But if anyone is looking for one practical, low-tech idea that has an iron-clad guarantee of improving software engineering, here it is: pass a law that require

But if anyone is looking for one practical, low-tech idea that has an iron-clad guarantee of improving software engineering, here it is: pass a law that requires extensive professional analysis of any large software failure. This is his conclusion, and it's bullshit. Most software engineering failures result from the violation of known principles; basically, calculated risk-taking in a cost-sensitive industry where lives (usually) aren't at stake. Accumulating more and more engineering knowledge won't change that. Really, just open your ears on any software engineering project and you'll hear that "accepted principles" are routinely ignored. A month ago I heard someone say, quite upset, "We're supposed to be in testing right now, but we're still in development!" because QA uncovered a bunch of bugs that needed to be fixed by developers. Clearly that person sees testing as a joke, a pious fraud, that isn't actually supposed to catch any bugs. Usually most bugs missed in development are released to production and fixed later. Catching more bugs than usual in QA, thanks to an enthusiastic and zealous QA engineer, was a blow to the schedule and will probably result in the project being perceived less favorably than if QA had done a sloppy job. Bertrand Meyer is kidding himself if he thinks engineering knowledge is the cure for this kind of disease. EDIT: Stepping back, I guess the cost and embarrassment of a mandatory investigation would serve as a deterrent. But the knowledge gleaned from such investigations would be depressingly mundane.