Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[harbaugh]

I work in a level 3 software shop (not P&W) and if P&W is no better than
where I work then I am concerned about my safety while flying.

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

harbaugh@IU.NET wrote:
> 
> I work in a level 3 software shop (not P&W) and if P&W is no better than
> where I work then I am concerned about my safety while flying.

That might be based on a misconception of what the CMM is all about. CMM
at any level doesn't guarantee that your software is free of bugs or of
high quality. What it guarantees (sort of) is that you have a process
for producing that software which is under various levels of control.
The old analogy of the concrete life preservers is illustrative here.
You can have a CMM Level 5 process for making them, but they are still
about as useless as tits on a bull.

Our software is safe more because of competent design and intense
verification. This can be done even if you are inventing your processes
on the fly. So relax as you place your tray in the upright, locked
position. Call that stewardess over and ask for a pillow and a double
martini (shaken, not stirred) and take comfort as those mighty Pratt &
Whitney engines spool up. We make thrust you can trust!

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Richard D Riehle]

In article <3.0.32.19990423161855.0096d520@iu.net>,
	harbaugh@IU.NET wrote:

>I work in a level 3 software shop (not P&W) and if P&W is no better than
>where I work then I am concerned about my safety while flying.

 This is an interesting view of CMM.  Some people have characterized
 Level One as the "Star Programmer" model and Level Two as the "Star
 Manager" model.  Others have mischaracterized Level One as "chaotic."
 In fact, many Level One organizations have produced excellent software
 because of their ability to hire star programmers and Level Two 
 organizations have succeeded because of superb managers.

 Process is no substitute for quality personnel.  If you are a Level
 Five and have a staff of incompetent programmers, you will end up with
 a good process but wretched software.  Process is no substitute for
 a well-organized, technically skilled project manager. 

 Process is one component of software quality.  If the organization
 has a great process but personnel without the requisite skill set to
 build dependable software, we are in trouble.  Let's not turn CMM into
 just another bureaucratic checkbox.  Let's not delude ourselves into
 thinking that process maturity can turn poor engineers into good engineers.

 I know Mr. Harbaugh never intended to suggest such a thing since he is
 an experienced, competent software professional himself.  It is just that
 I am seeing other managerial wannabees think that CMM is the solution
 to their problems.  Dr. Humphries published a book on the Personal Process
 that addresses the individual responsibility of the software developer. He
 too understands that turning CMM into a bureaucracy is no substitute for
 individual excellence.

 Sorry to get preachy.  This is one of my pet peeves.

 Richard Riehle
 richard@adaworks.com
 http://www.adaworks.com

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Mike_jr]

In article <371B6EC8.36B9C247@pwfl.com>, Marin says...
 
>(From the "P&W Update" internal news organ):
>
>WORLD CLASS P&W ENGINE CONTROL SOFTWARE
>P&W's Engine System and Embedded Software development process was
>certified in accordance with the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI)
>Capability and Maturity Model to be in the top 25% of aerospace
>companies that do software development. This certification was awarded
>after an intense two-week assessment. 
>
 
good job!

btw, What source control software do you use?  CVS? clear case? (please
do not say Visual source safe).

Most companies I worked for where at CMM level -20 when it comes to 
software configuration management and things of this sort. 
 
Mike.

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

Mike_jr@nospam wrote:
> 
> good job!
> 
> btw, What source control software do you use?  CVS? clear case? (please
> do not say Visual source safe).
> 
> Most companies I worked for where at CMM level -20 when it comes to
> software configuration management and things of this sort.
> 
People are going to think I hired a shill so I could pat myself on the
back...

The source code control (and the whole kit & kaboodle) was home grown. A
large chunk of this effort was done under my design. That's why I'm
proud of having played a big part in getting us a Level 3 certification.

To briefly (I hope) describe the nature of the beast...

A bunch of years ago we had the idea of building a diagram drawing tool
for control laws diagrams which could store information in such a way
that we could build a "picture compiler" to translate the diagrams to
source code. (Hence the "Pictures-To-Code" name - although its a lot
more than that now.) There was no commercial product that came close
enough to meet our needs, so the compiler ended up home grown. (That,
and some politics came into play! ;-) Surrounding this idea, we got
ambitious and decided that all the diagrams should be assembled in
documents to meet Mil-Std-2167a requirements - hence a full-up editing
system was born. Beyond that, all documents (requirements, design, etc.)
needed to be pulled together into a "system" so that we could
automatically build the code, build the document set, etc. and preserve
all the artifacts.

From there, a system needed to fall under configuration management and
change control, so the concept expanded even further. A system could be
baselined and a new one started from there. Any user could submit a
change request against a system and the whole flow of the CR was
automated - right to the point of being able to identify every artifact
that was impacted by the CR and every CR that went into changing a
particular version of a system or document.

What it all meant was that we had laid the groundwork in software to
support an entire process from start to finish which was a) written
down, b) repeatable, and c) provided monitoring of the process for
continuous improvement. We didn't know anything at the time about CMM
because - I think - it didn't quite exist yet. (We're talking about 1989
when this whole thing got started). It was a fortuitous turn of events
that had the great minds at CMU thinking exactly like the great minds at
Pratt & Whitney. :-)

After quite some time flogging everyone into adopting our process and
gradually improving and increasing the automation, folks began to come
around and see that we really had something here. We've got metrics
dating back to the start of the project which have shown consistent
improvement of productivity and reduction of defects. The whole effort
has been a long and gradual improvement, but in the end, it got us the
Level 3 certification and, more importantly, a safer, more reliable
product at a lower cost.

Thanks for asking!

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Bruce L]

Marin David Condic wrote:
<<Any user could submit a
change request against a system and the whole flow of the CR was
automated - right to the point of being able to identify every artifact
that was impacted by the CR and every CR that went into changing a
particular version of a system or document.>>

OK.  How did you manage that?  One of my biggest problems is when engineers
add or modify some functionality without doing a complete repercussion
analysis.

Bruce

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

Bruce L wrote:
> 
> Marin David Condic wrote:
> <<Any user could submit a
> change request against a system and the whole flow of the CR was
> automated - right to the point of being able to identify every artifact
> that was impacted by the CR and every CR that went into changing a
> particular version of a system or document.>>
> 
> OK.  How did you manage that?  One of my biggest problems is when engineers
> add or modify some functionality without doing a complete repercussion
> analysis.
> 
This would be tough to explain in any reasonably sized post!

