From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 25 May 93 16:30:19 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura. net!source.asset.com!vand@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Laurence VanDolsen) Subject: Re: Hey, blame the private sector! Message-ID: <1993May25.163019.24366@source.asset.com> List-Id: In article <1993May25.161125.21879@source.asset.com> vand@source.asset.com (Lau rence VanDolsen) writes: >In article <1993May24.195810.796@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> shanks@saifr00.c fsat.honeywell.com (Mark Shanks) writes: >> > If Mr. >>Strassman's objective is to allow (or, OK, FORCE) the contractors >>to develop defined processes, I think that is a Good Thing. But if, >>as I suspect, the goal is to present some sort of mandated processes >>to the contractors as a fait accompli, well, I don't think that will >>help the problem at all. I forgot to address this point in my previous post. There are a few folks in the DoD who think that mandating a process is the right way to go. In the many conversations in which I have been involved, these people have been shouted down by the majority. The consensus is clearly that there must be room for innovation in an environment of consistent, disciplined, and managed process. It is forseen that the most valuable competitive asset of the future may be a contractor's process. To mandate adherence to a single process would stifle progress. I agree with this approach, but cannot defend, any better than they can, the premise that the Ada mandate is good while a process mandate would be bad.