Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!hsi!stpstn!cox
From: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: SQA (was: Re: The Software Process - Watts Humphrey.)
Keywords: SQA, quality
Message-ID: <5766@stpstn.UUCP>
Date: 3 Nov 90 16:44:12 GMT
References: <9150@fy.sei.cmu.edu> <1711@blackbird.afit.af.mil> <144261@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <884@epochsys.UUCP>
Reply-To: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox)
Organization: Stepstone
Lines: 28

In article <884@epochsys.UUCP> jeremy@epochsys.UUCP (Jeremy L. Mordkoff) writes:
>In article <976@qusunitg.queensu.CA> dalamb@qucis.queensu.CA (David Lamb) writes:
>>There's an inherent tension between getting a product out by a deadline
>>(the bias of developers) and getting out a product with no defects (the
>>bias of SQA groups).

I used to agree that this tension was inherent, but I'm no longer so sure.

I'm sure the cottage industry gunsmiths of 200 years ago would have argued
that there was an 'inherent' tension between the greater productivity of
cut-to-fit hand craftsmanship and the user's desire for high-precision
interchangeable parts. They were blindsided by the ultimate realization
that high-precision interchangeable parts was the *key* to greater
productivity. This realization was a paradigm shift that not only eliminated
the gunsmiths as a group, but promoted the U.S. to dominance over England.

The Japanese played and won this same game some years later by realizing 
that higher quality was the key to higher productivity throughout 
manufacturing. Again a counterintuitive paradigm shift, that higher
quality means higher productivity; again leveraged into major economic
impacts.

But of course, this was for manufacturing. Everybody knows software
is different. This could *never* happen to *us*...;-)
-- 

Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875
The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482