Applying Standard Independent Verification and Validation (IVV) Techniques Within an Agile Framework: Is There a Compatibility Issue?

Agile methods have gained wide acceptance over the past several years, to the point that they are now a standard management and execution approach for small-scale software development projects. While conventional Agile methods are not generally applicable to large multi-year and mission-critical systems, Agile hybrids are now being developed (such as SAFe) to exploit the productivity improvements of Agile while retaining the necessary process rigor and coordination needs of these projects. From the perspective of Independent Verification and Validation (IVV), however, the adoption of these hybrid Agile frameworks is becoming somewhat problematic. Hence, we find it prudent to question the compatibility of conventional IVV techniques with (hybrid) Agile practices.This paper documents our investigation of (a) relevant literature, (b) the modification and adoption of Agile frameworks to accommodate the development of large scale, mission critical systems, and (c) the compatibility of standard IVV techniques within hybrid Agile development frameworks. Specific to the latter, we found that the IVV methods employed within a hybrid Agile process can be divided into three groups: (1) early lifecycle IVV techniques that are fully compatible with the hybrid lifecycles, (2) IVV techniques that focus on tracing requirements, test objectives, etc. are somewhat incompatible, but can be tailored with a modest effort, and (3) IVV techniques involving an assessment requiring artifact completeness that are simply not compatible with hybrid Agile processes, e.g., those that assume complete requirement specification early in the development lifecycle

SpineCor treatment for Juvenile Idiopathic Scoliosis: SOSORT award 2010 winner

<p>Introduction</p> <p>Juvenile idiopathic scoliosis is a condition used to describe patients who are least 4 years of age but younger than 10 when the deformity is first identified. In these patients, the condition is usually progressive and those that are diagnosed at five years or younger have a high chance of progression to a large curve, with additional pulmonary and cardiac complications. The main form of conservative treatment for juvenile scoliosis is the use of a bracing system. This prospective interventional study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the Dynamic SpineCor orthosis for juvenile idiopathic scoliosis as well as to evaluate the stability of the spine after the weaning point.</p> <p>Material and Methods</p> <p>For this study, 150 juvenile patients were treated by the SpineCor orthosis between 1993 and 2009. Of these, 67 patients had a definite outcome and 83 are still actively being treated. To determine the effectiveness of the brace the <b>OUTCOME </b>criteria recommended by the SRS was used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The results from our study showed that of the 67 patients with a definite outcome, 32.9% corrected their Cobb angle by at least 5° and 10.5% had a stabilization of their Cobb angle. Within the patients with a definite outcome, 37.3% of patients where recommended for surgery before authorized end of treatment. For this group of patients, surgery was postponed. Looking at the stability of the curves 2 years after the end of the treatment, we found 12.5% of the patients continued their correction without the brace being used and 71.4% remained stable.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p><b>From our study we can clearly see that the effectiveness of the SpineCor orthosis in obtaining and maintaining the neuromuscular integration of the corrective movement can be achieved effectively for juvenile patients</b>. Over 75% of all patients that finished the treatment had remained stable with a few continuing to correct their Cobb angle after the use of the SpineCor orthosis was discontinued.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our conclusion from this study is that the SpineCor orthosis is a very effective method of treatment of juvenile idiopathic scoliosis. The results obtained also indicate that treatment outcomes are better with early bracing. Most encouraging perhaps is the fact that the positive outcome appears to be maintained in the long term, and that surgery can be avoided or at least postponed.</p

Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East

We report genome-wide ancient DNA from 44 ancient Near Easterners ranging in time between ~12,000 and 1,400 BC, from Natufian hunter–gatherers to Bronze Age farmers. We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages before their separation from each other. The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from local hunter–gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter–gatherers of Europe to greatly reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into East Africa; farmers related to those of Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia

Anticipating and Mitigating The Professional Challenge to Independent Verification and Validation

Independent Verification and Validation faces three classes of challenges: the Technical Challenge, the Management Challenge, and the Professional Challenge. In this paper we focus on the Professional Challenge, and, in particular, the four phases that characterize it: Denial, Anger, Cooperation and Dependence. We believe that to implement an effective IV&V effort, one must understand the relationship among the phases and the critical issues underlying them. For each of the phases we (a) provide a characteristic description, (b) discuss how they affect the IV&V effort, (c) present representative issues and examples, and (d) describe steps to reduce the adverse impact of the three detrimental phases. The examples provided are those we have encountered while serving in an IV&V capacity; "lessons learned" guide our suggestions for addressing phase-specific issues

Verification and Validation: What Impact Should Project Size and Complexity Have on Attendant V&V Activities and Supporting Infrastructure?

The size and complexity of Modeling and Simulation (M&S) application continue to grow at a significant rate. The focus of this panel is to examine the impact that such growth should have on attendant Verification and Validation (V&V) activities. Two prominent considerations guiding the panel discussion are: (1) Extending the current M&S development objectives to include quality characteristics like maintainability, reliability, and reusability -- the current modus operandi focuses primarily on correctness, and (2) Recognizing the necessity and benefits of tailoring V&V activities commensurate with the size of the project, i.e., one size does not fit all. In this paper we provide six questions and four sets of responses to those questions. These questions and responses are intended to foster additional thought and discussion on topics crucial to the synthesis of quality M&S applications