Basically, all artifacts of a system reside in some document somewhere.
Documents have a granularity of a "paragraph". Any design diagram, chunk
of source code, text, tables, pictures, whatever, resides in some
paragraph somewhere. Paragraphs within and between documents can be
associated via a "Project Unique ID". So, for example, if you have 5
units which were derived from some requirement, it is possible to have
connected the requirement, the units, the test plan, etc. together via
references to Project Unique IDs.

Enter the change request. (It is just an electronic document where
anyone can basically say "Your control sucks - make it not suck." We're
talking developmental CM, not formal, governmental CM. A CR can be as
serious as "redesign these 50 requirements" or as simple as "you've got
a typo in paragraph 3.2.1") Someone files a change request. All changes
to any document must eventually be connected to some change request. As
you modify paragraphs, you have to check them in against a CR. At some
point someone (an administrator - a review board - how formal do you
want to be?) declares the CR "closed" and the changes become permanent.
When you publish a document or baseline a system you can identify all of
the closed change requests since the last publish or baseline. Given the
connectivity of change requests to paragraphs and paragraphs to each
other, you get real good traceability concerning what has been impacted.
The rest is just reporting programs or on-the-fly SQL code.

So, while lots of our engineers are no better than yours and may not
perform any repercussion analysis (not always necessary anyway - lots of
times changes are trivial) they at least have a way of doing so. By
saying "I propose to change diagram XYZ" you can identify the paragraph
it lives in, what it is connected to, what change history may have
already gone before, what tests are impacted or need to be run again,
etc. etc. In fact, this gets done quite a bit if someone is looking into
serious changes.

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Stephen Maudsley]

Bruce L <bruceandjoan@ultranet.com> wrote in message
news:371BD9CE.F9D24397@ultranet.com...
>
>
> Marin David Condic wrote:
> <<Any user could submit a
> change request against a system and the whole flow of the CR was
> automated - right to the point of being able to identify every
artifact
> that was impacted by the CR and every CR that went into changing a
> particular version of a system or document.>>
>
> OK.  How did you manage that?  One of my biggest problems is when
engineers
> add or modify some functionality without doing a complete repercussion
> analysis.

If I've understood the story then I would expect that you get dependency
matrices out of the "picture compiler" because it started life as a
control algorithm documentation tool. To develop a control law you're
essentially writing down the dependencies of mathematical functions. You
might get repercussion analysis for free.

--
Stephen Maudsley mailto:Stephen.Maudsley@esgem.com
Esgem Limited: embedded system design http://www.esgem.com
Tel: +44-1453-521626 Mobile: +44-370-810991
Personal pages: http://www.esgem.com/people/Stephen.Maudsley

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

Stephen Maudsley wrote:
> 
> If I've understood the story then I would expect that you get dependency
> matrices out of the "picture compiler" because it started life as a
> control algorithm documentation tool. To develop a control law you're
> essentially writing down the dependencies of mathematical functions. You
> might get repercussion analysis for free.
> 
Yes. At one level. Since a picture has interface pins, etc. and there is
a calling heierarchy, if you change a picture and recompile it, you'll
also have to recompile the things that depend on it. It all ends up
looking a lot like Ada (for obvious reasons!) in that any changes to
interfaces are checked across units and the picture compiler catches
things which may have been impacted as a result.

On another level, you need to discover if a change to a given diagram
may impact things like test plans or related requirements. The database
keeps that sort of connectivity (must be defined by the user) so it is
possible to trace through all potentially impacted artifacts.

On a really high level, it is always possible to make a change to a
system for which all the repercussions won't be known until you blow
something up. I'm afraid that all the software and all the process
definition in the world won't totally eliminate that possibility. :-)

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

["Paul E. Bennett"]

In article <371B9A5E.2804AC27@pwfl.com>
           diespammer@pwfl.com "Marin David Condic" writes:

> ..................... Surrounding this idea, we got
> ambitious and decided that all the diagrams should be assembled in
> documents to meet Mil-Std-2167a requirements - hence a full-up editing
> system was born. Beyond that, all documents (requirements, design, etc.)
> needed to be pulled together into a "system" so that we could
> automatically build the code, build the document set, etc. and preserve
> all the artifacts.

Up until this point you haven't mentioned what model you are using except for
the reference to a standard that not all of us will be familiar with. Even if
we all knew what was in Mil-Std-2167a, this has said nothing about how you
met those requirements. yet, you seem to be in the dragging together of 
project information for coding stage already.
 
> From there, a system needed to fall under configuration management and
> change control, so the concept expanded even further. A system could be
> baselined and a new one started from there. Any user could submit a
> change request against a system and the whole flow of the CR was
> automated - right to the point of being able to identify every artifact
> that was impacted by the CR and every CR that went into changing a
> particular version of a system or document.

I find it incredible that the first form that many reach for is a Design 
Change Request. I have no such form in my process. I use the following in
(more or less) this order.

   * Problem Report Form, to record the fact that aproblem exists.
   * Design Change Proposal, to establish what may be done about the problem.
   * Work Instructions, to ensure the correct implementation of a change.

  I also have a Review Report Form that acts as a coversheet for the issues
raised as the result of a technical review meeting (of which there are four
in my process loop). Incidently, getting it right first time will only visit
two reviews, the other two are in the change path.
 
> What it all meant was that we had laid the groundwork in software to
> support an entire process from start to finish which was a) written
> down, b) repeatable, and c) provided monitoring of the process for
> continuous improvement. We didn't know anything at the time about CMM
> because - I think - it didn't quite exist yet. (We're talking about 1989
> when this whole thing got started). It was a fortuitous turn of events
> that had the great minds at CMU thinking exactly like the great minds at
> Pratt & Whitney. :-)

When you say start to finish, I take it you have your contracts under CM
as well.
 
> After quite some time flogging everyone into adopting our process and
> gradually improving and increasing the automation, folks began to come
> around and see that we really had something here. We've got metrics
> dating back to the start of the project which have shown consistent
> improvement of productivity and reduction of defects. The whole effort
> has been a long and gradual improvement, but in the end, it got us the
> Level 3 certification and, more importantly, a safer, more reliable
> product at a lower cost.

If you were to cost out the effort of development deployed in automating
the aspects of the system you have dealt with, what is the per seat cost?

This will be an important indicator for many.

