THANKS AND I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH YOUR VIEWS IN GENERAL.
DR EBERHARD RECHTIN , THE FIRST PERSON TO HOLD THIS JOB BACK IN ABOUT
1972 , SHARES YOUR  TO A LARGE EXTENT ABOUT THE SOFTWARE ENGINEERS.
 ----------
From: [log in to unmask]
To: Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I +; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]
Cc: Brown, Linda, , OSD/C3I; Rand, Cynthia, , OSD/C3I +; Soos, James,
Dr., OSD/C3I +; Castor, Virginia, Ms,OUSD/AT;
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; DoD Software Roundtable;
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; Clyde Roby
Subject: Re[2]: Reason for Mr. Paige's Decision Unclear
Date: Friday, March 21, 1997 9:08AM


From: [log in to unmask]
To:  Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I +
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
Cc:  Brown, Linda, , OSD/C3I
     Rand, Cynthia, , OSD/C3I +
     Soos, James, Dr., OSD/C3I +
     Castor, Virginia, Ms,OUSD/AT
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     DoD Software Roundtable
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     [log in to unmask]
     Clyde Roby
Subject:  Re[2]: Reason for Mr. Paige's Decision Unclear
Date: 1997-03-21 09:08
Priority: 3
Message ID: 4E0377EDD6A1D0119AD60020AFA46A86
Attachments:
     forpaige.doc
Received: from OPAL.SPAWAR.NAVY.MIL by dddc001.osd.mil with SMTP
(Microsoft
Exchange Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63)
        id GR6PXAVD; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:11:03 -0500
Received: from smtp-gw.spawar.navy.mil by opal.spawar.navy.mil
(5.x/SMI-SVR4)
        id AA10783; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:11:12 -0500
Received: from ccMail by smtp-gw.spawar.navy.mil
  (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 33294560; Fri, 21 Mar 97 08:59:50
-0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:08:38 -0500
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask] (Currie Colket)
To: [log in to unmask],
        "Paige; Emmett Jr.; ; OSD/C3I +" <[log in to unmask]>,
        [log in to unmask] (Currie Colket)
Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
        [log in to unmask] (#SSIT),
        [log in to unmask] (Jorge Alvarez), [log in to unmask] (Elizabeth
Gramoy),
        [log in to unmask] (Joe Grant), [log in to unmask] (Jackie Hall),
        [log in to unmask] (Susan Howell), [log in to unmask] (Ed
Hutmire),
        [log in to unmask] (Lyn Jackson),
        [log in to unmask] (Sherwin Jacobson),
        [log in to unmask] (Jiausen Jih),
        [log in to unmask] (Neal Pollock),
        [log in to unmask] (LT Dan Rieken),
        [log in to unmask] (CDR Shaun Taylor),
        "DoD Software Roundtable"
<[log in to unmask]>,
        [log in to unmask] (Alexander Lewin),
        [log in to unmask] (Phil Andrews),
        [log in to unmask] (Carl Andriani),
        "Clyde Roby" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re[2]: Reason for Mr. Paige's Decision Unclear
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="IMA.Boundary.387259858"

This is a Mime message, which your current mail reader
may not understand. Parts of the message will appear as
text. To process the remainder, you will need to use a Mime
compatible mail reader. Contact your vendor for details.

 --IMA.Boundary.387259858
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part

 --IMA.Boundary.387259858
Content-Type: application/msword; name="forpaige.doc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Description: MS Word document

 --IMA.Boundary.387259858--

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
----- --

Dear Mr. Paige,

The response Robert Firth provided is right on. You misinterpreted his
message
and took it as an insult. I did not get the impression he was trying to
say
the
folks in DoD are idiots. We have some very smart people in the DoD.
However, by
in large, these people are poorly trained when it comes to acquiring
software
intensive and software dependent systems.

Most DOD system acquisition managers do not have a sufficient
understanding
of
software acquisition issues to effectively make common sense tradeoffs
during
the system/software acquisition/development process. Career progression
favored
the advancement of electrical engineers, penalizing those skilled in
computer science/software engineering. Software professionals could not
rise to
system management as they were not allowed to supervise electrical
engineers.
This perhaps worked well in the 1960s and 1970s when the development of
a
system
was primarily hardware based and "code developers" frequently were
little
more
than high school educated. Unfortunately today our senior management
must
develop systems that are primarily software based requiring extensive
software
expertise.  Many in our senior management don't have the education and
training
to make common sense tradeoffs regarding software issues. Ada is only
one
of the
many software issues where our senior managers have made poor decisions.
As

career motivations for software professionals were poor and salaries in
the

commercial side increased, many educated software professionals left the
DoD;
today senior management typically has very limited software expertise
within
their organization to draw on. Software expertise available has little
experience with systems engineering and little capability to make
appropriate
system tradeoffs. This is compounded by the fact that software and
hardware

technology has exploded in the last 20 years and even specialized
software
expertise is needed in about 20 different disciplines for each project.
The

result is that the DOD is not in the position of being a smart acquirer.
Acquisition managers have little expertise to assess the tradeoffs
presented by
contractors and to determine which are in the best interest of the DoD
and
the
taxpayer. The lack of interdisciplinary capabilities in the system
acquisition
process severely inhibits our ability to field effective software
intensive
and
software dependent systems.

This issue has no short term solution. The DOD needs to develop a career
progression for software engineering/computer science placing it on at
least an
equal basis with the electrical engineering career progression. People
with
good
software skills need to be promoted to provide credibility within their
organizations. These acquisition organizations should be required to
have
members with a bachelors/masters degree in computer science/software
engineering. System acquisition training should be required for software
acquisition professionals. As a stopgap measure, software acquisition
training
is necessary for senior management. The most effective stopgap training
is
provided via conferences such as the Software Technology Conference
(STC),
the
SEI Software Engineering Symposium, and the Tri-Ada conference.
Attendance
at
management tracks at these conferences should be strongly encouraged.
There
may
be some value to requiring all acquisition managers to attend the DAU
Software
Acquisition Management (SAM) courses 201 and 301.

The attached strawman identifies one view of the training needs for a
software
acquisition professional. As can be clearly seen, the Ada issue is
really
only
the tip of the iceberg. If our senior acquisition managers can not
address
the
Ada issue adequately, consider the impact of the other software
acquisition

issues. Today our systems acquisition is performed by very intelligent
people,
but untrained in software acquisition. This is the basis for Robert
Firth's

remarks. Our situation is equivalent to needing a quadruple bypass and
having
your highly skilled dentist perform the operation. Yes, the dentist is
very

intelligent and highly trained, but not for the job at hand. There is no
wonder
we have problems with so many of our acquisitions.


Respectively submitted,

Currie Colket
[log in to unmask]

______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Reason for Mr. Paige's Decision Unclear
Author:  "Paige; Emmett Jr.; ; OSD/C3I +" <[log in to unmask]> at
smtp-gw
Date:    3/14/97 3:38 PM


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. BEING IN ACADEMIA OR INDUSTRIA DOES
NOT TRANSLATE TO BEING THE SMARTEST AND MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE FOLKS IN THE
WORLD OR THIS COUNTRY. NOR THE STRONGEST OR MOST ABLE TO USE THEIR
BRAINPOWER. IINCOMPETENCE HAS NO BARRIERS AND IT CROSSES INTO ALL CAMPS
TO INCLUDE ACADEMIA AND INDUSTRY. AT LEAST GOVT AND INDUSTRY HAVE
AVENUES AVAILABLE TO ELIMINATE THOSE INDIVIDUAL WHEN THEY ARE
DISCOVERED.
   MY BETTER JUDGEMENT TOLD ME TO SIMPLY IGNORE AND NOT RESPOND TO YOUR
COMMENTS BELOW PARAGRAPH ONE, BUT YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE
INSULTING A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ALSO PAY TAXES JUST AS YOU DO AND THERE IS
NO REASON OR ANYTHING THAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO ATTACK THEM OR INFER
THAT WE HAVE A GOVT WORKFORCE OF INCOMPETENTS.
MAY GOD BLESS YOU ANYWAY.

 ----------
From: [log in to unmask]
To: Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I +
Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; Lee Schmidt; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Reason for Mr. Paige's Decision Unclear
Date: Friday, March 14, 1997 1:03PM


Folks

As you probably recall, I've been unhappy with the "Ada Mandate" for
many, many years.  I'm also in the camp that says the customer should
decide the WHAT, and the contractor should decide the HOW.  If the
customer wants reliability and maintainability, then if Ada is indeed
the best means to effect these ends, Ada will be chosen.  And if Ada
is *not* the best means, it won't be chosen, which is exactly right.

However, that said, the present situation finds me deeply distressed.
For I believe that what is going to happen is that the DoD will abandon
its insistence on the HOW, and replace it, not with an insistence on
the WHAT, but rather with nothing.

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.

Even if such products were assessed, would the assesment have teeth?
Can we really visualise the DoD rejecting a software product that
bears a billion dollars of sunk cost, merely because it doesn't work?
Look at the track record.  Even within the Ada world, how many cases
can we all cite of DoD funded developments that continued to eat funding
long after it was palpably obvious they would never work?

Again, I fear that such projects will be deemed "too big to fail", "too
critical to fail", "too visible to fail", and the assessment will be
fudged to allow us to pretend that failure is success.

If the Ada mandate is to be abandoned, it must be replaced with
something *more* effective at ensuring the DoD receives software
that has the attributes necessary to support its mission.  In
particular,
the software acceptance criteria must be comprehensive, rigorous, *and
enforced by an independent authority*.  An authority with the power, and
the clout, of, for instance, the range safety officer at a missile
test station.

Without at least this much, I fear we are indeed heading back into
the quagmire.

Yours
Robert Firth



<<File Attachment: forpaige.doc>>