From: troyer@mitre.org (Tom Royer)
Subject: Re: Too many standards
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:49:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.150151.8121@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> 
alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:

> US Department of Defense (DoD) standards are a little different, as
> you would expect (one difference is a notable increase in paperwork! :-)
> An example is Mil-Spec 2167a and 2168, the Software Development Process
> Model and SQA standards, respectively.  These are publicly available,
> but frankly it is wise to consult experts in Mil-Spec standards before
> implementation, since to a large extent they can and should be tailored
> for your particular situation.

I'd go a little farther than this.  DOD-STD-2167A and DOD-STD-2168
should not, in general, be used as the basis for internal standardization, 
except, possibly, for their description of process flow.  The documentation
load required is designed specifically for the customized, contracted
software development which is part of many/most DOD weapon system
acquisitions.  These, when combined with the design review requirements
of MIL-STD-1521B are intended to provide the Government visibility
into the development contractor's activities (and to insure third-party
maintainability) and, therefore, to increase the likelihood that the
delivered system willmeet the contract requirments and solve the
end users' problem, both with minimum life cycle cost.  [Note the use
of "designed for," "intended to," and "likelihood."  The amount
of success achieved using these standards could be the subject
of a completely different thread.  Not so :-)]

Software developers are quite right when they say that the documentation
requirements of these standards cost them time that might
be spent writing software.  What they forget is that the standards are
imposed, not for the covnenience of the contractor, but for the
convenience of the government.  The contractor should, therefore, plan
for and charge for their imposition. [Same caveat as in previous 
paragraph]

When selecting standards for internal use, a great deal of what's required
by DOD standards is not really necessary.  The best place to start,
in my opinion, is with the IEEE or ANSI/ISO standards.  Then boil them
down (or up) to what your organization thinks is "best or minimum business
practice;" in other words, what you really need.  Later, if the company
gets involved in a DOD procurement, it can "tailor-up" for that specific
project (and it should charge accordingly).

> >>Which is the rigth way to select an standard when you do not have
> >>one already imposed?
> >International standards first, national standards of your country then,
> >professional standards (like IEEE) and standards from manufacturers'
> >associations (like ECMA) next, organization-internal ones last.
> >

> But Eberhard is correct -- if you are so
> charged, go for the ISO standards first.  They represent the best
> of the world's current thinking.

This is sort of true.  But I suggest that what you really want to do
is develop an *internal* standard by beginning with the ISO standards
and then tailoring them to your organization's internal culture
(while still remaining compliant, either in sprit or in fact).

I'd never apply any standard verbatim.  Even DOD-STD-2167A says
that it should be tailored to a specific situation (and tailored down).

--
Tom Royer