Commercial packages for a RCS and CM system that I have seen range as 
follows (per seat costs):-

   Cheapest       - UKP 230  - not worth looking at really as a lot of 
                               work was required to configure for use.
   Most Expensive - UKP6000  - very complex and requiring huge amounts
                               of vendor support. Also very expensive to 
                               establish the exact sales configuration.
   Best Value     - UKP1000 -  Up and running in a day for two users but
                               rest of team within the week (including 
                               the initial training time). Required some 
                               time entering and adjusting roles data for 
                               the team.

Rarely is a home grown effort at RCS and CM tools cost effective. However,
as you seem to have been on the early wave I can understand your company
doing it themselves. So how do you compare to the available commercial 
packages now.

-- 
Paul E. Bennett ................... <peb@tcontec.demon.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Tel: +44 (0)7971-620145
Going Forth Safely

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[dennison]

In article <371B9A5E.2804AC27@pwfl.com>,
  diespammer@pwfl.com wrote:

> continuous improvement. We didn't know anything at the time about CMM
> because - I think - it didn't quite exist yet. (We're talking about 1989
> when this whole thing got started). It was a fortuitous turn of events
> that had the great minds at CMU thinking exactly like the great minds at
> Pratt & Whitney. :-)

My memory is notoriously faulty but it seems to me... I started work at GE
Aerospace in '89. Soon afterwards I was introduced to CMM, and discovered
they were level 2, getting ready to go to level 3. The first reference I can
find to it is from '93, but I'm pretty sure I heard about it before then.

Last I heard they (now part of LMC) were at level 4, shooting for 5.

--
T.E.D.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> 
> In article <371B9A5E.2804AC27@pwfl.com>,
>   diespammer@pwfl.com wrote:
> 
> > continuous improvement. We didn't know anything at the time about CMM
> > because - I think - it didn't quite exist yet. (We're talking about 1989
> > when this whole thing got started). It was a fortuitous turn of events
> > that had the great minds at CMU thinking exactly like the great minds at
> > Pratt & Whitney. :-)
> 
> My memory is notoriously faulty but it seems to me... I started work at GE
> Aerospace in '89. Soon afterwards I was introduced to CMM, and discovered
> they were level 2, getting ready to go to level 3. The first reference I can
> find to it is from '93, but I'm pretty sure I heard about it before then.
> 
GE? The Bad Guys? (I don't think GE Aerospace is the same GE that makes
military jets, are they? Its hard to keep track of the players with all
the corporate reshufflings going on. During the Cold War, we'd rather
have let the Russians into the plant than let any GE reps into it! :-)

I'm sure work was going on with CMM for quite some time before I became
aware of it. You may be right about the '89 time frame being when it
started to gain some momentum. I guess my point was that we were not
developing our Pictures-to-Code process with an eye towards getting CMM
certification. It just sort of worked out that what we were doing to
make a profit also assisted in getting us the certification.

> Last I heard they (now part of LMC) were at level 4, shooting for 5.
> 
LockMart is shooting for a Level 5? What is it that they are making at
that particular chunk of LockMart?

There has often been debate on the economics of shooting for anything
above Level 3. There is some belief that 4 and 5 are interesting and
nice work if you can get it, but that money sunk into achieving it does
not translate into money returned on the bottom line. Of course, a lot
of that depends on the kind of software you are busy building, too. Not
all things worth doing are worth doing well. Fortunately for us, our
embedded software is similar enough from one project to the next that it
lends itself to process improvements more so than other types of work.

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Jerry Petrey]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> >
> > Last I heard they (now part of LMC) were at level 4, shooting for 5.
> >
> LockMart is shooting for a Level 5? What is it that they are making at
> that particular chunk of LockMart?
> 
> There has often been debate on the economics of shooting for anything
> above Level 3. There is some belief that 4 and 5 are interesting and
> nice work if you can get it, but that money sunk into achieving it does
> not translate into money returned on the bottom line. Of course, a lot
> of that depends on the kind of software you are busy building, too. Not
> all things worth doing are worth doing well. Fortunately for us, our
> embedded software is similar enough from one project to the next that it
> lends itself to process improvements more so than other types of work.
> 
> --
> Marin David Condic


Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems here in Marietta, GA has been
at CMM Level 3 for some time and we are moving to Level 4 and 
working on plans to go to Level 5.  I guess they consider it
worthwhile.  You are right though, it does cost a lot.

Jerry
-- 
=====================================================================
=  Jerry Petrey - Consultant Software Engineer  - Member Team Ada   =
=                 Lockheed Martin                 Member Team Forth =
=====================================================================

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

Jerry Petrey wrote:
> Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems here in Marietta, GA has been
> at CMM Level 3 for some time and we are moving to Level 4 and
> working on plans to go to Level 5.  I guess they consider it
> worthwhile.  You are right though, it does cost a lot.
> 
Glad to hear you're making level 4. As you know, we make stuff for you
guys so I'm sure you'll want us to try to keep up. :-) 

What I'm curious about it what specific unit at LMA is shooting at level
5 and what sort of software is it that they make? (What does it drive?)
I'm presuming that in Marietta, y'all are making control software for
the airframe of the F22? Or possibly some avionics software? I'm
interested because I think that one of the biggest factors in being able
to get to the higher levels of CMM is the kind of software you build and
how long it typically hangs around.

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Jerry Petrey]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> Jerry Petrey wrote:
> > Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems here in Marietta, GA has been
> > at CMM Level 3 for some time and we are moving to Level 4 and
> > working on plans to go to Level 5.  I guess they consider it
> > worthwhile.  You are right though, it does cost a lot.
> >
> Glad to hear you're making level 4. As you know, we make stuff for you
> guys so I'm sure you'll want us to try to keep up. :-)
> 
> What I'm curious about it what specific unit at LMA is shooting at level
> 5 and what sort of software is it that they make? (What does it drive?)
> I'm presuming that in Marietta, y'all are making control software for
> the airframe of the F22? Or possibly some avionics software? I'm
> interested because I think that one of the biggest factors in being able
> to get to the higher levels of CMM is the kind of software you build and
> how long it typically hangs around.
> 
> Marin David Condic

Marin,

There are a number of programs here, the F22 being one of them.  I
work on the C27J program which is a joint venture with the Italians
to upgrade their C27 transport aircraft to add the new digital
integrated
avionics package, 5000 shp Allison engines, and Dowty 6 blade props
that are used in our new C130J.  In our Avionics group, we do the 
software (all in Ada, of course) for the two mission computers and their
two backup computers which communicate with and control all the other
electronic systems on the aircraft.

