Sparx Systems Forum

Discussion => Uml Process => Topic started by: Tjerk on January 03, 2003, 01:16:51 am

Title: Mil-Std-498 / J-Std-016
Post by: Tjerk on January 03, 2003, 01:16:51 am
Hi process-gurus ;),

Did any of you document your object oriented development using the Mil-Std-498 / J-Std-016? We're currenlty working on the integration of EA with our documentation standard derived from those two standards and I'm interested in experiences related to that issue.

Some links on Mil-Std-498 / J-Std-016:

If I find some more time, I will contribute to other discussions on software processes.

Title: Re: Mil-Std-498 / J-Std-016
Post by: Steve_Straley on January 03, 2003, 06:24:15 am

From what I could see, this appears to be similar to Six Sigma!

Title: Re: Mil-Std-498 / J-Std-016
Post by: Tjerk on January 06, 2003, 01:38:35 am
Hi Steve,

Thanks, that is new information to me! Haven't had the time to look at Six Sigma, I guess I will take a look at that. Do you know whether or not Six Sigma is a company owned implementation / derived version of Mil-Std-498 / J-Std-016?

What do you recommand as my first reading on Six Sigma? Looking for an abstract and main structure overview.

Title: Re: Mil-Std-498 / J-Std-016
Post by: Steve_Straley on January 06, 2003, 05:55:31 am

Six Sigma was originally, as I understand it, by Motorola.  It has since been developed as a separate "thing" and used by several companies including Johnson & Johnson and GE.   You can do a GOOGLE search on Six Sigma to see a TON of resources.

As a side note, once we get our suite of products finished, we will be teaching, consulting and offering Six Sigma and UP white papers to provide a complete process.

Title: Re: Mil-Std-498 / J-Std-016
Post by: dsg on April 14, 2003, 12:11:48 pm

I have a reasonable amont of experiace of ISO/IEEE 12207/ Mil std 498 and J-std 016. I know nothing of 6 sigma

Mill 496 is basically the US DOD version of J-STD-016. If your worried about what your documentation looks like then you probably have little to fear. It contains the usual set of DIDS and there are some templates around if you want to follow them.

One of the change between it and its predecessors is that it attempts to allow RAD style development but dating back to the mid 90's things have moved in and what was RAD is no longer that rapid and it still tends to assume a certain amount of waterfall or V life cycle development

The thing to watch out for is how you do and what you include in your PDR and CDR. These were originally intended as presentations of completed requirements and architecture in true water fashion. Its is possible to adapt these with a little customer cooperation and the whole thing can work quite well with iterations of around 2 weeks or more. I think Bruce Powell Douglass wrote and interesting paper on this and how to avoid it. You can probably find a copy at somewhere

for general musings on standards etc Check out :- is also worth looking at as is

for ISO 12207 see  Leiws Gray stuff at abelia corp. ( is worth a read among others :)