Potential suppliers of software artefacts for the CESSDA technical research infrastructure. In the first instance, the CESSDA Service Providers, but potentially any software development organisation.
This document was created so that readers interested in CESSDA’s Software Maturity Levels (SMLs) can find out more about the various attributes, levels and expectations that underpin them.
Usability is not only a political imperative of European Research Infrastructure Consortiums’ need to maximise their return on investment, but is also essential for growth with limited funds and ongoing interoperability.
Mandating and checking the sustainability/usability of the software components of CESSDA’s technical Research Infrastructure is essential if it is to strengthen and grow, however there are always risks attached, for example: how much effort is required to integrate it into the current technical framework, how will it be maintained, does it conform to the standards required? Therefore the need to measure the maturity of software designed for use by CESSDA is essential to ensure the quality of the technical Research Infrastructure is maintained.
This document lays out an approach for assessing the maturity of the components of the technical Research Infrastructure (RI), so that over time CESSDA can mandate minimum levels that Service Providers (SPs) and others have to meet as a prerequisite to supplying software artefacts for the RI.
Mandating the sustainability/usability of the software components of the technical Research Infrastructure is essential if CESSDA is to strengthen and grow. There are risks attached to adopting software systems and components, for example: how much effort is required to integrate it into the current technical framework?, how will it be maintained?, does it conform to the standards required? Therefore the need to measure the maturity of software used within CESSDA is essential to ensure the quality of the technical Research Infrastructure is maintained. Reuse Readiness Levels RRLs, as developed by NASA Earth Science Data Systems, form the basis upon which the CESSDA software Maturity Assessment CMA qualities are made. Usability is not only a political imperative of research infrastructures as they need to demonstrate a return on investment, but is also essential for growth with limited funds and ongoing interoperability.
The measurement of maturity can be achieved in various ways. Services use Capability Maturity Modelling within Service Management framework such as FitSM. A method commonly used for technology is the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) scale. However this does not address usability, which is essential for the development of CESSDA’s technical Research Infrastructure. RRLs address this gap in the assessment of the maturity of software artefacts. Note that the EU adopted TRLs as part of the H2020 programme and both FitSM and TRLs have been subsequently adopted by the EOSC, which mandates that TRL Level 8 is the minimum acceptable for a system to be considered production-ready by them. Interestingly, both RRLs and TRLs were devised by and are widely used by NASA.
Table 1 shows the correspondence between the various levels in the RRL and SML scales. Given that one of CESSDA’s goals is to have its tools and services listed in the EOSC portal, the requirements imposed by CESSDA will be continuously adopted to ensure compliance.
|Reuse Readiness Levels
|CESSDA Software maturity levels
|RRL1 - Limited reusability; not recommended for reuse. RRL2 - Initial reusability; reuse not practical
|SML1 - Initial usability; software use is not recommended.
|RRL3 - Basic reusability; might be reusable by skilled users at substantial effort, cost, and risk. RRL4 - Reuse is possible; might be reused by most users with some effort, cost, and risk.
|SML2 - Use is feasible; the software can be used by skilled personnel but with considerable effort, cost and risk. Assessment of effort, cost and risk shall be made before use is attempted.
|RRL5 - Reuse is possible; might be reused by most users with some effort, cost, and risk.
|SML3 - Use is possible by most users; with some effort, cost, and risk. A risk assessment should be made before use.
|RRL6 - Software is reusable; the software can be reused by most users although there may be some cost and risk. RRL7 - Software is highly reusable; the software can be reused by most users with minimum cost and risk.
|SML4 - Software is usable; with little effort, cost, and risk.
|RRL8 - Demonstrated local reusability; the software has been reused by multiple users. RRL9 - Demonstrated extensive reusability; the software is being reused by many classes of users over a wide range of systems.
|SML5 - Demonstrable usability; there is clear evidence that the software is widely used by many users.
Table 1: Correspondence of levels in RRL and SML scales
The software maturity levels provide guidance on what minimum, expected and excellent standards for each of CMA qualities. These will be used to evaluate the products produced by SPs and any other development organisation.
Table of contents
- CMA1: Documentation
- CMA2: Intellectual Property
- CMA3: Extensibility
- CMA4: Modularity
- CMA5: Packaging
- CMA6: Portability
- CMA7: Standards Compliance
- CMA8: Maintenance
- CMA9: Verification and Testing
- CMA10: Security
- CMA11: Internationalisation and Localisation
- CMA12: Authentication and Authorisation