new
> technologies into NASA projects. Obtain support for pilot studies and
> initial startup training. Support the migration of successful research
> product and new technology pilots across NASA Centers.
>
> [S3.O1. Approach 4.]{.underline} Coordinate with key NASA
> organizations to utilize Strategy 4, Objective 2 to aid in transition
> of mature research products and promising new tools and technologies.
>
> [S3.O1. Approach 5]{.underline}. Communicate lessons learned[^8] about
> technology transfer of research results.

[S3. Objective 2]{.underline}. Cooperate with OAT[^9], OSMA, NASA
Centers, and other Enterprise programs to identify current software
research and identify needed research areas (new tools, techniques,
processes, methods) based on documented software problem areas, by
January 2003, and annually updated in January.

> [S3.O2. Approach 1.]{.underline} Identify and characterize[^10] the
> current software research performed by NASA.
>
> [S3.O2. Approach 2.]{.underline} Document deficiencies, and problems
> identified by Provide Aerospace Products and Capabilities (PAPAC)
> projects, SEPG Surveys, and NASA Software Metrics to identify
> potential research needs in software engineering.
>
> [S3.O2. Approach 3.]{.underline} Identify emerging software
> technologies and mission requirements that have the potential to
> significantly impact software research needs.[^11]
>
> [S3.O2. Approach 4.]{.underline} Prioritize research needs for
> addressing the identified deficiencies and problems in software
> engineering. To the extent possible, document which prioritized
> research needs are being covered by NASA, other Government agencies,
> industry, or academia and which ones are not being addressed.

[S3.Objective 3]{.underline}. Solicit support to address the highest
priority software engineering research needs which at the present time
are insufficiently addressed, by March 2003, and annually updated in
March.

> [S3.O3. Approach 1.]{.underline} Communicate and advocate highest
> priority software engineering research needs with key NASA
> organizations at the onset of their funding cycle. In addition, offer
> assistance in reviewing proposal submissions to provide an integrated
> viewpoint of the Agency\'s software engineering problems.
>
> [S3.O3. Approach 2.]{.underline} Offer expertise in reviews of
> research products to improve the maturation and technology transfer.

**Strategy 4. Improve software engineers\' knowledge and skills and
attract and retain software engineers.**

[S4. Objective 1.]{.underline} Identify training courses required to
increase the level of knowledge of software engineers and establish a
schedule of course offerings by June 30, 2002.

> [S4.O1. Approach 1.]{.underline} Establish a process to annually
> prioritize training needs and coordinate with the Training and
> Development Division and Center training offices for funding. Inputs
> from various sources including survey results will be used to create
> the prioritized list.
>
> [S4.O1. Approach 2.]{.underline} Update and maintain the Course Matrix
> of "NASA Software Training Course Listing," NASA-TM-209370. This TM, a
> product of the SWG, describes courses that are available from a core
> group of providers for software managers, software engineers, and
> software assurance engineers. The course listing is based upon the Key
> Process Areas of the CMM. After surveying NASA courses (developed at
> the Agency and Center levels) and public course offerings, identify
> subject areas where no courses currently exist and evaluate the need
> for developing a course.
>
> [S4.O1. Approach 3.]{.underline} Recommend updates to Academy of
> Program and Project Leadership (APPL) courses, if required. The SWG
> will work with Training and Development Division to identify APPL
> courses in which to update or add software content to reflect
> appropriate aspects of the Initiative.

[S4. Objective 2.]{.underline} Provide more opportunities for
information exchange with other software engineers and for keeping
current with state of the art and state of the practice by September 30,
2002.

> [S4.O2. Approach 1.]{.underline} Advocate the use of SWG deliverables
> (e.g., Web sites) as opportunities for information exchange among
> software engineers. The SWG and support staff will sponsor and set up
> periodic information exchange sessions for NASA software engineers and
> provide related Web sites for followon user groups and references for
> other exchange and networking opportunities.

[S4. Objective 3.]{.underline} Collaborate with the responsible
Headquarters codes to advocate the establishment and use of incentives
to attract and retain top quality software engineering professionals by
December 1, 2002.

> [S4.O3. Approach 1.]{.underline} Establish communications with other
> groups existing in the Agency that are advocating better compensation
> for software engineers. The SWG identifies other Agency initiatives
> and organizations that are working towards a similar objective and
> collaborate where possible.
>
> [S4.O3. Approach 2.]{.underline} Develop Dual Career Ladder (DCL)
> promotion evaluation criteria for engineering and advocate its use at
> Centers that do not already have a DCL for engineering. Investigate
> the development and promotion of an Agencywide DCL.
>
> [S4.O3. Approach 3.]{.underline} Review Agency Awards program and
> develop recommendations to expand it with new awards for software
> engineering. The SWG will work with the Inventions and Contributions
> Board to review the Agency Awards Program for software-relevant awards
> and investigate the creation of new awards that recognize software
> process improvement successes.

# Funding

The following table shows OCE dollar values by fiscal year for funding
the NASA Software Engineering Initiative Implementation Plan. [Appendix
A: Schedule Summary]{.underline} provides a high-level overview of the
Plan schedule and [Appendix B: Funding Breakdown]{.underline} contains a
detailed profile of the funding for this Plan. On an as-needed basis,
Centers will provide their own collateral funding over and above OCE
funding to achieve their Center Software Engineering Improvement Plan
goals. OCE-managed dollars provide the core funding for the initiative;
the amount of additional collateral funds needed at each Center is
determined on an individual Center-by-Center basis.

\< Table deleted for general distribution\>

Table 7-1. Funding by Fiscal Year (\$ Millions)

#   {#section-1 .unnumbered}

# Appendix A: Schedule Summary  {#appendix-a-schedule-summary .unnumbered}

The following table provides a high-level overview of the schedule for
this initiative Plan.

  --------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **Activity**                **FY02**   **FY03**   **FY04**   **FY05**   **FY06**   **FY07**

  **Strategy 1**                                                                     

  Put in place Center and                                                            
  Agency infrastructure                                                              
  (SEPG's at each Center                                                             
  implementing their initial                                                         
  plan, coordination with                                                            
  IPO, programs & projects )                                                         

  Conduct Organizational                                                             
  Scans/Software Engineering                                                         
  Profiles at the Centers to                                                         
  document strengths to                                                              
  propagate to additional                                                            
  projects and identify areas                                                        
  needing improvement                                                                

  Conduct CMM/CMMI studies to                                                        
  adapt Key Process Areas                                                            
  (KPA) to meet Center-                                                              
  specific requirements and                                                          
  eliminate deficiencies                                                             

                                                                                     

  Second Pilot Study -                                                               
  Software Metrics Collection                                                        

  Initial Software Metrics                                                           
  Operational Capability                                                             
  (training & phased                                                                 
  implementation)                                                                    

  Full Software Metrics                                                              
  Operational Capability on                                                          
  PAPAC Projects                                                                     

  Monitor progress against                                                           
  NASA Software Engineering                                                          
  Initiative Implementation                                                          
  Plan and Center Plans                                                              

  **Strategy 2**                                                                     

  Revise Agency policy on                                                            
  Software Safety,                                                                   
  Reliability, and Quality                                                           
  Assurance (SR&QA)                                                                  

  Put in place mechanisms to                                                         
  capture, document, and                                                             
  promote proven software                                                            
  engineering practices for                                                          
  improving SR&QA and promote                                                        
  advancements in SR&QA                                                              

  At each Center, incorporate                                                        
  the functions defined in                                                           
  the updated policy                                                                 

  Review Process Verification                                                        
  Audit results                                                                      

  **Strategy 3**                                                                     

  Match new technologies and                                                         
  mature research products                                                           
  with Center Software                                                               
  Engineering needs                                                                  

                                                                                     

  Identify the highest                                                               
  priority software research                                                         
  needs within the Agency and                                                        
  solicit support                                                                    

  **Strategy 4**                                                                     

  Work closely with the                                                              
  Training and Development                                                           
  Division to supply the                                                             
  training necessary for                                                             
  successful implementation                                                          
  of the NASA Software                                                               
  Engineering Initiative                                                             
  Implementation Plan                                                                

  Provide opportunities for                                                          
  information exchange                                                               
  between software engineers                                                         
  on state of the art and                                                            
  state of the practice                                                              

  Advocate the establishment                                                         
  and use of incentives to                                                           
  attract and retain top                                                             
  quality software                                                                   
  engineering professionals                                                          
  --------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------

##   {#section-2 .unnumbered}

# Appendix B: Funding Breakdown {#appendix-b-funding-breakdown .unnumbered}

As stated above, the goal of this Plan is to advance software
engineering practices to effectively meet the scientific and
technological objectives of NASA. To initiate and make progress toward
that goal, substantial resources and effort are needed at both the
Agency and Center levels over the next 6 years. Subsequent funding,
after the completion of this Plan, to maintain software engineering
practices will be relatively nominal, with only a small core of Agency
funds set aside to maintain and coordinate the long-term elements of the
Plan. These long-term elements include Agency-level policy and guideline
updates, software metrics collection and analysis, assessments, and
coordination and dissemination of improvement, research, and training
products and activities among Centers. After the completion of this
Plan, the Centers and IPO's will sustain local initiative elements to
meet the needs of evolving challenges in software engineering.

The following table shows the breakdown of OCE projected core dollar
values by fiscal year for funding the NASA Software Engineering
Initiative Implementation Plan. Actual expenditures will be tracked and
resource needs will be reassessed on an annual basis. In the initial
years, new process improvement activities will be piloted at the
Centers. Once experience is gained in implementing software engineering
capability improvements, funding levels increase to perform improvements
across all mission critical organizations. As the organizations complete
their key software engineering capability improvements, funding levels
decreases accordingly.[^12]

\<Budget table deleted for general distribution\>

# Appendix C: Center Plan Required Content {#appendix-c-center-plan-required-content .unnumbered}

Center Software Engineering Improvement Plans (hereafter referred to as
Center Plans) must include the following content:

i.  **Revision Record**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  **Introduction**

2.  **Goal**

3.  **Scope**

Includes the following:

-   Specify the organizational elements implementing this Plan; at a
    minimum include all Center organizations responsible for the
    performance of mission-critical software development, management,
    and acquisition.

-   Specify the Center\'s tactic for phasing in improvements (e.g.,
    domain phasing, and organizational phasing).

4.  Ownership of Center Plan

Includes the following:

Define how the Center Plan progress will be monitored and who is
responsible. Include a process improvement organizational chart.

-   Identify how oversight of Center Plan will be conducted (e.g.,
    planned verses actual progress in Center Plan).

-   Name of the Center software \'Champion\' {the SWG primary
    representative or named delegate takes on this role}.

-   List the organizations to be represented on the Software Engineering
    Process Group(s) (SEPG) and Management Steering Group (MSG). The
    number and organizational representation of SEPG(s) and the MSG(s)
    are determined by the individual Centers. However, the Center\'s
    Software Quality Assurance organization must be represented on the
    SEPG.

5.  Strategies and objectives

Includes the following:

Identify how the Center Plan will support the implementation of all
strategies of the NASA Software Engineering Initiative Implementation
Plan.

6.  Schedule

The schedule should include\--

-   Approaches and tasks for meeting the strategies and objectives for
    upcoming fiscal year. As Center Plans are updated annually, these
    will be added for subsequent years. Out years should be covered at a
    higher level.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Tasks and milestones for meeting the criteria listed in the NASA
    Software Engineering Initiative Implementation Plan (See Appendix
    D).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Date when Center SEPG(s) will be established to focus on initiative
    implementation.

-   Date when Center MSG(s) will be established to focus on initiative
    implementation.

-   Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and associated Full-Time Equivalent
    (FTE) estimates for each major WBS element.

-   Training activities.

-   Assessments against the Software CMM or CMMI for all Center
    organizations responsible for the performance of mission-critical
    software development and management.

-   Assessments against the Software Acquisition CMM for all Center
    organizations responsible for individuals performing
    mission-critical software acquisition and oversight.

-   Milestones for documenting the current software engineering
    state/baseline/profile.

-   Milestones for determining which software engineering elements from
    the baseline will be improved and when plans for improving those
    selected elements will be documented. The Center Plans should
    prioritize software engineering improvement activities according to
    organization and program needs, making appropriate use of both CMM-
    and non-CMM-based software engineering improvement activities (e.g.,
    Requirements Management, and Risk Management).

-   Technology transfers planned for infusion and implementation.

-   Tasks that will flowdown the requirements from NPG 2820, NPD 8730,
    and NPG 8730 (when approved) to NASA and contractor developed
    software and related ISO procedures.

-   Checkpoints for evaluating changes in mission critical software
    systems\'

    a.  cost estimation

    b.  schedule estimation, and

> c\. defect density.

-   Date by which measures will be in place to ensure that the NASA
    Software Engineering Initiative Implementation Plan and the Center
    Plan are being followed. (e.g., Date which the Center software
    Champion will begin sitting on the Center GPMC's to assure program
    and project compliance with the NASA and Center Plans).

-   Task for performing Annual Status Report on Center Plan to OCE. This
    includes the SEPG feedback of successes and concerns.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Tasks for the identification of external partners (including
    international partners) that are supplying mission-critical software
    and whether or not the Center can negotiate with the partner to have
    mission-critical software be accomplished by Level 3 organizations.
    Define how the Center will attempt to have all plans and agreements
    with external partners conform to the criteria listed in the NASA
    Software Engineering Initiative Implementation Plan for mission
    critical software.)

# Appendix D: Criteria for Using CMM^13^ As A Benchmark In Support Of This Plan's Goal {#appendix-d-criteria-for-using-cmm13-as-a-benchmark-in-support-of-this-plans-goal .unnumbered}

The criteria in this Appendix (and in pending NPG 2820) specifies the
use of CMM or CMMI as a standard measurement of the capability to
produce quality software engineering products. It shows the Centers' and
offerors' flexibility in implementing software process improvement.

