Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!apple!agate!usenet
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: SQA (was: Re: The Software Process - Watts Humphrey.)
Message-ID: <1990Oct23.162809.5320@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 90 16:28:09 GMT
References: <9150@fy.sei.cmu.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 20

In article <9150@fy.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes:
>In article <DWIGGINS.90Oct17183946@atsun.a-t.com> dwiggins@atsun.a-t.com 
>(Don Dwiggins) writes:
>>In article <9077@fy.sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes:
>
>Conclusion:  If you can define and measure quality well enough to 
>create an effective SQA, then you can use these definitions and 
>measures directly without an SQA.  In an improving organization, 
>SQA and independent test will diminish in importance with time. If 
>this is not happening, you are not improving.
> 
>Comments?

This reminds me of the office automation paradox:
Once you get the office personnel and paper-flow organized enough to
use your software, there is no additional benefit to be gained by
actually using the software.

------------------
	Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)