SIST-TP CEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
kSIST-TP FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021
01-julij-2021
Zagotavljanje kakovosti proizvodov v vesoljski tehniki - Ocenjevanje in izboljšanje
programske opreme - 1. del: Okvir
Space product assurance - Software process assessment and improvement - Part 1:
Framework
Qualitätssicherung von Raumfahrtprodukten - Bewertung und Verbesserung von
Softwareprozessen - Teil 1: Rahmenwerk
Assurance produit des projets spatiaux - Évaluation et amélioration des processus
logiciels - Partie 1 : Cadre
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11
ICS:
35.240.99 Uporabniške rešitve IT na IT applications in other fields
drugih področjih
49.140 Vesoljski sistemi in operacije Space systems and
operations
kSIST-TP FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80- en,fr,de
11:2021
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021

---------------------- Page: 2 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021


TECHNICAL REPORT
FINAL DRAFT
FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
80-11
TECHNISCHER BERICHT


May 2021
ICS 49.140; 35.240.99

English version

Space product assurance - Software process assessment
and improvement - Part 1: Framework
Assurance produit des projets spatiaux - Évaluation et Qualitätssicherung von Raumfahrtprodukten -
amélioration des processus logiciels - Partie 1 : Cadre Bewertung und Verbesserung von Softwareprozessen -
Teil 1: Rahmenwerk


This draft Technical Report is submitted to CEN members for Vote. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee
CEN/CLC/JTC 5.

CEN and CENELEC members are the national standards bodies and national electrotechnical committees of Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom.

Recipients of this draft are invited to submit, with their comments, notification of any relevant patent rights of which they are
aware and to provide supporting documentation.

Warning : This document is not a Technical Report. It is distributed for review and comments. It is subject to change without
notice and shall not be referred to as a Technical Report.



















CEN-CENELEC Management Centre:
Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels
© 2021 CEN/CENELEC All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means Ref. No. FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021 E
reserved worldwide for CEN national Members and for
CENELEC Members.

---------------------- Page: 3 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021
FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021 (E)
Table of contents
1 Scope . 11
2 References . 12
3 Terms, definitions and abbreviated terms . 14
3.1 Terms from other documents . 14
3.2 Terms specific to the present document . 14
3.3 Abbreviated terms. 20
4 Organisation and purpose . 22
4.1 Organization of this handbook . 22
4.2 Relation to Standards . 22
4.2.1 Relation versus the ECSS family . 22
4.2.1.1 Relation to software engineering .22
4.2.1.2 Relation to software product assurance .22
4.2.1.3 Relation to project management .23
4.2.2 Relation versus ISO/IEC . 24
4.3 S4S process assessment and improvement overview . 25
4.3.1 S4S architecture . 25
4.3.2 S4S assessment purposes . 26
4.4 Use of other schemes and standards. 26
5 S4S process assessment model . 27
5.1 Introduction . 27
5.2 S4S process dimension . 28
5.3 The capability dimension . 32
5.3.1 General . 32
5.3.1.1 Capability level .32
5.3.1.2 Process attributes and rating scale .34
5.3.2 Level 0: Incomplete process . 36
5.3.3 Level 1: Performed process . 36
5.3.3.1 PA 1.1 Process performance attribute .36
5.3.4 Level 2: Managed process . 36
5.3.4.1 PA 2.1 Performance management attribute .36
5.3.4.2 PA 2.2 Work product management attribute .37
5.3.5 Level 3: Established process . 37
2

---------------------- Page: 4 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021
FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021 (E)
5.3.5.1 PA 3.1 Process definition attribute .37
5.3.5.2 PA 3.2 Process deployment attribute .37
5.3.6 Level 4: Predictable process . 38
5.3.6.1 PA 4.1 Process measurement attribute .38
5.3.6.2 PA 4.2 Process control attribute .38
5.3.7 Level 5: Optimizing process . 39
5.3.7.1 PA 5.1 Process innovation attribute .39
5.3.7.2 PA 5.2 Process optimization attribute .39
6 Process assessment method . 40
6.1 Introduction . 40
6.2 Assessment process definition. 41
6.2.1 Introduction . 41
6.2.2 Assessment process . 43
6.2.2.1 Assessment initiation .43
6.2.2.2 Assessment planning .47
6.2.2.3 Briefing (recommended activities) .50
6.2.2.4 Data acquisition .50
6.2.2.5 Data validation .52
6.2.2.6 Process rating .53
6.2.2.7 Assessment reporting and recording .54
6.2.2.8 Inputs to the risk management process (recommended activity).57
6.2.3 Assessment actors and roles . 60
6.2.3.1 Introduction .60
6.2.3.2 Assessment sponsor (AS) .60
6.2.3.3 Local assessment coordinator (LAC) .61
6.2.3.4 Assessment team leader (ATL) .61
6.2.3.5 Other assessors in the Assessment Team (AT) .62
6.2.3.6 Technical specialists (AT) .62
6.2.3.7 Observers .62
6.2.3.8 Assessment participants (AP) .62
6.2.3.9 Organizational unit (OU).63
6.3 Assessment process guidance . 63
6.3.1 Introduction . 63
6.3.2 Selection of assessment purpose . 63
6.3.3 Assessment guidance for capability determination . 64
6.3.3.1 Introduction .64
6.3.3.2 Assessment purpose (INI 3) .64
6.3.3.3 Selecting the assessment team (INI 7) .64
6.3.3.4 Assessment scope (INI 10) .64
6.3.3.5 Data and data validation criteria (INI 11) .67
6.3.3.6 Defining ownership and responsibilities for assessment outputs
(INI 11).67
6.3.3.7 Mapping the OU to the S4S model (INI 12) .67
6.3.3.8 Selecting participants (INI 13) .67
6.3.3.9 Assessment schedule (PLN 1) .68
6.3.3.10 Assessment data collection (PLN 3) .68
6.3.3.11 Verify conformance to requirements (PLN 5) .69
6.3.3.12 Briefing (BRF 1 and BRF 2) .69
6.3.3.13 Data collection (DAT 1) .69
6.3.3.14 Rating of process attributes (PRT 2) .69
6.3.3.15 Process profiles (PRT 3) .70
6.3.3.16 Assessment instruments .70
3