There are a number of other programs here as well but at least the F22,
C120J and C27J programs are at Level 3 and moving towards Level 4.
This is mission critical software and has an estimated life of 20 years.
We also have to meet DO 178B Level A standards, ISO 9000, and a few
others.
Sometimes the process becomes a pain but hopefully it all pays off 
in the long run.

Jerry

-- 
=====================================================================
=  Jerry Petrey - Consultant Software Engineer  - Member Team Ada   =
=                 Lockheed Martin                 Member Team Forth =
=====================================================================

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

Jerry Petrey wrote:
> avionics package, 5000 shp Allison engines, and Dowty 6 blade props
> that are used in our new C130J.  In our Avionics group, we do the

Obviously, you guys are picking the wrong engines! :-)

Good to hear the organization is doing so well with its software
processes.


MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Stephen Leake]

Marin David Condic <condicma@bogon.pwfl.com> writes:

> To briefly (I hope) describe the nature of the beast...
> 
<snip description of a dream tool>

Ok, I'm hooked. Where can I buy a copy of this beast?

-- Stephen Leake, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

Stephen Leake wrote:
> 
> Marin David Condic <condicma@bogon.pwfl.com> writes:
> 
> > To briefly (I hope) describe the nature of the beast...
> >
> <snip description of a dream tool>
> 
> Ok, I'm hooked. Where can I buy a copy of this beast?
> 
Of course you should bear in mind that you're reading a "press release"
from one of the originators of the tool! ;-) (It is hardly flawless and
getting the benefits from it depends a lot on user acceptance)

Actually, we went through a few iterations of trying to get someone to
take it over and subcontract the whole thing out, with the notion being
that a commercial vendor selling the tool far and wide would likely get
us a better product in the end. There was talk at one time of our
selling/giving the tool to one or more of the airframers we work with
for similar reasons. (Buy a rocket from us and maybe we can throw it in
at no extra charge along with a set of Ginsu Steak Knives! :-)

Currently, the tool is undergoing a major revision to become web based
so it will run on a polyglot of systems. (BTW, for those in the language
wars who think it might take months of project delay and millions of $$$
to switch languages? The P-T-C team decided they wanted to use Java for
the web based stuff and they got the books, found some web sites,
started with some practice code and then got busy building the stuff in
Java. I wasn't involved, so I don't know *exactly* how much time/money
it cost, but it didn't involve much more than the cost of some books and
maybe a couple of weeks of playing around before they were leaning over
my cubicle wall saying "Hey Marin! Check out what I can make a web page
do...!")

I don't know how amenable Mr. Pratt and Mr. Whitney would be to
selling/giving away the development system today. I know it was
considered in the past and dropped on the floor at some point. (At least
partly due to not being able to find a qualified party who wanted to
take it over for whatever P&W was offering.) But certainly for our
customers something like this is always an element in contract
discussions.

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Ken]

Would it be feasible to take it open source, perhaps letting someone
like Cygnus offer maintenance?

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> I don't know how amenable Mr. Pratt and Mr. Whitney would be to
> selling/giving away the development system today. I know it was
> considered in the past and dropped on the floor at some point. (At least
> partly due to not being able to find a qualified party who wanted to
> take it over for whatever P&W was offering.) But certainly for our
> customers something like this is always an element in contract
> discussions.

-- 
Ken
mailto:shiva@well.com
http://www.well.com/user/shiva/

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

Ken wrote:
> 
> Would it be feasible to take it open source, perhaps letting someone
> like Cygnus offer maintenance?
> 
I doubt it. First off, the system is not exactly a "Shrink Wrapped"
product that you install on your PC and start using. Its pretty much a
conglomerate of stuff that is by its very nature
multi-user/multi-platform and typically calls for a lot of custom
support and hand-holding. That and the fact that we are constantly
changing it or adding features to satisfy project needs for the various
internal customers and I don't think it would lend itself to this sort
of scheme. Its not like, say, a compiler, which has a fairly clear
mission in life and eventually arrives at a level of stability. There is
no universal consensus on what Pictures-To-Code should be, no reason to
expect that there ever will or should be, and so it is in a constant
state of "becomming".

I could imagine a company starting up which would take the concepts we
developed and possibly defining a useful subset of the tools for the
marketplace. I've often been tempted to do exactly that. (Especially the
picture compiler part - that could be made much more generally useful)
But inevitably the full-up product involves so much "glue" to stick
everything together that I doubt anybody could make a commercially
viable product from it that would satisfy a wide audience.

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Jim Kingdon]

> Its pretty much a conglomerate of stuff that is by its very nature
> multi-user/multi-platform and typically calls for a lot of custom
> support and hand-holding.

Well, that might be an argument for open source rather than an
argument against it.  The big problem with trying to sell open source
software via support contracts is that most users don't really
need/want the support.  But if the nature of the product is that most
users will need some customization and help, then that particular
problem isn't as bad (now, it isn't really the way to get massive
numbers of sites using it, but it might work out for sites which want
to deal with this).

For an example of this business model, see
http://www.onshore-timesheet.com/ - this used to be a non-open-source
product but they made it open source because they figured most of the
money was for the customization and other services rather than the
license anyway.  Or http://www.zope.org/ is perhaps a better example
(in which it was, interestingly, the venture capitalists who decided
on open source when the technical people in the startup had been
scared to take the plunge).  Too early to tell whether this will be a
financial success for onShore or the Zope guys, but it strikes me as a
workable model.

Bringing it back to P&W and the Pictures-to-Code program, it is quite
clear that someone outside P&W needs to get a bee in their bonnet and
decide they want to make this happen (with $$$ or some other suitable
incentive).  Has anyone asked Ada Core (http://www.gnat.com/)?  No
idea whether they would be interested, but it seems like a conceivable
fit.

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

Jim Kingdon wrote:
> Well, that might be an argument for open source rather than an
> argument against it.  The big problem with trying to sell open source
> software via support contracts is that most users don't really
> need/want the support.  But if the nature of the product is that most
> users will need some customization and help, then that particular
> problem isn't as bad (now, it isn't really the way to get massive
> numbers of sites using it, but it might work out for sites which want
> to deal with this).
> 
I can see your point. From the outside vendor's perspective it is more
attractive to continually sell support & customization. I just don't
know what the powers-that-be think about this sort of thing. They
alternate between "Its a critical competitive advantage that we can't
let get out the door!" all the way to "We're an engine company, not a
software company - outsource everything!" 


