LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  March 1997

TEAM-ADA March 1997

Subject:

Improving the DoD software process (was Re: Reason for Mr. Paige's Decision Unclear)

From:

"Robert I. Eachus" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Robert I. Eachus

Date:

Fri, 14 Mar 1997 17:18:09 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (94 lines)

  Robert Firth said:

  > Will future software products delivered to the DoD be assessed for
  > reliability, maintainability, and the other *essential* -ilitites?
  > I rather think not.  I see no evidence that the DoD has any competence
  > in such assessments, nor much evidence it even realises it *needs*
  > such competence, and very badly.

  Emmett Paige said:

  > THIS ONE IS INSULTING TO A LOT OF SMART,INTELLIGENT FOLKS IN DOD THAT
  > HAVE AS MUCH EXPERIENCE AS  THE EDITOR AND MOST OF THE ADDRESSES. IT
  > STRESSES THAT THOSE WHO ARE IN DOD FOR WHATEVER REASON ARE IDIOTS WHO DO
  > NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT WE NEED OR TO TEST WHAT WE BUY.
  > I REJECT THAT NOTION FROM ANYONE...

  If anyone should be insulted by Robert Firth's comments, I should.
I work at MITRE and am expected to be a technical expert advising the
government on exactly those issues.  But I am not insulted, and in
fact I agree with Robert Firth.  Why?  I think of it as the problem of
the Emperor's New Clothes.  A lot of the people on the government side
of the table are totally blind to the software engineering issues
involved in a procurement.  As such this is not a problem, that is
what the experts are there for, in this and many other areas.  But the
area of software engineering is special in that it is not particular
subtle aspects of the product that are invisible to the untrained eye,
it is the whole garment.

    Now the people who do make the (final) decisions are intelligent
and willing to listen to good advice.  But when quality of software
engineering is only one of the factors in a procurement, and the only
one that the final decision maker cannot see, it gets deprecated
relative to other criteria.  Even when it doesn't, imagine the plight
of a color-blind Emperor whose advisors are discussing the advantages
and disadvantage of two robes, one red and one green.  He can't avoid
getting confused.

   But it gets worse.  I work daily with experts in the area of
database technology.  One or two of them are able to SEE software
engineering issues, but most are not.  On the other hand, I rely on
them for advice on database issues--I can understand the underlying
technology, but there are lots of things immediately obvious to the
database experts that are not visible to me.  Repeat for real-time,
design methodologies, requirements analysis, comm, etc.  The world of
software development has grown into many specialized fields, and no
one person can be expert in all of them.

   Now let's get back to the decision maker, who IS an expert in
program management, or radar or command and control doctrine, but at
best is capable of seeing the key issues in one area of software.  He
convenes his panel of experts, and gets six different opinions, based
on honest differences of opinion, and expertise in different domains.
He must make the decision, but has no tools to use in evaluating the
relative importance of the experts concerns on this project.  So he
makes the decision by choosing the best bid based on the criteria he
does understand.

   How do we fix this?  There is only one way, software engineering
must become a profession.  I expect that in about two years the Y2K
disasters will cause this to happen, just like boiler explosions, dam
failures, and elevator accidents caused other engineering professions
to emerge.  (And lest anyone feel insulted by this--I consider myself
a professional, as most of the other readers here are professionals,
and in many cases are recognized as such, though often not as
professional software engineers.)  But until and unless we have
customers on large projects who won't buy a system unless a
professional software engineer has signed off on the requirements, the
design, the development methodology, the maintenance plan, etc., we
will continue to have large software system buys that fail, and fail
badly.

   So Secretary Paige, if you really want to solve the problem, and I
know that you do, the best solution for the DoD is to select a set
of individuals who can sign off on software engineering plans, and
delegate to them the authority to make these judgement calls.  When
their judgement is seen to be flawed, remove them from the list.  (And
I would make such authority DoD wide.  If someone is fool enough to
sign a plan that several others have already rejected for good
reasons, he or she will be weeded out quickly.)

   If the government contracts for a road or a bridge or a building
there is a clear distinction (at least outside the DoD) between the
authority of the contracting officer to select a vendor, and the civil
engineer who signs off on the plans.  If and when the government buys
software the same way it buys bridges, the quality will increase
significantly, and both cost and failure rates will decline.


                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager