TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jerry van Dijk <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Jerry van Dijk <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:18:13 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (35 lines)
> a mistake. True only if all mechanisms in the process are 100%
> reliable and there are no "bugs" in the process. Allowing for a
> less rigid interpretation of the statement, the truth would then
> follow if experiements showed a reduction in "repeated" errors.

Without a process there is nothing to control. Ad-hoc development
means speed and flexibility (amomg other things) and a lot of time
spend on managing 'incidents', a controlled process (80/20 rule applies
here) gives less speed and less flexibility and more control and more
predictability.

When used it does show, in my experience, a reduction in errors. Note
there always will be bugs in the process. But having a process means
you can find them, take corrective measures _and_ see if your
measures worked. (Demming: Plan, Do, Check, Act).

> And finally, statement C's implication about cost does
> not even logically follow.

If you do not repeat mistakes, you only have to fix them once.

> also looking for the experimental evidence which correllates CMM
> level with low cost and high quality. Then there will need to be
> further research to indicate cause.

Changing the focus from the product to the process is a first but
important step in increasing your quality.  Before doubting this,
you might want to study some basic literature on quality control
and system enginering.

Of course, CMM, SPICE, ISO 9000, etc. are not the 'silver bullet'.
Neither is Ada. But it sure helps.

Jerry.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2