The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.04 - October-December (2010 vol.32)
pp: 32-47
Christopher McDonald , Princeton University
ABSTRACT
<p>From the 1970s to 1990s, the US Department of Defense attempted to enforce software standards on its computer and aerospace contractors. Many software developers resented this and believed it encroached on their freedom to exercise professional judgment. Although the contractors oriented much of their software production toward military needs, the effort's ultimate failure showed the limits of the DoD's control.</p>
INDEX TERMS
History of computing, requirements/specifications, software standards, software engineering, US Department of Defense, MIL-STD-1679, DOD-STD-2167
CITATION
Christopher McDonald, "From Art Form to Engineering Discipline? A History of US Military Software Development Standards, 1974-1998", IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, vol.32, no. 4, pp. 32-47, October-December 2010, doi:10.1109/MAHC.2009.58
REFERENCES
1. For other examples of standards debates that are also debates about professional autonomy, see S. Shapiro, "Degrees of Freedom: The Interaction of Standards of Practice and Engineering Judgment," Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol. 22, no. 3, 1997, pp. 286–316, and M. Tierney, "The Evolution of Def Stan 00-55: A Socio-History of a Design Standard for Safety Critical Software," Social Dimensions of Systems Engineering: People, Processes, Policies, and Software Development, Paul Quintas, ed., Ellis Horwood, 1993, pp. 111–143.
2. G. Hooks, Forging the Military-Industrial Complex: World War II's "Battle of the Potomac," Univ. of Illinois Press, 1991.
3. S.W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford, Columbia Univ. Press, 1993; P. Forman, "Behind Quantum Electronics: Nat'l Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940–1960," Historical Studies of the Physical and Biological Sciences, vol. 18, no. 1, 1987, pp. 149–229.
4. A.L. Russell, "'Industrial Legislatures': Consensus Standardization in the Second and Third Industrial Revolutions," doctoral thesis, Johns Hopkins Univ., 2007.
5. F.W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper Bros., 1911.
6. G. Mouradian, The Quality Revolution: A History of the Quality Movement, Univ. Press of America, 2002, pp. 1, 87–94.
7. M.R. Smith, Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology: The Challenge of Change, Cornell Univ. Press, 1977, pp. 106–107.
8. House Committee on Government Operations, Defense Standardization Program, 85th Congress, 1st session, 1957, House of Representatives 822, pp. 1–2.
9. "The Department of Defense's Standardization Program for Military Computers—A More Unified Effort Is Needed," US General Accounting Office, 1980, appendix I.
10. J.L. Lamprecht, Quality and Power in the Supply Chain: What Industry Does for the Sake of Quality, Newnes, 2000, pp. 101–102. The ISO 9000 family of quality standards is a descendent of MIL-Q-9858.
11. C. Lécuyer, Making Silicon Valley: Innovation and Growth of High Tech, 1930–1970, MIT Press, 2006, p. 340.
12. J.P. Klass, "Reliability Is Essential Minuteman Goal," Aviation Week,19 Oct. 1959, pp. 69–79; P.E. Ceruzzi, A History of Modern Computing, 2nd ed., MIT Press, 2003, pp. 181–182.
13. N.L. Ensmenger, "From 'Black Art' to Industrial Discipline: The Software Crisis and the Management of Programmers," doctoral thesis, Univ. of Pennsylvania, 2001, pp. 12–43.
14. Ensmenger's "From 'Black Art' to Industrial Discipline," pp. 1–2, 92.
15. M. Campbell-Kelly, From Airline Reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog: A History of the Software Industry, MIT Press, 2003, p. 39.
16. The Military Software Market in the U.S., Frost & Sullivan, 1979, pp. 1, 54–55.
17. Frost & Sullivan's The Military Software Market, pp. 72–80.
18. Frost & Sullivan's The Military Software Market, p. 54.
19. J.M. Howell, "A Software Evaluation: Results and Recommendations," Proc. Ann. Reliability and Maintainability Symp., IEEE Press, 1983, p. 116.
20. Electronics Industries Assoc., "DoD Digital Processing Study: A Ten Year Forecast," Final Report of the Joint Logistics Commanders' Workshop on Post Deployment Software Support for Mission-Critical Computer Software, vol. II, 1984, pp. A1–A60.
21. Ensmenger's "From 'Black Art' to Industrial Discipline," pp. 92–93.
22. M.S. Mahoney, "Finding a History for Software Engineering," IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, vol. 26, no. 1, 2004, pp. 8, 11–15.
23. B.W. Boehm, "Software Engineering," IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 25, no. 12, 1976, p. 1227. In "The History of Myth No. 1," Datamation, May 1983, p. 252, Werner L. Frank claims that he originated the graph in 1968. W.L. Frank, "Software for Terminal Oriented Systems," Datamation, June 1968, pp. 30-36.
24. Boehm's "Software Engineering," p. 1227. Boehm's graph actually varies slightly from the basic waterfall; it has arrows pointing backward from each step to the previous one. This allows for iterative modification of the requirements, for example, based on the design. The waterfall image probably first appeared in W.W. Royce, "Managing the Development of Large Software Systems," , Proc. IEEE Western Electronic Show and Convention, IEEE Press, 1970, pp. 1–9.
25. J.D. Cooper, "Development of MIL-STD-1679," Proc. Software Eng. Standards Application Workshop, IEEE CS Press, 1981, p. 139.
26. J.D. Cooper, "MIL-STD-1679 (NAVY)," Proc. Ann. Reliability and Maintainability Symp., IEEE Press, 1979, pp. 352–355.
27. Boehm's "Software Engineering," p. 1231.
28. J.D. Cooper, "MIL-STD-1679, Weapon System Software Development," J. Systems and Software, vol. 2, 1981, pp. 319–327.
29. O.-J. Dahl, E.W. Dijkstra, and C.A.R. Hoare, Structured Programming, Academic Press, 1972.
30. E.W. Dijkstra, "Letters to the Editor: Go To Statement Considered Harmful," Comm. ACM, vol. 11, no. 3, 1968, pp. 147–148.
31. Cooper's "MIL-STD-1679, Weapon System Software Development," pp. 324–325.
32. Some computer jobs, such as low-level coding and testing, were of lower status, but managers perceived computer experts as possessed of enough status to potentially threaten their own. See Ensmenger's "From 'Black Art' to Industrial Discipline," p. 94.
33. Cooper's "Development of MIL-STD-1679," pp. 140–141.
34. G.N. Fostel, "Principles of Software Standardization," Proc. Software Eng. Standards Application Workshop, IEEE CS Press, 1981, pp. 132–133.
35. R.L. Glass, "Standards for Standards Writers," Proc. Software Eng. Standards Application Workshop, IEEE CS Press, 1981, pp. 144, 147.
36. Ensmenger's "From 'Black Art' to Industrial Discipline," pp. 174–247.
37. P. Kraft, Programmers and Managers: The Routinization of Computer Programming in the United States, Springer-Verlag, 1977, pp. 95–96.
38. Cooper,'s "MIL-STD-1679 (NAVY)," p. 352.
39. P.M. Roddy and E. Lieblein, "Chairman's Summary, Session 4, Development Issues," Proc. DARCOM Tactical Computer Software Conf., US Army, 1978, pp. 670–672.
40. T. Bergin, "HOPL II- Closing Panel: The History of Programming: Does Our Present Past Have a Future?" ACM Sigplan Notices, vol. 32, no. 9, 1997, p. 31.
41. Cooper's "MIL-STD-1679 (NAVY)," pp. 352–353.
42. D.L. Parnas, "On the Criteria to Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules," Comm. ACM, vol. 15, no. 12, 1972, pp. 1053–1058.
43. Cooper's "Development of MIL-STD-1679," p. 142.
44. J.A. Dobbins and R.D. Buck, "Software Quality in the 80's," Proc. Trends & Applications, IEEE Press, 1981, p. 32.
45. M.C. Libicki, Information Technology Standards: Quest for the Common Byte, Digital Press, 1995, pp. 14–16.
46. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the JLC consisted of the Naval Material Command (NMC), the Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC), the Air Force Systems Command (AFSC), and the Army Material Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM).
47. Joint Technical Coordinating Group on Electronics Equipment Reliability, "Final Report of the Joint Logistics Commanders Electronics Systems Reliability Workshop," US Dept. of Defense, 1975, pp. 52–53.
48. D.A. Herrelko and D. Denton, "Software Standardization and MIL-STD-1750," Proc. IEEE 1980 Nat'l Aerospace and Electronics Conf., IEEE Press, 1980, p. 880; J.J. Marciniak, "A Perspective on Military Software Standardization Efforts," Proc. 2nd Software Eng. Standards Application Workshop, IEEE CS Press, 1983, p. 19; US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, "SDI: Technology, Survivability, and Software," US Government Printing Office, 1988, p. 221.
49. L. Cooper, J. Radatz, and R. Butler, "DoD Develops Single Set of Software Quality Standards," Proc. IEEE/AIAA 7th Digital Avionics Systems Conf., IEEE Press, 1986, p. 778.
50. The DoD created a parallel standard in 1983, DOD-STD-7935, for non-embedded software, followed in 1988 by its successor: DOD-STD-7935A, DOD Automated Information Systems (AIS) Documentation Standards, US Dept. of Defense, 1988, p. i. There is very little discussion of these standards in the computing literature; almost all attention was focused on their more glamorous ECS counterparts.
51. Marciniak's "A Perspective on Military Software Standardization Efforts," p. 20.
52. DOD-STD-2167, Defense System Software Development, US Dept. of Defense, 1985, pp. 11, 16, 71–76. The acronyms included CSCIs (Computer Software Configuration Items), CSCs (Computer Software Components), TLCSCs (Top-Level CSCs), and LLCSCs (Lower-Level CSCs).
