Re: Enforcing good software process

[Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov>]

"John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net> writes:

> "Stephen Leake" <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote in message
> news:uu1cmfw37.fsf_-_@nasa.gov...
> > I'd much prefer CMM level 3 or above, independent of language.
> 
> The only difference between CMM level 2 and CMM level 3 is this:  At CMM
> level 2, every project at a company is using *A* defined, published process.
> At CMM level 3, they are all using the *SAME* defined, published process.

Yep. And there's a strong motivator (the bottom line) to be sure it is a
_good_ process. Unfortuneately, here at NASA, we don't have that
particular motivator (highly public accidental deaths are a pretty
good motivator, but they don't happen very often).

> > ISO 9000 would also be a comfort, but less so (I've seen really
> > bad code from ISO 9000 certified shops).
> 
> ISO 9000 says nothing about quality.  It just says that they have written
> down their process, they are following their written process, and
> independent auditors have spot-checked them on it.

You can boil down CMM to the same statement. The real point is that
the company believes in treating process issues seriously, and works
to improve the process. That's at the heart of CMM, but is left out of
ISO. 

-- 
-- Stephe