Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:2268 comp.sw.components:385
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.sw.components
Subject: Re: Software quality
Message-ID: <6897@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 89 18:53:08 GMT
References: <1357@cs.rit.edu>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 68
Followups-To: comp.software-eng


 [Somehow, comp.software-eng got dropped from the newsgroup list in 
   favor of comp.sw.components; I have added it back, since this thread
   *really* belongs in comp.software-eng rather than comp.sw.components!] 

From mjl@cs.rit.edu:
>>   [I wrote:] Engineers
>>   are not, and should not be in the business of trying to be, responsible
>>   for setting cost and schedule constraints.  They ARE responsible for
>>   providing as much information as possible to management as it weighs
>>   technical and economic factors in the process of making the decision.
>
> If engineers realize that managment's requests/requirements/demands 
> are impossible to achieve, they have the right -- the obligation -- 
> to object, if for no other reason than to protect the shareholder's 
> interests against the unrealizable plans of management! [...] Most 
> fiascos I've seen have resulted from management inability or 
> unwillingness to face facts: what the project would cost and 
> how long it would take.

   Perhaps so, but I think it is a gross misinterpretation of my 
   position to imply that I am suggesting that engineers should
   not make their objections known to management.  This comes under
   the part about "providing as much information as possible..."!!

   Now assume that engineering has made its views known, and that
   management sticks with its decision.  We must consider:

     1) The engineers could be wrong.  Management could be taking
        a calculated risk that research efforts taking place in
        another part of the company will provide the tools needed
        to bridge the gap, management could be dealing with a group
        of engineers which largely is fresh out of college, etc.;
        we cannot automatically discount the possibility that the
        management has access to better information.  Indeed, it is
        a primary function of management to see to it that information
        is considered on a larger scale than simply that information
        which is visible to a single department.

     2) What if management *is* wrong?  Amdahl, I believe, gambled that
        it would be possible to perform wafer-scale integration and lost;
        but that does not mean that such projects should have been met
        with engineer-level revolution.  Management may well have more
        in mind than simply achieving the direct objectives of the project.

     3) Engineers are free to resign if they believe the project and/or
        the company will go down the tubes.  Many good products have 
        resulted from engineers deciding to form their own company, 
        and I believe that engineers should be perfectly free to take 
        this route if they deem it appropriate.  Alternatively, they 
        can buy 51% of the company's stock and then fire management.  
        Or they can try to convince upper management or the stockholders
        that management is in need of closer supervision.  But it is NOT
        within their realm of options to usurp management's rights and
        responsibilities.  
         
> sometimes [good design] will mean creating a formal spec. and a 
> variety of related models to ensure a well-engineered piece of software.

    The citation did NOT imply that formal specs are not valuable,
    only that a formal specification of EVERYTHING is not presently
    applicable to many situations due to the great cost of specifying
    things with that level of detail.  Clearly, there are some situations
    in which the currently extremely high costs are justified.


    Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu