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=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 26 May 93 18:24:02 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: <1993May26.182402.19744@source.asset.com> List-Id: In article emery@dr_no.mitre.org (David Emery) writes: >I am very concerned with the current emphasis in DoD on software >process, as opposed to software product. Sure, a good process can >help you get a good product, but it is NOT a guarantee. Nothing is a guarantee. There is a stong positive correlation between disciplined process and on-time, on-budget, robust software. The correlation gets stronger as the size of the development effort and staff gets larger. > On the other >hand, what do you suppose the SEI CMM rating would be for Richard >Stallman, et.al. at the Free Software Foundation? Intriguing question. They would probably conclude that he follows his proven process religiously. A lot of the assessment methodology relies on having the process documented and being able to audit tangible artifacts which demonstrate adherence to the process. I suspect that he works with such a small group that they have, generally, found this unnecessary. >Process helps, and the government should take a contractor's process >into account both during award and during subsequent development. But >the government also needs to keep in mind that it's buying PRODUCT, >and process is only one means to that end. I could not agree with you more. Laurence L. Van Dolsen - Der fliegender Hollander My opinions are my own, but you are welcome to them. Paramax - (805) 987-9302 - vandolsen@cam.paramax.com