53. A.D. Schuman, "The New Software Documentation Standard: Report on the Joint Logistic Commanders Joint Policy Coordinating Group on Computer Resource Management, Computer Software Management Subgroup, Software Workshop," J. Systems and Software, vol. 2, 1986, pp. 329–331.
54. DOD-STD-2167, p. 1.
55. DOD-STD-2167, pp. iii, 4.
56. DOD-STD-2167, pp. 77–89.
57. D.S. Maibor and L. Cooper, "A Position Paper on the DoD Software Standardization Effort," Proc. 3rd Software Eng. Standards Application Workshop, IEEE CS Press, 1984, p. 10.
58. M.H. Penedo and A. Pyster, "Software Engineering Standards for TRW's Software Productivity Project," Proc. 2nd Software Eng. Standards Application Workshop, IEEE CS Press, 1983, pp. 164-169.
59. Proc. Joint Logistics Commanders Joint Policy Coordinating Group on Computer Resource Management Computer Software Management Subgroup Software Workshop, Dept. of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, 1979, p. 8.
60. P. Coad, Jr., "DOD-STD-2167, Defense System Software Development: Point, Counterpoint and Revision A," Proc. Computer Standards Conf., IEEE Press, 1988, p. 48; L. Gray, "No One Needs DOD-STD-2167A's CSCs and CSUs," Proc. 10th Ann. Washington Ada Symp., ACM Press, 1993, p. 125.
61. G. McFarland, "The Benefits of Bottom-Up Design," ACM Sigsoft Software Eng. Notes, vol. 11, no. 5, 1986, pp. 45, 47.
62. D.G. Firesmith and C.B. Gilyeat, "Resolution of Ada-Related Concerns in DOD-STD-2167, Revision A," ACM SIGAda Ada Letters, vol. 6, no. 5, 1986, pp. 30-31.
63. F.P. Brooks, "No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering," Computer, vol. 20, no. 4, 1987, pp. 17–18; D.L. Parnas, and P.C. Clements, "A Rational Design Process: How and Why to Fake It," IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 12, no. 2, 1986, pp. 251–257; B.W. Boehm, "A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement," ACM Sigsoft Software Eng. Notes, vol. 11, no. 4, 1986, pp. 14–24.
64. For an overview of mid-1980s critiques on the waterfall, see C. Larman and V.R. Basili, "Iterative and Incremental Development: A Brief History," Computer, vol. 36, no. 6, 2003, pp. 51–53.
65. Defense Science Board, "Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Military Software," US Dept. of Defense, 1987, p. 3.
66. Firesmith and Gilyeat's "Resolution of Ada-Related Concerns in DOD-STD-2167, Revision A," p. 31.
67. Cooper's "Development of MIL-STD-1679," p. 141.
68. D.G. Firesmith, "Should the DoD Mandate a Standard Software Development Process?" Proc. Joint 5th Nat'l Conf. Ada Technology and 4th Washington Ada Symp., George Washington Univ., 1987, p. 160.
69. Firesmith's "Should the DoD Mandate a Standard Software Development Process?" p. 167.
70. P. Abrahams, "Specifications and Illusions," Comm. ACM, vol. 31, no. 5, 1988, p. 480.
71. L.M. Elerin and P.A. Ledin, "Using DoD-STD-2167 for Expert Systems Development: The EMMA Experience." Proc. 7th AIAA Computers in Aerospace Conf., tech. papers, part 2, American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1989, p. 670.
72. DOD-STD-2167A, Defense System Software Development, US Dept. of Defense, 1988, pp. iii, 35–36, 41–44.
73. Larman and Basili's "Iterative and Incremental Development: A Brief History," p. 52.
74. MIL-STD-498, Software Development and Documentation, US Dept. of Defense, 1994, p. 56; P.A. Szulewski and D.S. Maibor, "MIL-STD-498: What's New, and Some Real Lessons Learned," Proc. 14th Digital Avionics Systems Conf., IEEE Press, 1995, pp. 130–131.
75. W.J. Perry, "Specifications & Standards—A New Way of Doing Business," memorandum for secretaries of the Military Depts., 29 Jun. 1994.
76. J.W. Moore, P.R. DeWeese, and D. Rilling, "U.S. Software Lifecycle Process Standards." STSC CrossTalk, vol. 10, no. 7, 1997; http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/frames.asp?uri=1997/ 07lifecycle.asp.
77. Ensmenger's "From 'Black Art' to Industrial Discipline," pp. 5–7; Kraft's Programmers and Managers, pp. 95–96.
78. Russell's "'Industrial Legislatures,'" pp. 18–19.
79. W.E. Carlson, "Software Research in the Department of Defense," Proc. 2nd Int'l Conf. Software Eng., IEEE CS Press, 1976, p. 379.
80. Defense Science Board, "Report of the Defense Science Task Force on Defense Software," US Dept. of Defense, 2000, p. ES-1.
36 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool