Category: Team Software Process (TSP)

As recent news headlines about Shellshock, Sony, Anthem, and Target have demonstrated, software vulnerabilities are on the rise. The U.S. General Accounting Office in 2013 reported that "operational vulnerabilities have increased 780 percent over the past six years." These vulnerabilities can be hard and expensive to eradicate, especially if introduced during the design phase. One issue is that design defects exist at a deeper architectural level and thus can be hard to find and address. Although coding-related vulnerabilities are preventable and detectable, until recently scant attention has been paid to vulnerabilities arising from requirements and design defects.

As software continues to grow in size and complexity, software programmers continue to make mistakes during development. These mistakes can result in defects in software products and can cause severe damage when the software goes into production. Through the Personal Software Process (PSP), the Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute has long advocated incorporating discipline and quantitative measurement into the software engineer's initial development work to detect and eliminate defects before the product is delivered to users. This blog post presents an approach for incorporating formal methods with PSP, in particular, Verified Design by Contract, to reduce the number of defects earlier in the software development lifecycle while preserving or improving productivity.

The Heartbleed bug, a serious vulnerability in the Open SSL crytographic software library, enables attackers to steal information that, under normal conditions, is protected by the Secure Socket Layer/Transport Layer Security(SSL/TLS) encryption used to secure the internet. Heartbleed and its aftermath left many questions in its wake:

  • Would the vulnerability have been detected by static analysis tools?
  • If the vulnerability has been in the wild for two years, why did it take so long to bring this to public knowledge now?
  • Who is ultimately responsible for open-source code reviews and testing?
  • Is there anything we can do to work around Heartbleed to provide security for banking and email web browser applications?

As part of an ongoing effort to keep you informed about our latest work, I would like to let you know about some recently published SEI technical reports and notes. These reports highlight the latest work of SEI technologists in systems of systems integration from an architectural perspective, unintentional insider threat that derives from social engineering, identifying physical security gaps in international mail processing centers and similar facilities, countermeasures used by cloud service providers, the Team Software Process (TSP), and key automation and analysis techniques. This post includes a listing of each report, author(s), and links where the published reports can be accessed on the SEI website.

As part of an ongoing effort to keep you informed about our latest work, I'd like to let you know about some recently published SEI technical reports and notes. These reports highlight the latest work of SEI technologists in information assurance and agile, the Team Software Process (TSP), CERT secure coding standards, resource allocation, fuzzing, cloud computing interoperability, and cloud computing at the tactical edge. This post includes a listing of each report, author(s), and links where the published reports can be accessed on the SEI website.

This post is the third and final installment in a three-part series that explains how Nedbank, one of the largest banks in South Africa, is rolling out the SEI's Team Software Process (TSP) throughout its IT organization. In the first post of this series, I examined how Nedbank addressed issues of quality and productivity among its software engineering teams using TSP at the individual and team level. In the second post, I discussed how the SEI worked with Nedbank to address challenges with expanding and scaling the use of TSP at an organizational level. In this post, I first explore challenges common to many organizations seeking to improve performance and become more agile and conclude by demonstrating how SEI researchers addressed these challenges in the TSP rollout at Nedbank.

This post is the second installment in a three-part series that explains how Nedbank, one of the largest banks in South Africa, is rolling out the SEI's Team Software Process (TSP)--a disciplined and agile software process improvement method--throughout its IT organization. In the first postof this series, I examined how Nedbank addressed issues of quality and productivity among its software engineering teams using TSP at the individual and team level. In this post, I will discuss how the SEI worked with Nedbank to address challenges with expanding and scaling the use of TSP at an organizational level.

While agile methods have become popular in commercial software development organizations, the engineering disciplines needed to apply agility to mission-critical, software-reliant systems are not as well defined or practiced. To help bridge this gap, the SEI recently hosted the Agile Research Forum. The event brought together researchers and practitioners from around the world to discuss when and how to best apply agile methods in mission-critical environments found in government and many industries.

In his book Drive, Daniel Pink writes that knowledge workers want autonomy, purpose, and mastery in their work. A big problem with any change in processes is getting the people who do the work to change how they work. Too often, people are told what to do instead of being given the information, autonomy, and authority to analyze and adopt the new methods for themselves. This posting--the first in a two-part series--describes a case study that shows how Team Software Process (TSP) principles allowed developers at a large bank to address challenges, improve their productivity, and thrive in an agile environment.

In my preceding blog post, I promised to provide more examples highlighting the importance of software sustainmentin the US Department of Defense (DoD). My focus is on certain configurations of weapons systems that are no longer in production for the United States Air Force, but are expected to remain a key component of our defense capability for decades to come, and thus software upgrade cycles need to refresh capabilities every 18 to 24 months. Throughout this series on efficient and effective software sustainment, I will highlight examples from each branch of the military. This second blog post describes effective sustainment engineering efforts in the Air Force, using examples from across the service's Air Logistics Centers (ALCs).

The SEI has been actively engaged in defining and studying high maturity software engineering practices for several years. Levels 4 and 5 of the CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration) are considered high maturity and are predominantly characterized by quantitative improvement. This blog posting briefly discusses high maturity and highlights several recent works in the area of high maturity measurement and analysis, motivated in part by a recent comment on a Jan. 30 postasking about the latest research in this area. I've also included links where the published research can be accessed on the SEI website.

We use the SEI Blog to inform you about the latest work at the SEI, so this week I'm summarizing some video presentations recently posted to the SEI website from the SEI Technologies Forum. This virtual event held in late 2011 brought together participants from more than 50 countries to engage with SEI researchers on a sample of our latest work, including cloud computing, insider threat, Agile development, software architecture, security, measurement, process improvement, and acquisition dynamics. This post includes a description of all the video presentations from the first event, along with links where you can view the full presentations on the SEI website.

Bursatec, the technology arm of Groupo Bolsa Mexicana de Valores (BMV, the Mexican Stock Exchange), recently embarked on a project to replace three existing trading engines with one system developed in house. Given the competitiveness of global financial markets and recent interest in Latin American economies, Bursatec needed a reliable and fast new system that could work ceaselessly throughout the day and handle sharp fluctuations in trading volume. To meet these demands, the SEI suggested combining elements of its Architecture Centric Engineering (ACE) method, which requires effective use of software architecture to guide system development, with its Team Software Process (TSP), which teaches software developers the skills they need to make and track plans and produce high-quality products. This posting--the first in a two-part series--describes the challenges Bursatec faced and outlines how working with the SEI and combining ACE with TSP helped them address those challenges.