4 ms·

Sounds like Lockheed needs to rethink its software development process. It has clearly failed.

mikeash 13y ago
I spent two months doing some side work for the NIH on some programming stuff, which was mediated through Lockheed. They were so disorganized and clueless than I'm amazed they are able to build a sandwich, let alone a jet fighter. For example, the onboarding meeting I had with their HR folks was roughly 90% about retirement benefits and health care plans, neither of which I was eligible for as a temporary part-timer. This still cost NIH two hours of my time even so. And it took them weeks to get me the right codes so I could actually log my hours in their system the way I was supposed to, on a project that was supposed to last two months in total. And in all of this, they provided not one shred of added value to the project that I could detect. Were it not for whatever bureaucratic rule required them as a middleman, I could have conceivably raised my rates 50%, cost the actual customer less, and been more productive without them.
protomyth 13y ago
Strangely, it seems the F-22 is doing ok these days.
taspeotis 13y ago
Whenever I read about software that needs to be perfect I think of this article [1]. > But how much work the software does is not what makes it remarkable. What makes it remarkable is how well the software works. This software never crashes. It never needs to be re-booted. This software is bug-free. It is perfect, as perfect as human beings have achieved. Consider these stats : the last three versions of the program -- each 420,000 lines long-had just one error each. The last 11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors. Commercial programs of equivalent complexity would have 5,000 errors. [1] http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
- Someone 13y ago
  But http://defensetech.org/2013/05/24/congress-orders-f-35-software-plan/ http://defensetech.org/2013/05/24/congress-orders-f-35-softw... claims over 10 billion lines. At 2.5 errors every million lines, that ends up at 25.000 errors, if they can keep up that rate. If that 10 billion is accurate (I can believe 10GB of binaries, but 10 billion lines seems too much to me, even including support software), maybe the project is too ambitious.
fafner 13y ago
Probably. But there are a lot of constraints and requirements on the software development process for aircraft and other critical applications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B
- greyfade 13y ago
  Well, yes, that's what I mean. But it's apparent that their planning and process was so poor that they could not appropriately schedule the entire project in keeping with the requirements.
a3n 13y ago
It will make them money, and they'll get the next contract. Sounds like it succeeded, as demented and depressing as that sounds.

I spent two months doing some side work for the NIH on some programming stuff, which was mediated through Lockheed. They were so disorganized and clueless than I'm amazed they are able to build a sandwich, let alone a jet fighter. For example, the onboarding meeting I had with their HR folks was roughly 90% about retirement benefits and health care plans, neither of which I was eligible for as a temporary part-timer. This still cost NIH two hours of my time even so. And it took them weeks to get me the right codes so I could actually log my hours in their system the way I was supposed to, on a project that was supposed to last two months in total. And in all of this, they provided not one shred of added value to the project that I could detect. Were it not for whatever bureaucratic rule required them as a middleman, I could have conceivably raised my rates 50%, cost the actual customer less, and been more productive without them.

protomyth 13y ago

Strangely, it seems the F-22 is doing ok these days.

taspeotis 13y ago

Whenever I read about software that needs to be perfect I think of this article [1]. > But how much work the software does is not what makes it remarkable. What makes it remarkable is how well the software works. This software never crashes. It never needs to be re-booted. This software is bug-free. It is perfect, as perfect as human beings have achieved. Consider these stats : the last three versions of the program -- each 420,000 lines long-had just one error each. The last 11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors. Commercial programs of equivalent complexity would have 5,000 errors. [1] http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff

Someone 13y ago
But http://defensetech.org/2013/05/24/congress-orders-f-35-software-plan/ http://defensetech.org/2013/05/24/congress-orders-f-35-softw... claims over 10 billion lines. At 2.5 errors every million lines, that ends up at 25.000 errors, if they can keep up that rate. If that 10 billion is accurate (I can believe 10GB of binaries, but 10 billion lines seems too much to me, even including support software), maybe the project is too ambitious.

fafner 13y ago

Probably. But there are a lot of constraints and requirements on the software development process for aircraft and other critical applications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B

greyfade 13y ago
Well, yes, that's what I mean. But it's apparent that their planning and process was so poor that they could not appropriately schedule the entire project in keeping with the requirements.

a3n 13y ago

It will make them money, and they'll get the next contract. Sounds like it succeeded, as demented and depressing as that sounds.