closed as off topic by Jarrod Roberson, Glenn Nelson, Dynamic, Walter, Loki Astari Jan 6 at 16:21
Questions on Programmers Stack Exchange are expected to relate to software development within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.
My experience, knowledge and what I've heard is:
|show 2 more comments|
Other than at the highest levels of safety criticality, the incremental costs of developing in accordance with SWEBOK/ISO12207/etc are negligible over not - providing that you embrace the standards as they are intended to be adopted.
Too often, the paperwork is done as an afterthought, therefore becomes pure-and-simple overhead.
But to directly answer the question (as its stands now) any regulated software (therefore aerospace, medical and automotive, as examples) should be standards compliant - and increasingly they are.
Standards compliance is clearly more relevant when the through-life cost (as opposed to short-term outlook) is considered, although there is still a certain amount of seemingly unnecessary box-ticking (for audit and should the air-con get polluted, retrospective enquiry purposes)
So-called "commercial" development appears to be less so rigorous, although the regulatory aspects of (eg) financial services may well see this having to change.
However, as Blrfl commented, standards are only there to provide process/procedural and/or technical guidelines: and the process is only ever as good as the information available, and most importantly the quality/capability of the people actually doing the work - and their understanding of the task in hand.
An important aspect of most standards is that they deal with the Competence of staff - and such aspects as training and qualification. This is one area that many companies neglect.
|show 1 more comment|