> 
> Bringing it back to P&W and the Pictures-to-Code program, it is quite
> clear that someone outside P&W needs to get a bee in their bonnet and
> decide they want to make this happen (with $$$ or some other suitable
> incentive).  Has anyone asked Ada Core (http://www.gnat.com/)?  No
> idea whether they would be interested, but it seems like a conceivable
> fit.

I think a lot of what the whole toolset does is a bit far afield for
ACT. There are parts of it which would be right up their alley - sort
of. The picture compiler is, after all, just another compiler. (IMHO,
the picture compiler badly needs to be rewritten to take into account
Ada95-isms and clean up areas where experience has shown us better ways.
But unless we could get a better thing as COTS to integrate with the
rest of the system, I doubt this will happen.)

A good general diagram-to-code tool with maybe a couple of application
specific diagram formats might be a good sell here. I'd be sorely
tempted to want to be in on the development of this since I have spent a
number of years grumbling about some of the shortcomings of our existing
picture compiler! :-)

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Stephen Maudsley]

Jim Kingdon <kingdon@panix7.panix.com> wrote in message
news:p4waew0y94u.fsf@panix7.panix.com...
> > Its pretty much a conglomerate of stuff that is by its very nature
> > multi-user/multi-platform and typically calls for a lot of custom
> > support and hand-holding.
>
> Well, that might be an argument for open source rather than an
> argument against it.  The big problem with trying to sell open source
> software via support contracts is that most users don't really
> need/want the support.  But if the nature of the product is that most
> users will need some customization and help, then that particular
> problem isn't as bad (now, it isn't really the way to get massive
> numbers of sites using it, but it might work out for sites which want
> to deal with this).
>
> For an example of this business model, see
> http://www.onshore-timesheet.com/ - this used to be a non-open-source
> product but they made it open source because they figured most of the
> money was for the customization and other services rather than the
> license anyway.  Or http://www.zope.org/ is perhaps a better example
> (in which it was, interestingly, the venture capitalists who decided
> on open source when the technical people in the startup had been
> scared to take the plunge).  Too early to tell whether this will be a
> financial success for onShore or the Zope guys, but it strikes me as a
> workable model.

We may well go for an Open Source product release later this year for
much the same reason - we're still quite a small company dealing with
some large manufacturers and Open Source makes them much happier to deal
with us. The financial relationship will be much the same with or
without it and I have good sight of where the codes will go.

--
Stephen Maudsley mailto:Stephen.Maudsley@esgem.com
Esgem Limited: embedded system design http://www.esgem.com
Tel: +44-1453-521626 Mobile: +44-370-810991
Personal pages: http://www.esgem.com/people/Stephen.Maudsley

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Jim Kingdon]

> > I don't know how amenable Mr. Pratt and Mr. Whitney would be to
> > selling/giving away the development system today.
> 
> Would it be feasible to take it open source, perhaps letting someone
> like Cygnus offer maintenance?

Don't know that Cygnus in particular would be interested (as far as I
know they have no current plans to do much with configuration
management), but "someone like" them might be.  A few potentially
relevant links:

http://www.onshore-timesheet.com/
http://www.cyclic.com/cyclic-pages/saic.html

I don't really know whether open source would provide a big payoff for
P&W - to really leverage it needs a pretty different mindset and
development process from what many are used to - but I do think open
source makes sense, in general, for tools which would otherwise be
internally developed/maintained.

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

Jim Kingdon wrote:
> 
> I don't really know whether open source would provide a big payoff for
> P&W - to really leverage it needs a pretty different mindset and
> development process from what many are used to - but I do think open
> source makes sense, in general, for tools which would otherwise be
> internally developed/maintained.

If we were ever to make the whole thing generally available it would
probably have to be with some subcontractor who was providing us with
custom development and support for the product. We'd want them to be
hawking the product elsewhere with the hope that with more companies
paying for the custom development, we'd get more features for our
dollars. What they did with the sources, etc., I doubt we'd care much
about so long as we were getting the enhancements we wanted at a price
we thought was reasonable. The problem is, as I stated in an earlier
post, the nature of the system is so volatile that it doesn't lend
itself well to being a "stand alone commercial product".

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[William P.Milam]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> Jim Kingdon wrote:
> >
> > I don't really know whether open source would provide a big payoff for
> > P&W - to really leverage it needs a pretty different mindset and
> > development process from what many are used to - but I do think open
> > source makes sense, in general, for tools which would otherwise be
> > internally developed/maintained.
> 
> If we were ever to make the whole thing generally available it would
> probably have to be with some subcontractor who was providing us with
> custom development and support for the product. We'd want them to be
> hawking the product elsewhere with the hope that with more companies
> paying for the custom development, we'd get more features for our
> dollars. What they did with the sources, etc., I doubt we'd care much
> about so long as we were getting the enhancements we wanted at a price
> we thought was reasonable. The problem is, as I stated in an earlier
> post, the nature of the system is so volatile that it doesn't lend
> itself well to being a "stand alone commercial product".
> 

Have you looked at things like the Mathowrks MATLAB/Simulink/Stateflow
product as a option for 'programming by pictures'? Sounds to me 
that much of what you offer may now be available from commercial
vendors, or close enough to warrant arm twisting....


Bill



-- 
************************************************
*                                              *
* All opinions herein expressed are mine and   *
* mine alone. You may choose to ignore them    *
* but I own them. Heck, my kids don't listen   *
* to me, why should you?                       *
*                                              *
* Email: wmilam'at'ford'dot'com                *
************************************************

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

William P.Milam wrote:
> 
> Have you looked at things like the Mathowrks MATLAB/Simulink/Stateflow
> product as a option for 'programming by pictures'? Sounds to me
> that much of what you offer may now be available from commercial
> vendors, or close enough to warrant arm twisting....
> 
At the time this was conceived, the people who had the thing closest to
what we wanted were folks selling design tools for electronic circuits.
Early work we did here was based on an outside tool wherein we defined
parts & then "compiled" the diagrams based on the internal format for
storing the diagrams. This tool eventually gave way to one that was
entirely home grown by one of our sister-organizations, Hamilton
Standard.

I have not looked at any commercial tools recently since my involvement
in the project is now more one of "end user" rather than "developer"
(Everyone should be forced to do this at least once! ;-) There may be
something out there which would fit the bill, but the requirements are
that it support what our logic designers are used to (sort of) - control
laws diagrams. (we also support a general flowchart-ish format). For new
projects, it might be possible to undertake some whole new format of
diagram, but it would have to support the kind of things that logic
designers do. (I'm also getting too old and cranky to try to once again
start pleading with them to try something new!)

The real value of the tool was that we took diagrams which the designers
were going to draw anyway and formalized it enough that code could be
automatically produced from the diagrams. That and being able to
configuration manage/change control the whole thing meant substantial
automation of an otherwise labor intensive process.

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[William P.Milam]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> William P.Milam wrote:
> >
> > Have you looked at things like the Mathowrks MATLAB/Simulink/Stateflow
> > product as a option for 'programming by pictures'? Sounds to me
> > that much of what you offer may now be available from commercial
> > vendors, or close enough to warrant arm twisting....
> >
> At the time this was conceived, the people who had the thing closest to
> what we wanted were folks selling design tools for electronic circuits.
> Early work we did here was based on an outside tool wherein we defined
> parts & then "compiled" the diagrams based on the internal format for
> storing the diagrams. This tool eventually gave way to one that was
> entirely home grown by one of our sister-organizations, Hamilton
> Standard.
> 
> I have not looked at any commercial tools recently since my involvement
> in the project is now more one of "end user" rather than "developer"
> (Everyone should be forced to do this at least once! ;-) There may be
> something out there which would fit the bill, but the requirements are
> that it support what our logic designers are used to (sort of) - control
> laws diagrams. (we also support a general flowchart-ish format). For new
> projects, it might be possible to undertake some whole new format of
> diagram, but it would have to support the kind of things that logic
> designers do. 

Well several automotive companies are looking at the 
Mathworks tools for precisely that kind of use, I work in
powertrain...which includes engines...which use the same
control theory that is employed in aircraft. Only we have to 
do it cheaper. No cost overruns in teh consumer business. ;-)

>(I'm also getting too old and cranky to try to once again
> start pleading with them to try something new!)

I suspect that if you are older than I am it ain't gonna be by much.
Being a curmudgeon is all fine and good but new things keep
you young.

> 
> The real value of the tool was that we took diagrams which the designers
> were going to draw anyway and formalized it enough that code could be
> automatically produced from the diagrams. That and being able to
> configuration manage/change control the whole thing meant substantial
> automation of an otherwise labor intensive process.
> 

This is precisely what is happening in automotive, only we are 
buying not developing. At some point you find that in-house tools
are not better and cost more. Then it's time to change. The 
cost to not change can be a great deal higher.


Bill

-- 
************************************************
*                                              *
* All opinions herein expressed are mine and   *
* mine alone. You may choose to ignore them    *
* but I own them. Heck, my kids don't listen   *
* to me, why should you?                       *
*                                              *
* Email: wmilam'at'ford'dot'com                *
************************************************

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

William P.Milam wrote:
> 
> Well several automotive companies are looking at the
> Mathworks tools for precisely that kind of use, I work in
> powertrain...which includes engines...which use the same
> control theory that is employed in aircraft. Only we have to
> do it cheaper. No cost overruns in teh consumer business. ;-)

Yeah, but if I don't buy a Ford and opt for a Dodge instead, you just go
persuade someone else to by the F150 truck, right? When your Uncle Sam
decides he isn't going to buy a Pratt engine, at the same time, he tells
us "But don't you dare try to sell it to anyone else!" :-)

Defense contracting is its own world and it can't operate like a
"normal" business because of that
single-customer-made-to-order-never-been-done-before kind of situation.

> 
> >(I'm also getting too old and cranky to try to once again
> > start pleading with them to try something new!)
> 
> I suspect that if you are older than I am it ain't gonna be by much.
> Being a curmudgeon is all fine and good but new things keep
> you young.
> 
Oh, I'm not really that old. I've just been working on the "curmudgeon"
part of my collection of character flaws for a long time. :-) 

Seriously: It is sometimes *very hard* to get a large collection of
people to change the way they are doing things. Especially when what you
are putting in place is brand new and not as "flawless" as what they are
already doing. It was an uphill battle & it took years of threats,
cajoling, sweet talking, bribery, and an occasional going postal of one
or more participants. Attempting to do that again with the same crowd
would not be fun.

> This is precisely what is happening in automotive, only we are
> buying not developing. At some point you find that in-house tools
> are not better and cost more. Then it's time to change. The
> cost to not change can be a great deal higher.
> 
I agree - COTS is always a better choice if you can find COTS that meets
most of your needs. At the time we undertook this system, we did first
go out and try to find what was available commercially. Nobody had
anything quite like what we wanted and the advice we got from the
vendors we talked to was "You're gonna have to make one of those
yourself..."

Given the large infrastructure investment and the long life of the
projects (and contractual obligations and a host of configuration
management issues as well as verification issues, etc. etc. ad nauseum)
there is no practical way to replace what we have now with something
commercially available. Maybe on a new project, but those don't come
along very often in our business. Remember, the F119 engine for the
Advanced Tactical Fighter was something we were developing the software
for over *ten years* ago and the ATF is just now starting to go into
production. Expect to see the ATF flying with basically the same engine
for the next 30 or more years. And we'll still be maintaining the
software under our home grown CM/Change Control/Development environment
because nobody will dare put the engine at risk by attempting to upgrade
to a new system.

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Philip Koopman]

"William P.Milam" <wmilam@sirius.srl.ford.com> wrote:

>Have you looked at things like the Mathowrks MATLAB/Simulink/Stateflow
>product as a option for 'programming by pictures'? Sounds to me 
>that much of what you offer may now be available from commercial
>vendors, or close enough to warrant arm twisting....

Simulink is a viable alternative to pictures-to-code *except* for the
Ada requirement for military systems (which may not be that much of an
issue for future systems).  It is certainly adequate for at least some
aspects of jet engine control applications, and has the advantage of
already being a commercial product.

I don't own stock in Pratt nor Mathworks, but I am generally familiar
with both systems.



Phil Koopman -- koopman@cmu.edu -- http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

Philip Koopman wrote:
> Simulink is a viable alternative to pictures-to-code *except* for the
> Ada requirement for military systems (which may not be that much of an
> issue for future systems).  It is certainly adequate for at least some
> aspects of jet engine control applications, and has the advantage of
> already being a commercial product.
> 
> I don't own stock in Pratt nor Mathworks, but I am generally familiar
> with both systems.
> 
After talking to some folks around here, one of the things which has
potential is a product called Matrix-x (see http://www.isi.com/) This
has not actually undergone any study with respect to integration with
our existing processes (yet), but people in the logic design arena have
looked it over and pronounced it to be "The Future". We will probably
take a serious look at integrating it when we come up with a new
project.