---------------------- Page: 5 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021
FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021 (E)
6.3.3.17 Act on results .71
6.3.4 Assessment for process improvement. 71
6.3.4.1 Introduction .71
6.3.4.2 Assessment scope (INI 10) .71
6.3.4.3 Data acquisition (DAT 1 and DAT 2) .71
6.3.4.4 Process rating (PRT 1) .71
6.3.5 Assessment for ECSS conformance . 72
6.3.5.1 Introduction .72
6.3.5.2 Planning for mandatory base practices (PLN 2) .72
6.3.5.3 Data acquisition (DAT 1 and DAT 2) .73
6.3.5.4 Process rating (PRT 1) .73
6.3.5.5 Act on results .73
6.4 Competency of assessors . 73
6.4.1 Introduction . 73
6.4.2 Gaining competency . 74
6.4.2.1 General .74
6.4.2.2 Key relationships .74
6.4.2.3 Levels of competency .75
6.4.3 Maintaining competency . 75
6.4.4 Verification of competency . 75
6.4.5 Assessor competence instructions . 76
6.4.6 Assessor experience instructions . 77
7 Process improvement . 78
7.1 Introduction . 78
7.2 Process improvement cycle . 79
7.2.1 Introduction . 79
7.2.2 Process improvement process . 80
7.2.2.1 Examine the organization’s needs and business goals  Role: (TM),
IPM .80
7.2.2.2 Initiate process improvement .81
7.2.2.3 Prepare for and conduct a process assessment Role: (see subclause
6.2) .83
7.2.2.4 Analyse assessment output and derive action plan(s) .84
7.2.2.5 Implement improvements Role: (SPIG) .89
7.2.2.6 Confirm improvements Role: (IPM), IPL, SPIG, OU, AT .90
7.2.2.7 Sustain improvements  Role: (TM), OU .90
7.2.2.8 Monitor performance  Role: (IPM), OU .90
7.2.2.9 Management of the process improvement project Role: (IPM), IPL .91
7.2.3 Roles and responsibilities. 91
7.2.3.1 Top management (TM) .91
7.2.3.2 Improvement programme manager (IPM) .92
7.2.3.3 Improvement project leader (IPL) .92
7.2.3.4 Software process improvement group (SPIG) members .92
7.2.3.5 Process owners (PO) .93
7.2.3.6 (Staff of the) Organizational unit (OU) .93
7.2.3.7 Assessment team (AT) .93
7.3 Special considerations for the success of process improvement . 93
7.3.1 Ensuring the ongoing commitment of management . 93
4

---------------------- Page: 6 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021
FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021 (E)
7.3.2 Values, attitudes and behaviour . 94
7.3.3 Short term benefits . 95
7.3.4 Collection of baseline data . 95
7.3.5 Information policy . 95
7.3.6 Select and use pilot projects . 95
7.3.7 Incremental implementation . 95
7.3.8 Training, mentoring, coaching . 95
7.3.9 Communication and teamwork . 96
7.3.10 Recognition . 96
7.4 Software process improvement failure factors . 97
7.4.1 Exclusive top-down or bottom-up improvement . 97
7.4.2 Unsuitable pilot project . 97
7.4.3 Confining to training . 97
7.4.4 Confining to CASE tools . 97
7.4.5 Confining to capability levels . 97
7.4.6 Too many promises . 97
7.4.7 Late impact . 98
7.5 Recognition of process improvement . 98
7.5.1 Introduction . 98
7.5.2 The process improvement cycle . 98
7.5.2.1 General .98
7.5.2.2 Initiate process improvement .99
7.5.2.3 Prepare for and conduct a process assessment .99
7.5.2.4 Analyse assessment output and derive action plan(s) .99
7.5.2.5 Implement improvements .99
7.5.2.6 Confirm improvements .100
7.5.2.7 Sustain improvements .100
7.5.2.8 Review improvement programme .100
7.5.2.9 Management of the process improvement project .100
8 Recognition of assessment schemes and results . 101
8.1 Introduction . 101
8.2 Recognition of assessment schemes . 101
8.2.1 General . 101
8.2.2 Recognition of the use of S4S . 101
8.2.3 Recognition of other schemes . 101
8.2.3.2 Process assessment model scope .101
8.2.3.3 Process assessment model indicators .102
8.2.3.4 Mapping process assessment models to process reference models .102
8.2.3.5 Recognition of assessment methods .102
8.3 Recognition of S4S results . 105
Annex A Examples of target profiles (informative) . 106
5

---------------------- Page: 7 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021
FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021 (E)
A.1 General . 106
A.2 Rationale behind target profiles . 106
A.3 Use of target profiles in verifying the capability of software projects or supplier
organisations . 109
Annex B Recommendations for the content of SW process assessment
outputs . 110
B.1 Assessment plan . 110
B.2 Assessment report . 115
B.3 Assessor record . 120
Annex C Bibliography . 122

Figures
Figure 1 SW life cycle processes in ECSS Standards (ECSS-E-ST-40C and ECSS-
Q-ST-80C) . 24
Figure 2 Relationship between assessment indicators and process capability. . 35
Figure 3 S4S process assessment purposes . 40
Figure 4 Process diagram notation . 41
Figure 5 The assessment process definition . 42
Figure 6 Assessment initiation. 44
Figure 7 Assessment planning . 48
Figure 8 Data acquisition . 51
Figure 9 Data validation . 52
Figure 10 Process rating . 53
Figure 11 Reporting . 55
Figure 12 Inputs to the risk management process . 58
Figure 13 Use of target and actual profiles . 58
Figure 14 Sample assessment schedule . 68
Figure 15 Example of process profile . 70
Figure 16 Demonstration and validation of assessor’s competency [ISO/IEC 15504] . 74
Figure 17 Basic organization of a certification scheme . 76
Figure 18 Process improvement cycle. 78
Figure 19 Improvement cycle . 80
Figure 20 Initiate process improvement . 81
Figure 21 Analyse assessment output and derive action plan(s) . 84
Figure 22 Suggested target profile according to software criticality . 108

6

---------------------- Page: 8 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021
FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021 (E)
Tables
Table 2 S4S set of processes . 29
Table 3 Process description components . 31
Table 4 Capability levels and process attributes . 34
Table 5 Sample target capability . 65
Table 6 Establishing a target profile . 65
Table 7 Example of assessor competence requirements . 76
Table 8 Typical improvement cycle time-scale . 83
Table A-1 : Proposed target profile . 106

7

---------------------- Page: 9 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021
FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021 (E)
European Foreword
This document (FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021) has been prepared by Technical Committee
CEN/CLC/JTC 5 “Space”, the secretariat of which is held by DIN.
It is highlighted that this technical report does not contain any requirement but only collection of data
or descriptions and guidelines about how to organize and perform the work in support of EN 16602-
80.
This Technical report (FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021) originates from ECSS-Q-HB-80-02 Part 1A.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN [and/or CENELEC] shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such
patent rights.
This document has been prepared under a mandate given to CEN by the European Commission and
the European Free Trade Association.
This document has been developed to cover specifically space systems and has therefore precedence
over any TR covering the same scope but with a wider domain of applicability (e.g.: aerospace).

This document is currently submitted to the CEN COSULTATION.
8

---------------------- Page: 10 ----------------------
kSIST-TP FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021
FprCEN/CLC/TR 17602-80-11:2021 (E)
Introduction
This handbook provides a framework for the assessment and improvement of software processes for
the European space industry and organizations, weather customers or suppliers.
The framework presented in this handbook is called SPiCE for Space (S4S). As its name already
mentions, S4S is based on SPICE (Software Process Capability dEtermination), a major international
initiative to support the development of ISO/IEC 15504. In turn, ISO/IEC 15504 provides a common
internationally recognized framework for the terminology and reference process assessment
description.
The process assessment and improvement standardization efforts within the SPICE project have tried
to be as general as possible, to be applicable to all domains, including the space domain. The space
software development processes are not substantially different from software processes in some other
application domains (e.g. defence, public transport), therefore S4S uses the material provided in
ISO/IEC 15504 ‘as is’ as much as possible.
The major benefits of using a standardized approach to process assessment and improvement are that
it can:
 lead to a common understanding of the use of process assessment for process improvement and
capability determination;
 facilitate capability determination in procurement;
 contribute to increase the efficiency and competitiveness of an organization
...