+----------+-------------+--------------------------+-----------------+
|          | **NASA**    | **New Contractor**       | **Current       |
|          |             |                          | Contractor**    |
+----------+-------------+--------------------------+-----------------+
| **Organ  | Each Center | NASA\'s preference is    | A\) Starting in |
| izations | shall       | that contractors be      | FY 2002 Centers |
| res      | develop and | measured at CMM Level 3. | shall review    |
| ponsible | implement a |                          | all existing    |
| for      | plan to     | NASA will specify in     | contracts that  |
| ind      | advance     | Request For Proposals    | include mission |
| ividuals | software    | (RFP) that               | critical        |
| pe       | engineering | mission-critical         | software to     |
| rforming | capability  | software be developed by | document the    |
| [mission | for their   | CMM Level 3              | supplier's      |
| critical | org         | organizations (as        | status with     |
| softw    | anizations. | measured by a CMM        | respect to CMM  |
| are]{.un |             | appraisal[^14] by a      | Level 3 and     |
| derline} | Each Center | Software Engineering     | identify        |
| man      | shall show  | Institute authorized     | software risk   |
| agement, | ongoing     | lead appraiser from an   | mitigation      |
| deve     | progress    | external organization)   | measures        |
| lopment, | toward      | **[or]{.underline}**     | currently in    |
| or       | software    | require offerors[^15] to | place on these  |
| acqui    | process and | provide within their     | contracts.      |
| sition** | product     | proposal a plan and      |                 |
|          | improvement | schedule that will       | B\) For         |
|          | goals in    | describe, in detail,     | contracts that  |
|          | the Center  | actions that will be     | are not         |
|          | plan and    | taken to show how the    | currently at    |
|          | against     | process areas in Level 2 | CMM Level 3 (as |
|          | CMM[^13]    | and selected process     | measured by a   |
|          | Level 3     | areas in Level 3         | CMM appraisal   |
|          | showing     | critical to mission      | by a Software   |
|          | increase in | success will be          | Engineering     |
|          | capability  | performed. This          | Institute       |
|          | over time.  | offeror-supplied CMM     | authorized lead |
|          |             | information will be used | appraiser from  |
|          | Center      | as an evaluation factor  | an external     |
|          | or          | in the final source      | organization),  |
|          | ganizations | selection.               | the Center      |
|          | that        |                          | shall document  |
|          | develop     | If the selected offeror  | and implement a |
|          | systems     | is not at CMM Level 3,   | risk mitigation |
|          | containing  | NASA will put in place   | plan by June    |
|          | software    | appropriate contract     | 2002. Examples  |
|          | shall be    | control and monitoring   | of risk         |
|          | p           | mechanisms to track the  | mitigation      |
|          | eriodically | selected contractor\'s   | measures        |
|          | assessed    | plan.                    | include, but    |
|          | against CMM |                          | are not limited |
|          | Level 3     | Note: The above criteria | to, Independent |
|          | capability  | are flowed down to all   | Verification &  |
|          | as a        | subcontracts providing   | Validation,     |
|          | benchmark.  | mission critical         | peer review,    |
|          | Center      | software.                | end-to-end      |
|          | or          |                          | testing,        |
|          | ganizations |                          | requirements    |
|          | acquiring   |                          | trace matrices, |
|          | systems     |                          | additional      |
|          | containing  |                          | software        |
|          | software    |                          | quality         |
|          | will be     |                          | assurance       |
|          | p           |                          | measures, and   |
|          | eriodically |                          | test            |
|          | assessed    |                          | witnessing.     |
|          | against the |                          | Centers will    |
|          | Software    |                          | put in place    |
|          | Acquisition |                          | appropriate     |
|          | CMM.        |                          | control and     |
|          |             |                          | monitoring      |
|          |             |                          | mechanisms for  |
|          |             |                          | tracking the    |
|          |             |                          | progress        |
|          |             |                          | against the     |
|          |             |                          | documented risk |
|          |             |                          | mitigation      |
|          |             |                          | plan.           |
+----------+-------------+--------------------------+-----------------+
| **Organ  | Each Center | NASA will specify in     |                 |
| izations | shall       | Request For Proposals    |                 |
| res      | develop and | (RFP) that nonmission-   |                 |
| ponsible | implement a | critical software be     |                 |
| for      | plan to     | developed by             |                 |
| ind      | advance     | organizations meeting    |                 |
| ividuals | software    | the Center's specified   |                 |
| pe       | engineering | CMM Level (as measured   |                 |
| rforming | capability  | by a CMM appraisal by a  |                 |
| only     | for their   | Software Engineering     |                 |
| [non     | org         | Institute authorized     |                 |
| -mission | anizations. | lead appraiser from an   |                 |
| criti    |             | external organization)   |                 |
| cal]{.un | Each Center | for each nonmission-     |                 |
| derline} | shall show  | critical software class  |                 |
| software | ongoing     | applicable to the        |                 |
| man      | progress    | Statement of Work (SOW). |                 |
| agement, | toward      | If an offeror does not   |                 |
| deve     | meeting     | meet the                 |                 |
| lopment, | software    | Center-specified CMM     |                 |
| or       | process and | Level, then that offeror |                 |
| acqui    | product     | is required to provide   |                 |
| sition** | improvement | within their proposal a  |                 |
|          | goals in    | plan and schedule that   |                 |
|          | the Center  | will describe, in        |                 |
|          | plan.       | detail, actions that     |                 |
|          |             | will be taken to show    |                 |
|          | Each Center | how the deficient or     |                 |
|          | shall       | unassessed process areas |                 |
|          | define the  | will be performed. This  |                 |
|          | CMM         | offeror-supplied CMM     |                 |
|          | capability  | information will be used |                 |
|          | that will   | as an evaluation factor  |                 |
|          | be achieved | in the final source      |                 |
|          | for each    | selection.               |                 |
|          | n           |                          |                 |
|          | on-mission- | If the selected offeror  |                 |
|          | critical    | does not meet the        |                 |
|          | software    | Center-specified CMM     |                 |
|          | class[^16]  | Level, NASA will put in  |                 |
|          | within      | place appropriate        |                 |
|          | their       | contract control and     |                 |
|          | Center      | monitoring mechanisms to |                 |
|          | plan.       | track the selected       |                 |
|          |             | contractor\'s plan.      |                 |
|          |             |                          |                 |
|          |             | Note: The above criteria |                 |
|          |             | are flowed down to all   |                 |
|          |             | subcontracts providing   |                 |
|          |             | software.                |                 |
+----------+-------------+--------------------------+-----------------+

