3 ms·

What about their software approach did you want to change and why?

ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
They treated software in exactly the same manner as hardware: measure twice/cut once, waterfall. All QC was after the fact, and done manually. We did a great job of delivering yesterday's technology, tomorrow. I wanted them to add flexibility. Things like a different QC system, iterative development, and faster releases of software. I won't get into details, though. Much as I wasn't happy with things, I had (still have) tremendous respect for the company, and wish them nothing but good luck (they'll need it). I will say this, though: I worked with some of the top engineers and scientists in the world. The company had been producing precision optical equipment for 100 years, and people paid a lot of money for it. It was extremely hard to suggest that they might want to consider doing stuff differently. They had a formula that worked quite well, and not changing on a whim was a big part of that. I think most folks, hereabouts, would go nuts, working that way, but you can't argue with the results. I learned to write software of a pretty high Quality, as a direct result of working with these folks.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  > …measure twice/cut once, waterfall. All QC was after the fact… Doesn’t “measure twice” imply some QC is being done before the “cutting”?
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    Sort of. They basically had "Quality" as a part of their entire culture. Each person was expected to do their part in the Quality ecosystem. The spec process could take months; years, even. Once a spec was written, it became Holy Writ. It could only be changed or amended with buckets of blood. The projects tended to be about 50% spec, 20% initial development, 30% post QC, and then, 50% fixing the problems found by QC. We tended to deliver software that people wanted, eighteen months ago. It worked to spec, but didn't do much else.

They treated software in exactly the same manner as hardware: measure twice/cut once, waterfall. All QC was after the fact, and done manually. We did a great job of delivering yesterday's technology, tomorrow. I wanted them to add flexibility. Things like a different QC system, iterative development, and faster releases of software. I won't get into details, though. Much as I wasn't happy with things, I had (still have) tremendous respect for the company, and wish them nothing but good luck (they'll need it). I will say this, though: I worked with some of the top engineers and scientists in the world. The company had been producing precision optical equipment for 100 years, and people paid a lot of money for it. It was extremely hard to suggest that they might want to consider doing stuff differently. They had a formula that worked quite well, and not changing on a whim was a big part of that. I think most folks, hereabouts, would go nuts, working that way, but you can't argue with the results. I learned to write software of a pretty high Quality, as a direct result of working with these folks.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
> …measure twice/cut once, waterfall. All QC was after the fact… Doesn’t “measure twice” imply some QC is being done before the “cutting”?
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  Sort of. They basically had "Quality" as a part of their entire culture. Each person was expected to do their part in the Quality ecosystem. The spec process could take months; years, even. Once a spec was written, it became Holy Writ. It could only be changed or amended with buckets of blood. The projects tended to be about 50% spec, 20% initial development, 30% post QC, and then, 50% fixing the problems found by QC. We tended to deliver software that people wanted, eighteen months ago. It worked to spec, but didn't do much else.