scope:

Purpose

This is the first edition of Plus 8809, Comparison of CSA Standards CAN/CSA-Q9000 3-92 and CAN/CSA-Q396.1.1-89.

CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Q9000.3-92. Quality Management and Quality Assurance Standards-Parl 3: Guidelines for the Application of ISO 9001 to the Development. Supply and Maintenance of Software deals pnmarily with situations where specific software is developed as part of a contract according to the purchaser's specifications. The concepts described may be of equal value in other situations.

CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Q396.1.1-89. Quality Assurance Program for the Development of Software Used in Critical Applications provides a measure against which a Software Quality Assurance Program r.ay be evaluated and assessed. Q396.1.1 applies to a range of software applications from both the developer's and the customer's point of view.

This Plus product provides guidance for users moving from Q396.1.1 to Q9000.3 and vice versa.

In generating this comparison table, consideration was given to comparing Q9000.3 with the set of Q396 Standards (ie, Q396.1.1. Q396.1.2. Q396.2.1. and Q396.2.2). Since the Q396 Standards were developed to address varying requirements, dependent on application, level of complexity, and s. are type (developed and off-the-shelf), they are not arranged as a "nested" set. with lov ,ier Standards being merely a subset of a higher-tier Standard. Some requirements may be common with one other of the series, but not common to all four Standards. For example, some of the postdelivery requirements for predeveloped (off-the-shelf) software (see 0396.1.2 and 0396.2.2) do not appear in the Standards for the development of software (Q396.1.1 and Q396.2.1) and vice versa. The Technical Committee agreed that such a comparison, between Q9000.3 and the four Q396 Standards, would lead to confusion when describing the differences. Since 09000.3 and Q396.1.1 place most emphasis on the most crucial phases of software production (design and development) it was concluded that the most effective comparison would be between those two documents.

Initially, the intention was to note only the differences between the requirements. However, subsequent review indicated that the comparison should provide some guidance to the reader, especially as a requirement in one document was often addressed in parts, in a number of clauses, in the other document. Further, although the requirements descriptions of the 09000.3 and Q396.1.1 documents may appear quite different, they may. when read in conjunction with a note or definition, be of the same essence (ie, comparable). 

Note that, in comparing 09000.3 and Q396.1.1, there is one important difference between these two documents. Q9000.3 is a guidance document, using the verb "should', and statements such as: *... is recommended ...", except for those clauses copied verbatim from Q9001, which required no further guidance (in which case, "shall" is used). Q396.1.1 is a Standard and uses the verb "shall* throughout the document. Therefore, although Q9000.3 may request a higher degree or level of requirements, most of the "requirements" are optional, whereas 0396.1.1's requirements are not optional-they must be fulfilled in order to achieve compliance with the Standard. Any statement to the effect that one document was more stnngent than the other, was purposely avoided, because of the fact that Q9000.3 is a guideline and not a Standard.

This Plus product was prepared by the CSA Technical Committee on Software Quality Assurance under the junsdiction of the Standards Steering Committee on Quality Management.

Notes:

(1) Use ot the singular does not exclude the plural (and vice versa) when the sense allows.

(2) Although the intended primary application of this Standard is stated in as Scope, it is important to note that it remains the responsibility of the users of the Standard to judge its suitability tor their particular purpose.

(3) CSA Standards are subject to periodic review, and suggestions for their improvement wifi be referred to the appropriate committee.

(4) All enquiries regarding this Standard, including requests for interpretation, should be addressed to Canadian Standards Association, Standards Development, 178 Rexdale Boulevard. Rexdale, Ontario M9W lR3.

Requests for interpretation should

(a) define the problem, making reference to the specific clause, and. where appropriate, include an illustrative sketch;

(b) provide an explanation ot circumstances surrounding the actual field condition; and

(c) be phrased where possible to permit a specific "yes' or *no* answer.

Interpretations are published in CSA's periodical Into Update. For subscrption details, write to CSA Sales Promotion, Into Update, at the address g,ven above.