#####   {#section-3 .unnumbered}

# Appendix E: Risk Management Plan {#appendix-e-risk-management-plan .unnumbered}

A Risk Management Spreadsheet (enclosed) will be maintained on a
continuous basis to identify, analyze, plan, track, control, and
communicate risks associated with the NASA Software Engineering
Initiative. Responsibility for maintaining the Risk Management
Spreadsheet will be assigned to the SWG Risk Manager (a member of the
SWG) and will be rotated over time. In addition to the Risk Spreadsheet
maintained by the SWG Risk Manager, each strategy subgroup lead will be
responsible for keeping a separate spreadsheet for its strategy current.
Only those risks requiring SWG attention will be elevated from the
strategy risk spreadsheet to the SWG risk spreadsheet. Risk spreadsheet
review will be incorporated into the SWG meeting agendas at a minimum on
a quarterly basis.

For each risk in the Risk Management Spreadsheet, the following will be
recorded:

-   Risk identification number and risk statement (in condition:
    consequence format).

-   Priority, Probability, Impact, Timeframe.

-   Mitigation strategy.

-   Responsible person(s).

-   Status, Date Opened, Date Updated, Date Closed.

    The following definition of risk attributes will be used:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   High Probability---Likelihood of occurrence is greater than 70
    percent.

-   Medium Probability---Likelihood of occurrence is between 40 and 70
    percent.

-   Low Probability---Likelihood of occurrence is less than 40 percent.

-   High Impact---Schedule delay of more than 3 months or cost overrun
    of greater than 15 percent.

-   Medium Impact---Schedule delay of 2 to 3 months or cost overrun of
    10 to 15 percent.

-   Low Impact---Schedule delay of less than 2 months or cost overrun of
    less than 10 percent.

-   Near-term Timeframe---1 month.

-   Mid-term Timeframe---3 months.

-   Far-term Timeframe---6 months or more.

The Timeframe specified should be when the problem is expected to occur
if the risk is not handled.

# Appendix F: Definitions {#appendix-f-definitions .unnumbered}

[Computer Software Configuration Item]{.underline} (CSCI): An
aggregation of software that is designated for configuration management
and treated as a single entity in the configuration management process.

[Mission-critical software:]{.underline}

(a) All CSCI's developed, reused, or acquired for inclusion in an NPG
    7120.5A project, which fall under one of the two following items:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  flight CSCI's, in which failure of the software could cause mission
    failure, harm to humans, damage to facilities or equipment, or risk
    to NASA's public reputation, or

2.  ground CSCI's[^17] designed for use in mission operations in which
    failure of the software could cause mission failure, harm to humans,
    damage to facilities or equipment, or risk to NASA's public
    reputation, or

    \(b\) other software development items as designated by the GPMC,
    the NASA CIO, the NASA OCE, the NASA's Office of SMA or by the
    Center SMA office.

    [Nonmission-critical software]{.underline}: All software developed,
    reused, or acquired for or by NASA except for (a) mission-critical
    software as defined above, or (b) common desktop COTS software.

# Appendix G: Acronyms {#appendix-g-acronyms .unnumbered}

APPL Academy of Program and Project Leadership

CBA-IPI CMM-Based Appraisal for Internal Process Improvement

CIO Chief Information Officer

CMM Capability Maturity Model

CMMI CMM Integrated

COTS Commercial Off The Shelf

CSCI Computer Software Configuration Item

DCL Dual Career Ladder

FTE Full-time equivalent

FY Fiscal year

GPMC Governing Program Management Council

HQ Headquarters

IDEAL Initiating, Diagnosing, Establishing, Acting, and Learning (of
process improvement model

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (Standards
Association of Piscataway, New Jersey)