Too bad you don't own stock in UTC. It's at 143.75 today - and
continuing to climb. :-) (http://www.utc.com/
http://www.pratt-whitney.com/)

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[William P.Milam]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> Philip Koopman wrote:
> > Simulink is a viable alternative to pictures-to-code *except* for the
> > Ada requirement for military systems (which may not be that much of an
> > issue for future systems).  It is certainly adequate for at least some
> > aspects of jet engine control applications, and has the advantage of
> > already being a commercial product.
> >
> > I don't own stock in Pratt nor Mathworks, but I am generally familiar
> > with both systems.
> >
> After talking to some folks around here, one of the things which has
> potential is a product called Matrix-x (see http://www.isi.com/) This
> has not actually undergone any study with respect to integration with
> our existing processes (yet), but people in the logic design arena have
> looked it over and pronounced it to be "The Future".

We did that about 11 years ago. Things change.

> We will probably
> take a serious look at integrating it when we come up with a new
> project.

There is a paper out there in SAE land explaining why you might not
want to do that versus the above suggestion. If you are curious send
e-mail.



-- 
************************************************
*                                              *
* All opinions herein expressed are mine and   *
* mine alone. You may choose to ignore them    *
* but I own them. Heck, my kids don't listen   *
* to me, why should you?                       *
*                                              *
* Email: wmilam'at'ford'dot'com                *
************************************************

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[mike]

In article <p4wlnfk93gj.fsf@panix7.panix.com>, Jim says...
 
>I don't really know whether open source would provide a big payoff for
>P&W - to really leverage it needs a pretty different mindset and
>development process from what many are used to - but I do think open
>source makes sense, in general, for tools which would otherwise be
>internally developed/maintained.

I started to see companies here being only interested 
in open source stuff (even though it can cost $$ just 
as well), but the $$ cost is secondary, the main reason 
they prefer open source products is that they feel it is 
more assuring to them to have access to the source code 
becuase even if the original vendor switches products, 
stops the product, or goes under, the company using that 
product, and have become so dependent on it, can still 
go on using the product, given that they have the source code, 
they can themselves build it, or even maintain it, add 
features to it, if want to, etc...

SO, openSource works as a safe guard, gives one that extra
good feeling of not being completely at the mercy of someone 
giving them a product in only binary form.

It really makes sense. If you think about it, having your
business dependent on a product that you only have it in 
binary form from one source, is very risky situation to be
in. Given 2 alternatives for similar produtcs, always go 
for the open source one.

Mike.

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Stephen Maudsley]

Marin David Condic <condicma@bogon.pwfl.com> wrote in message
news:371E21B3.7C7616FD@pwfl.com...
> Stephen Leake wrote:
> >
> > Marin David Condic <condicma@bogon.pwfl.com> writes:
> >
> > > To briefly (I hope) describe the nature of the beast...
> > >
> > <snip description of a dream tool>
> >
> > Ok, I'm hooked. Where can I buy a copy of this beast?
> >
> Of course you should bear in mind that you're reading a "press
release"
> from one of the originators of the tool! ;-) (It is hardly flawless
and
> getting the benefits from it depends a lot on user acceptance)
>
> Actually, we went through a few iterations of trying to get someone to
> take it over and subcontract the whole thing out, with the notion
being
> that a commercial vendor selling the tool far and wide would likely
get
> us a better product in the end. There was talk at one time of our
> selling/giving the tool to one or more of the airframers we work with
> for similar reasons. (Buy a rocket from us and maybe we can throw it
in
> at no extra charge along with a set of Ginsu Steak Knives! :-)

Can we still get the steak knives?

--
Stephen Maudsley mailto:Stephen.Maudsley@esgem.com
Esgem Limited: embedded system design http://www.esgem.com
Tel: +44-1453-521626 Mobile: +44-370-810991
Personal pages: http://www.esgem.com/people/Stephen.Maudsley

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

Stephen Maudsley wrote:
> 
> Can we still get the steak knives?
> 
I'm sure if you would agree to buy one of our F119 Jet Fighter Engines
along with a service contract, we can probably persuade the program
office to throw in the steak knives. Service for 8 enough? :-)

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Ken Keys]

Marin David Condic wrote:


> I'm sure if you would agree to buy one of our F119 Jet Fighter Engines
> along with a service contract, we can probably persuade the program
> office to throw in the steak knives. Service for 8 enough? :-)

Be careful. You are probably running afoul of ITAR regulations even
discussing it here.

KLK

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <371F7A99.51325A77@west.raytheon.com>, Ken Keys <klkeys@west.raytheon.com> writes:
> Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> 
>> I'm sure if you would agree to buy one of our F119 Jet Fighter Engines
>> along with a service contract, we can probably persuade the program
>> office to throw in the steak knives. Service for 8 enough? :-)
> 
> Be careful. You are probably running afoul of ITAR regulations even
> discussing it here.

Yes, certainly if crypto software is a munition then so are steak knives !

Larry Kilgallen

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

Ken Keys wrote:
> 
> Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> > I'm sure if you would agree to buy one of our F119 Jet Fighter Engines
> > along with a service contract, we can probably persuade the program
> > office to throw in the steak knives. Service for 8 enough? :-)
> 
> Be careful. You are probably running afoul of ITAR regulations even
> discussing it here.
> 
Good point. I hope everyone knows that I don't speak for Mr. Pratt & Mr.
Whitney and that a smiley-face means "It's a *joke*! - Lighten up!" :-)

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Dino Gianisis]

I read in the Yahoo newsgroup for UTC that Mr. P & Mr. W is
closing/moving West Palm Beach facility to somewhere in Conn. ?
Sounds like out with the suntan lotion & in with the shovels.
Is this true ?.

Marin David Condic wrote:

> Ken Keys wrote:
> >
> > Marin David Condic wrote:
> >
> >
> Good point. I hope everyone knows that I don't speak for Mr. Pratt & Mr.
> Whitney and that a smiley-face means "It's a *joke*! - Lighten up!" :-)
>
> MDC
> --
> Marin David Condic
> Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
> United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
> M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
> ***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***
>
> Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

Dino Gianisis wrote:
> 
> I read in the Yahoo newsgroup for UTC that Mr. P & Mr. W is
> closing/moving West Palm Beach facility to somewhere in Conn. ?
> Sounds like out with the suntan lotion & in with the shovels.
> Is this true ?.
> 
Well, true or false, it is at least way off topic. :-) 

The "current" plan is that about 1000 jobs are moving North to
Connecticut. If you can get a P&W Exec to honestly answer the question:
"But is there a 'Future' plan to move the rest of the operation?" then
you're a better man than I. You've got to figure that they want to -
they'll say as much. But is it being planned?

