3 ms·
"aerospace people can usually get it right " Are you refererring to adherence to standards like Misra and DO-178B or something else?
by fsloth 9y ago
"aerospace people can usually get it right "
Are you refererring to adherence to standards like Misra and DO-178B or something else?
- pjc50 9y agoYes, that kind of thing. The observed failure rate is pretty low although there have been a few high profile incidents (A400M, the whole Chinook fiasco http://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Public-Sector-IT/One-of-the-worst-software-project-failures-in-memory http://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Public-Sector-IT/One-of-t... ) The Chinook fiasco is, like most quality issues, really a project management fiasco. The decision to do special software rather than get Boeing to do it, then a series of oversight failures on known problems.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mannykannot 9y agoAdherence to standards is a means to an end, but it is neither an end in itself, nor a guarantor of that end.
- fsloth 9y agoSure, stupid tools are pointless. But usefull tools... If the point is to reduce the number of errors then it helps to at least have a checklist of the errors, and someone reminding the team of the checklist. Checklist process is one of the easiest quality and safety tools to implement. Having a premade checklist that makes sense in the form of a process plan makes things easier.
- mannykannot 9y agoExactly - a means to an end. I'm not sure why you are mentioning "stupid tools", whatever they are - they would not even be means to an end.