IPO Institutional Program Office

ISO International Organization for Standardization

IV&V Independent Verification and Validation

KPA Key Process Areas

MSG Management Steering Group

NPD NASA Policy Document

NPG NASA Procedures and Guidelines

OAT Office of Aerospace Technology

OCE Office of the Chief Engineer

OSMA NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance

PAPAC Provide Aerospace Products and Capabilities

PCM Process Change Method

POP Program Operating Plan

RFP Request For Proposals

SA-CMM Software Acquisition-Capability Maturity Model

SCE Software Capability Evaluation

SEI Software Engineering Institute

SEWG Systems Engineering Working Group

SEPG Software Engineering Process Groups

SOW Statement Of Work

STI Scientific and Technical Information

SW-CMM Software- Capability Maturity Model

SWG Software Working Group

SW SR&QA Software Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance

TM Technical Manual

URL Universal Resource Locator

WBS Work Breakdown Structure

######### Risk Spreadsheet Template {#risk-spreadsheet-template .unnumbered}

  ---- ---------- ------------- -------- ------- ---------------- ---------- ------------ -------- -------- --------- --------
  ID   Priority   Probability   Impact   Time    Risk Statement\  Assigned   Mitigation   Status   Date     Date      Date
  \#                                     Frame   (Condition;      To         Strategy              Opened   Updated   Closed
                                                 consequence                                                          
                                                 format)                                                              

                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                      
  ---- ---------- ------------- -------- ------- ---------------- ---------- ------------ -------- -------- --------- --------

Enclosure

[^1]: ^1^ Reference \"Improving the Current State of Software within
    NASA\" developed by the NASA Software Working Group, presented by
    Pat Schuler to the NASA Chief Information Office, March 2000, URL:
    <http://ip-strategies.jpl.nasa.gov/>

[^2]: ^2^ Reference the \"NASA Initiative for Software Safety and
    Quality\" presented by Lee Holcomb to the NASA Senior Management
    Council, April 12, 2000, for the presentation that introduced this
    Initiative and for the specific rationale for the Initiative.

[^3]: For the purposes of this Plan only, the term \"Software
    Engineering\" refers to software development, assurance (i.e.,
    safety, reliability, and quality), and management.

[^4]: *The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the
    Software Process*, Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon
    University, Addison-Wesley (1994), ISBN 0-201-54664-7. Capability
    Maturity Model and CMM are registered (®) in the U.S. Patent and
    Trademark Office. Reference, herein, to any specific commercial
    product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, or otherwise,
    does not constitute or imply its endorsement by the United States
    Government.

[^5]: ^5^ The NASA SWG is chartered under the auspices of NPD 2820.1,
    NASA Software Policies.

[^6]: The SEPG is the focal point for software process improvement at
    the Centers. The number of groups, their makeup, and management
    reporting structure are at the discretion of the Center Director.

[^7]: OSMA is responsible for the maintenance of policy and guidelines
    regarding software safety, reliability, and quality. This strategy
    is accomplished through effective collaboration between OSMA and
    other NASA organizations.

[^8]: E.g. The role of a long-term champion and subject matter expert to
    aid in advertising the product, aid in the insertion and mentoring
    of new technologies.

[^9]: OAT is responsible for performing leading edge research and
    advanced computing systems and user environments, revolutionary
    software technologies, and pathfinder applications that enable the
    achievement of aerospace technology goals.

[^10]: Characteristics include the research rationale, planned research
    products, and the primary point of contacts.

[^11]: Schedule Note: S3.O2.A3 will begin activities in FY 2003.

[^12]: On an as-needed basis, Centers will provide their own collateral
    funding over and above OCE funding to achieve their Center Software
    Engineering Improvement Plan goals. OCE-managed dollars provide the
    direct core funding for the initiative, the amount of additional
    collateral funds needed at each Center is determined on an
    individual Center-by-Center basis.

[^13]: CMM-Integrated (CMMI^SM^) is an acceptable substitute for "CMM"
    in this Table.

[^14]: A Software Capability Evaluation^SM^ or a Standard CMMI
    Assessment Method for Process Improvement are the only acceptable
    appraisal methods.

[^15]: The term "offeror" in this table includes the specific
    implementing organization performing the work.

[^16]: Software classifications are discussed in pending NPG 2820.

[^17]: Ground CSCI's are defined as software products associated with
    controlling flight hardware and software.