Software re-use is something that everyone claims to strive for. But what counts as re-use and how can it be achieved? The ultimate goal of re-use is to be able to use source code across multiple projects without the need for code changes. The key question I would like to address is how to get there. What guiding principles must be observed to encourage the development of re-usable software?
Today almost all components in cars are mechatronic systems with increasing complexity. Functional Safety (ISO 26262) and Cyber Security are critical aspects to be considered in developing these car components. To qualify as a supplier, OEMs require development processes compliant to capability level CL 2 or even CL 3 in Automotive SPICE®. In other words: to deliver software-driven components, you must be fit in ASPICE®.
We have further improved our ASPICE Guide and it is now available as PDF or brochure in DIN A6 format. The new ASPICE® Guide contains notes and dependency diagrams that the experts at Knüvener Mackert have derived from the VDA Automotive SPICE® Guide. In this way, the ASPICE practices and the notes from the VDA guide can be read side by side, making the ASPICE guide extremely valuable for process improvement, assessment preparation and the assessment itself.
How to make online trainings effective? Pros and cons of online training Are online trainings effective, and can they, therefore, be an alternative to classroom training? […]
The strengths of agile development teams should be incorporated into the projects evaluated according to ASPICE criteria. Agile and ASPICE want the same thing: efficient development of good software. While in agile terms such as Epic, User Story, Backlog, Sprint are defined and lived, in Automotive SPICE™ project plan, defined milestones, quality management, configuration management etc. are in the foreground. In Agile SPICE, process attributes are now redefined to include agility in team orientation, flexible reaction to change and cooperation with the customer.
We are amazed by the demand for Automotive SPICE™ in China. Rapid progress is being made in the current megatrends in the automotive industry: new drive […]
The open source world is full of frameworks and platforms. But what is a framework, what is a platform and what is the difference? More to the point, why is this difference important? I am a confessing pedant. Despite my personal failures in this regard, I believe deeply that correct usage of language provides significant added value.To quote the aphorism from Mark Twain: “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”With this in mind, it may make sense that I find the lack of clarity surrounding the two concepts of framework and platform extremely irritating at times. Every company in the world that has anything to do with development has a platform. The open source world is full of frameworks. But when asked, very few people are able to define these concepts. Is it possible to claim full understanding of a subject yet be unable to provide clear definitions for basic terminology?
Software quality is often treated as an elusive and mysterious goal. Everybody wishes to have it and the strategies for achieving quality are as varied as the companies that claim it. Interestingly enough, very few people are able to provide a clear statement of what software quality is. In my humble opinion this is the crux of the problem, how can a goal be achieved which isn’t clearly defined? There are actually a multitude of software quality definitions that can be found. As so often, Wikipedia provides an interesting starting point for study. The pragmatic difficulty with many definitions of quality is that they are qualitative descriptions and are strongly dependent on the observer’s viewpoint. A pragmatically useful definition of software quality must be objective, reproducible and must deliver quantitative results.