NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/software/4432

Text File | 1992-11-20 | 3.4 KB | 72 lines

Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!news.oc.com!utacfd.uta.edu!seas.smu.edu!vivaldi!aslws01!aslws01!terry
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Hey Congress, Let's Zero Out SCE Funding!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: terry@aslws01
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: aslws01
Organization: Me speaking for myself.
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:22:36 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]>
daveb@lotus (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418) writes:

> The cynical might consider the software immaturity model as a morale
> crutch for organizations on the lower levels of the SEI maturity
> model.  Now there's somewhere lower to (not) be:

The even more cynical such as myself might observe that after five or
six years of who knows how much expense both to the taxpayers and to
private industry that NO organization has ever reached anything above
Level 3.  My source?  Bill Curtis at a luncheon.  The current watch
phrase is that there are only "organizations with characteristics of
Levels 4 and 5," whatever that means.

This is a substantial pulling back from all the earlier informal baloney
that was giving the *impression* that there were Level 4 and 5 organizations,
when in fact there are none.  And as I've mentioned before here, some of
projects (projects, not organizations) with Level 5 ratings are actually
using a *lot* of old code that was developed under Level 1 policies, so
that they have a strong "code maintenance" (vs. new development) flavor.

Also, the same cynic might observe that Dave Card's description of the
amazingly inconsistent results of the (now secret again) SCE program
in the September issue of IEEE Software sounded more like a description
of poorly planned Marx Brothers film than the culmination of millions
of dollars of money and effort the DoD has been dumping into this effort
to "grade" potential DoD contractors.


Let's put it more bluntly:  I say that SCE is a expensive, miserable
failure that needs to be put out of its misery.  Will the new congress
and/or administration please either cut out the funding for this charade,
or at least start doing some serious policing of where *their* "contract
money" is going?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander -- and I say that if SEI
has taken it upon themselves to try to evaluate the industry with this
slipshod set of procedures, then by golly, someone in the right congress-
ional appropriations groups ought to return them the favor and do a really
blistering analysis of how effective SEI in general and SCE in particular
have been at doing *their* job right after five or six years of floundering.

Please keep in mind that I happen to be one of the folks who *does* think
our software development industry needs certification.  Indeed, that is
precisely why I find the SEI effort so annoying.  While they are getting
funded mostly by harping on a very real need, to date don't seem to be
doing a very good job of delivering what they promised.

(A *real* cynic might even note that SEI does seem to be extraordinarily
effective at making sure nothing they do damages the little mini-consulting
industry that seems to have grown up around their five-level model and
rather arbitrary full-factory-model "maturity" assumptions...  But I'm not
*that* cynical. (Are you?)   :-)

                Cheers,
                Terry Bollinger
                (Speaking only for myself)