4 ms·
You can already see the effect of regulation on ISO certified enterprise software. It's software which is bought generally by big companies which are themselves
by wakeupcall 5y ago
You can already see the effect of regulation on ISO certified enterprise software. It's software which is bought generally by big companies which are themselves certified, so if there's a problem there's somebody to push the blame onto. To put it lightly, it's expensive and it's shit.
I'd be against setting any sort of guideline currently. IT is still too immature and everything is still changing too fast. To make one easy example, setting guidelines for testing would just result in worthless unit tests.
I'd be more favorable to some FAA/EASA style of institution where we evaluate a company/project/people based on its incident-response track record. And even then, I still see too many recipes for abuse.
- Apocryphon 5y agoPlenty of non-certified enterprise software is just as bad; is following ISO standards really the reason for their lack of quality?
- wakeupcall 5y agoDefinitely not, but I feel the certification is a big reason for it: - certification is usually an expensive process which doesn't add value by itself - small teams are effectively removed from the talent pool due to the cost requirement, leaving only large (and less efficient) teams/orgs You artificially reduce competition, to the point that the remaining entities are shielded by the initial barrier to entry and have very little incentive to do anything about it. You can keep raising the certification requirements: it's actually "good" for enterprises which can afford the costs, with basically little or no change in the quality of output. This is not unique to software development either. I'm not against it by principle, but I'm very skeptical in how certification is applied in _many_ of the contexts I've seen it.