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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a25ba90dcc8a209f,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Sam Harbaugh (AQ)" Subject: AAS, was it Ada? Cleanroom? Date: 1996/04/25 Message-ID: <199604260127.VAA10999@bb.iu.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 151491069 sender: Ada programming language x-sender: harbaugh@iu.net comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Date: 1996-04-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Nancy posted a brief statement on the incose (international council on systems engineering) bb that AAS was an almost complete waste of 6 billion dollars. I asked her to elaborate and below is her reply. I recall seeing an IBM exhibit at either a Tri-Ada or IITSC conference ( I can't remember which). The person showing the large round display was very zealous about the system. I looked closely and saw that the display contained many repetions of the same aircraft. When I pointed it out he mumbled and started talking to someone else. It would have made a good Dilbert cartoon. So, was AAS Ada? It sounds like software was not the problem, I'm just curious about the language. Was AAS cleanroom design? Again it doesn't sound like software design was the problem, again I'm just curious. Is Nancy off base with her comments? sam harbaugh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >To: "Sam Harbaugh (AQ)" >cc: incose list >Subject: Re: Feasibility >Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:09:31 PDT >From: Nancy Leveson > > > Nancy > --------------------------------------- > Could you or anyone post a reference for the statements that > > 1. The system cost 6 billion dollars > >Sorry, I got the number a little bit wrong (but not much). According to >Business Week, April 26, 1993, the AAS project had cost (at that time) >$5.1 billion, which was already $1.5 billion over its budget, and >climbing. I don't know what the final total is (or will be?). > > 2. Almost all of it has been thrown away. > >The process started in 1982, when the FAA started the system development >and said that it would be introduced first into the Seattle area in 1992. >In 1990, Congress was upset about projected delays (the FAA announced a >19-month delay) and launched an investigation into cost overruns and >mismanagement of AAS. In 1992, more problems arose and a second 14 month >delay was announced. The FAA threatened IBM with cancellation of the >program (they issued a "cure" letter, which is the first legal step in >interminating a contract). At the time of the Business Week article I >noted above (April 1993), IBM announced that the project was at least 9 >years from completion and the new system would not be in place until well >after 2000. > >One of the things in the article pertinent to this discussion is that >the requirements were never carefully written (I was involved in the >design competition for the system in the 1980s when I was consulting for >Hughes and I told the FAA then that their requirements specifications >were inadequate). They don't seem to have asked the controllers what >they thought of the design until late in the process (1990), when 500-700 >changes then had to be made in the specification. > >After that, I remember some official studies were made of the project for >the FAA (I don't remember the names of who did them -- maybe someone else >does) to determine whether they should continue. I spoke privately to some >people involved in these studies. An official announcement was made >sometime later that most of the system would be canceled but that some >parts could be salvaged. > > What are they using if they threw away the new system? > >The old system. > > Who was the contractor(s)? IBM for software? > >IBM for software and for the consoles as I understand it. I don't know >if anyone else was involved. > > What was the problem? Not understanding air traffic control? > >I tried to explain this above. My take is that the primary problem was >that nobody did a proper requirements analysis at the beginning. But >others may have a different opinion. > >Nancy > >