From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.107.9.80 with SMTP id j77mr21732353ioi.138.1522259947444; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:59:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:1f58:: with SMTP id x24-v6mr1230505otx.9.1522259947042; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:59:07 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.unit0.net!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!u184-v6no6521408ita.0!news-out.google.com!u64-v6ni2262itb.0!nntp.google.com!199-v6no6482955itl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:59:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.233.194; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.233.194 References: <9ed9edb1-3342-4644-89e8-9bcf404970ee@googlegroups.com> <26a1fe54-750c-45d7-9006-b6fecaa41176@googlegroups.com> <656fb1d7-48a4-40fd-bc80-10ba9c4ad0a4@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1232702b-0170-481d-af42-e5871bf749c2@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Killing software and certification From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:59:07 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 7824 X-Received-Body-CRC: 480596620 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51238 Date: 2018-03-28T10:59:06-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 10:47:36 AM UTC-5, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote: > I've seen S/W developed by a company that was CMMI Level 5 certified. It = might=20 > have some use as fertilizer. That's what you get when you certify process= es. (sigh) Not all certification programs are bona fide quality-management reg= imes. And not all bona fide quality-management regimes are rigorous. Ther= e exists a pecking order. Don't go with certification programs from which = all the other hens have picked the feathers off. The following lengthy hum= orous example is likely to be certifiable as CMMI Level 5 without=E2=80=94n= ot only ever mentioning such rigorous quality-management regimes as AS9000 = in aerospace, DO-178B/C in realtime systems, or IATF 16949 in automotive=E2= =80=94but also without even developing any executable software at all. CMM= I alone is worthless at assuring any definition of goodness of executable s= oftware ever gets designed, implemented, and released, as shown below. You need to couple CMMI Level 4 or 5 with one of the industry-specific qual= ity-management regimes that actually have required content with teeth perta= ining to realtime software/hardware systems. Even then, some degree of min= d-games can be played with an AS9000 in aerospace or TL9000 in telecom or I= ATF 16949 in automotive. If the process does not require, say, DO-178B/C o= r some other form of actual rigor, then that organization is trying to get = by with their analogue of saying that rubbing their tummy and patting their= head is the key to good quality. The awesome part of AS9000, TL9000, and = IATF 16949 is that each manufacturer & subcontractor is required to divulge= (some of it publicly) data that reveal how serious they are taking it vers= us how much they are playing mind-games merely to look good (fraudulently?)= with mere wallpapering the front-door vestibule with certification papers = along with the obligatory wall of granted-patent wooden plaques. The embar= rassment resulting from someone who cares combing deeply through the public= ly-disclosed quality-management data is usually enough of a whip to crack o= ver an organization to put at least some major effort into scoring well aga= inst their peer-group of competitors in the publicly-reported data, so that= they are not in last place or not in the bottom half when compared to thei= r AS9000/TL9000/IATF16949 peers. Personally, I am most intimately familiar= with TL9000's rigor in this regard. Maturity Level 1 - Unmanaged chaos We record videos of us playing around. Er, only sometimes. Other times we = record over yesterday's video. Maturity Level 2 - Managed CM - Configuration Management We store those videos here in an organized fashion in ascending chronologic= al order per employee with backups so that no such video is ever lost or un= playable. MA - Measurement and Analysis We count how many times per minute each person in the video rubbed their tu= mmy. We measure the time duration from the completion of the prior video t= o the commencement of the subsequent video. We measure how many likes thes= e videos receive on social media. PPQA - Process and Quality Assurance We have a person who makes sure that we do what we say we do. REQM - Requirements Management Each person's playing around shall be rubbing their tummy and patting their= head in the video. SAM - Supplier Agreement Management We require our suppliers to submit videos of them rubbing their tummy and p= atting their head according to this process. SD - Service Delivery We post these videos on YouTube for the public to have their LOLs. WMC - Work Monitoring and Control We train our managers to make sure that each employee is doing what we say = herein. WP - Work Planning Each employee is required to estimate the production time of the videos des= cribed herein. Maturity Level 3 - Defined CAM - Capacity and Availability Management We estimate how many such videos we can make per day and per year, given st= affing levels. DAR - Decision Analysis and Resolution We put in place a committee to decide what defines actual tummy rubbing and= head patting or lack thereof. IRP - Incident Resolution and Prevention We watch the videos to assure that tummy rubbing and head patting is occurr= ing concurrently. We retake videos where the person's tummy rubbing and he= ad patting lacked concurrency. IWM - Integrated Work Managements Each person must record their video in their cubicle as a normal part of th= eir daily work activity. OPD - Organizational Process Definition We wrote this here document that states everything that we promise that we = do regarding these videos. OPF - Organizational Process Focus... Our organization is totally focused on making these videos as described her= ein according to the OPD's document. OT - Organizational Training We require each employee to be trained regarding how to operate the video-r= ecording equipment. RSKM - Risk Management We monitor how full the recording medium is on the video-recording equipmen= t. Maturity Level 4 - Quantitatively Managed OPP - Organizational Process Performance We have a department that looks at spreadsheets that monitor the degree of = compliance to OPD's document is occurring. QWM - Quantitative Work Management OPP's data is fed back to our managers to manage employees greater fidelity= of compliance to OPD's document. Maturity Level 5 - Optimizing CAR - Causal Analysis and Resolution We identify all the reason(s) for noncompliance with OPD's document. We pe= rform root-cause analysis thereon to identify top-priority issues to fix ve= rsus cascading ramifications. OPM - Organizational Performance Management. We adapt this process to attempt to preclude the reason(s) for noncomplianc= e with OPD's document that OPM found.