  In many domains, software systems cannot be deployed until authorities judge
them fit for use in an intended operating environment. Certification standards
and processes have been devised and deployed to regulate operations of software
systems and prevent their failures. However, practitioners are often
unsatisfied with the efficiency and value proposition of certification efforts.
In this study, we compare two certification standards, Common Criteria and
DO-178C, and collect insights from literature and from interviews with
subject-matter experts to identify design options relevant to the design of
standards. The results of the comparison of certification efforts---leading to
the identification of design dimensions that affect their quality---serve as a
framework to guide the comparison, creation, and revision of certification
standards and processes. This paper puts software engineering research in
context and discusses key issues around process and quality assurance and
includes observations from industry about relevant topics such as
recertification, timely evaluations, but also technical discussions around
model-driven approaches and formal methods. Our initial characterization of the
design space of certification efforts can be used to inform technical
discussions and to influence the directions of new or existing certification
efforts. Practitioners, technical commissions, and government can directly
benefit from our analytical framework.