One thing I know for an absolute fact is this: Pratt is already
underpaying its embedded software engineers, the cost of living is 14%
higher in Connecticut, other jobs are available for people who do
computer work, it *snows* up in Connecticut and in general, engineers
are not stupid people. You do the math.

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Stephen Maudsley]

Marin David Condic <condicma@bogon.pwfl.com> wrote in message
news:371F911C.ECB3C8DF@pwfl.com...
> Ken Keys wrote:
> >
> > Marin David Condic wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sure if you would agree to buy one of our F119 Jet Fighter
Engines
> > > along with a service contract, we can probably persuade the
program
> > > office to throw in the steak knives. Service for 8 enough? :-)
> >
> > Be careful. You are probably running afoul of ITAR regulations even
> > discussing it here.
> >
> Good point. I hope everyone knows that I don't speak for Mr. Pratt &
Mr.
> Whitney and that a smiley-face means "It's a *joke*! - Lighten up!"
:-)

So I'd better phone and cancel the sales visit then........

--
Stephen Maudsley mailto:Stephen.Maudsley@esgem.com
Esgem Limited: embedded system design http://www.esgem.com
Tel: +44-1453-521626 Mobile: +44-370-810991
Personal pages: http://www.esgem.com/people/Stephen.Maudsley

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Frank McKenney]

In <371F911C.ECB3C8DF@pwfl.com>, Marin David Condic <condicma@bogon.pwfl.com> writes:
>Ken Keys wrote:
>> 
>> Marin David Condic wrote:
>> 
>> > I'm sure if you would agree to buy one of our F119 Jet Fighter Engines
>> > along with a service contract, we can probably persuade the program
>> > office to throw in the steak knives. Service for 8 enough? :-)
>> 
>> Be careful. You are probably running afoul of ITAR regulations even
>> discussing it here.
>> 
>Good point. I hope everyone knows that I don't speak for Mr. Pratt & Mr.
>Whitney and that a smiley-face means "It's a *joke*! - Lighten up!" :-)

Grumph! (:-(

My first chance to get a decent set of steak knives and The Government
wants to get involved.  So, what, they have USAF top-secret plans
micro-etched onto the blades?


Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates / OS2BBS OS/2 Advisor          
Richmond, Virginia   (804) 320-4887
Internet: frank_mckenney@mindspring.com / TalkLink: WZ01123        

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Ken]

[Doh! Got the name of c.s.cm wrong the first time I composed this.
Stupid Netscape doesn't have a popup menu with a list of valid
newsgroups and I brain-farted when copying the name from the other
window. Sorry about the double-post.]

Impressive. I was surprised to find news:comp.software.config-mgmt NOT
in the
list of cross-posted groups, so I'm adding it in my response. Regular
readers of c.s.cm should check out news:comp.arch.embedded or one of the
other cross-posted groups to see the whole thread. Lots of interesting
info there.

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> Here's a little press release about our engine control software
> development process. As someone who was heavily involved in the process
> development over the last ten years, I have more than a little pride in
> this achievement. It is always satisfying to see the effort pay off.
> 
> Note that the Ada programming language is used both in our government
> and commercial engine software development and we consider the language
> choice to be a significant part of our successful development process.
> 
> (From the "P&W Update" internal news organ):
> 
> WORLD CLASS P&W ENGINE CONTROL SOFTWARE
> P&W's Engine System and Embedded Software development process was
> certified in accordance with the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI)
> Capability and Maturity Model to be in the top 25% of aerospace
> companies that do software development. This certification was awarded
> after an intense two-week assessment.
> 
> The SEI is the nation's leading organization for identifying software
> process improvements and assessing the effectiveness of such
> organizations. This process-improvement effort has been underway for
> nearly five years and is in line with objectives of the ACE initiatives.
> 
> MDC
> --
> Marin David Condic
> Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
> United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
> M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
> ***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***
> 
> Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

-- 
Ken
mailto:shiva@well.com
http://www.well.com/user/shiva/

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Ken]

Impressive. I was surprised to find news:comp.sys.config-mgmt NOT in the
list of cross-posted groups, so I'm adding it in my response. Regular
readers of c.s.cm should check out news:comp.arch.embedded or one of the
other cross-posted groups to see the whole thread. Lots of interesting
info there.

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> Here's a little press release about our engine control software
> development process. As someone who was heavily involved in the process
> development over the last ten years, I have more than a little pride in
> this achievement. It is always satisfying to see the effort pay off.
> 
> Note that the Ada programming language is used both in our government
> and commercial engine software development and we consider the language
> choice to be a significant part of our successful development process.
> 
> (From the "P&W Update" internal news organ):
> 
> WORLD CLASS P&W ENGINE CONTROL SOFTWARE
> P&W's Engine System and Embedded Software development process was
> certified in accordance with the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI)
> Capability and Maturity Model to be in the top 25% of aerospace
> companies that do software development. This certification was awarded
> after an intense two-week assessment.
> 
> The SEI is the nation's leading organization for identifying software
> process improvements and assessing the effectiveness of such
> organizations. This process-improvement effort has been underway for
> nearly five years and is in line with objectives of the ACE initiatives.
> 
> MDC
> --
> Marin David Condic
> Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
> United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
> M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
> ***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***
> 
> Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic

-- 
Ken
mailto:shiva@well.com
http://www.well.com/user/shiva/

Re: Pratt & Whitney's Embedded Software - CMM Level 3!

[Marin David Condic]

Ken wrote:
> 
> Impressive. I was surprised to find news:comp.sys.config-mgmt NOT in the
> list of cross-posted groups, so I'm adding it in my response. Regular
> readers of c.s.cm should check out news:comp.arch.embedded or one of the
> other cross-posted groups to see the whole thread. Lots of interesting
> info there.
> 
Its impossible to know all the relevant newsgroups. Thanks for spreading
it around - comp.sys.config-mgmt sound like a group that would be
interested.

MDC
-- 
Marin David Condic
Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis
United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines
M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600
***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.***

Visit my web page at: http://www.flipag.net/mcondic