Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ctrsol!cica!gatech!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Software quality
Message-ID: <6898@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 89 19:23:42 GMT
References: <1989Oct24.060132.1660@ico.isc.com>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 56

From rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn):
> (>  [I have removed comp.sw.components from the newsgroup list, since
>>   this thread ceased to be relevant to that newsgroup some time ago] 
> No, somehow you didn't.  I hope I have!)

   Well, I edited it out, and the article didn't show up in c.s.c 
   locally, so maybe there's a news software bug out there someplace.

> My argument is with the obvious connotations of control.  The schedule,
> budget, specifications, and other constraints are an *agreement* between
> the management and technical staff.  Management makes the decision of
> go/no-go on the project.  But the engineers' attitude is NOT one of compli-
> ance...it is one of agreement.  You MUST understand the difference...if the
> engineers don't agree, they won't really comply.  (The problem may stay
> below the surface for a bit, but it WILL surface.)

   It is not necessary to agree, only to have confidence that management
   knows what it is doing.  Management may well have access to more 
   information, or have subtle objectives not directly stated in the
   list of project objectives.

> Engineers do NOT disregard economic factors, for the simple reason that
> they want to eat too.

   Perhaps some do not, but they are not trained to handle them,
   and management presumably is.  Nor do they normally have the
   experience in handling economic factors that management has.

>     Organizations frequently have hierarchical structures for reasons
>     related to communication, accounting, reflection of project structural
>     hierarchy, etc.  It is critically important to the success of a tech-
>     nical organization that this hierarchy carry as little connotation as
>     possible of increasing value, power, or importance as one moves up the
>     hierarchy, [...]

   First, superior/subordinate does not necessarily reflect any sort 
   of value judgement; it implies only that one is working at a higher
   level than another, considering things from a broader perspective.

   Secondly, I would suggest that however much it may be desirable to
   have minimal value connotations associated with one's position in
   the hierarchy, the fact is that the United States is among the most
   dedicated practitioners of this sort of value judgement, as reflected
   in the ratios of CEO to worker salaries.  If indeed the lack of such
   a situation is "critically important to the success of a technical
   organization", then there must be a large number of US technical
   organizations whose catastrophic failure is clearly imminent. 

   Finally, if it is considered appropriate to remove the linkage 
   between height in the organizational hierarchy and "increasing 
   value, power, and importance", then I would submit that this is
   not the proper forum in which to discuss this rather widespread 
   sociopolitical phenomenon.


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu