From: Kamrad@HI-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Reply to Lt Scott Norton's Maintenance argument
Date: Tue, 25-Aug-87 16:40:00 EDT [thread overview]
Date: Tue Aug 25 16:40:00 1987
Message-ID: <870825204025.575689@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> (raw)
I know your point is well-taken and well meaning but I don't know a
Program Manager of major weapon build who really cares about
maintenance. His only care is to get the current system built on time and
within budget. Maintenance is beyond the scope of his project. He is
rewarded only for meeting performance and budget requirements of his
project. There is no way that the PM gets rewarded for the easy
maintenance of the software of a fielded system. Check it out!
The plant managers of Japanese car companies get part of their bonues
based on the maintenance record of the cars they produce. Unfortunately
within the DoD there is no way to reward the PM's for the quality of
software maintenance ( or any other maintenance) of field systems.
Consequently the problem will persist.
Therefore you don't sell PM's on maintenance value of Ada (or
reusability for that matter), you sell them on the ability to perform
and meet the budget. Unfortunately, it is the perception (that is
becoming largely incorrect) that Ada provides neither. If it provides
quality maintenance (or reusability), that's icing on the cake to
Program Managers.
To quote Uncle Walt (fable TV anchorman): "That's the way it is..."
Mike Kamrad
next reply other threads:[~1987-08-25 20:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1987-08-25 20:40 Kamrad [this message]
1987-08-26 18:19 ` Reply to Lt Scott Norton's Maintenance argument R.A. Agnew
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox