"Consider the 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." (Fishman,1996)
"the shuttle software group is one of just four outfits in the world to win the coveted Level 5 ranking of the federal governments Software Engineering Institute (SEI) a measure of the sophistication and reliability of the way they do their work. In fact, the SEI based it standards in part from watching the on-board shuttle group do its work. (Fishman,1996)"But if rigor can be good, why do CMM, CMMi and other control frameworks have such a bad reputation in the profession?
"I am convinced that most organizations using the CMM are still entrenched in a default waterfall model mentality. I won't lay blame on the model itself, for I am aware of some process improvements made within a CMM context that were very much based on a modern, iterative approach to development. But this enlightened interpretation is not the norm." (Royce, 2002)Is rigor only possible with frameworks and management control? Are other kinds of rigor and control possible? If there is a common problem what is it? At what point does more 'stuff' become the problem rather than the solution to the problem?
Commentary on 'the Right Stuff' on the C2 wiki (link).
And the backstory to waterfall, Winston and Walker Royce (link).
1. Fishman, C. (1996) They Write the Right Stuff.
2. Royce, W. (2002) CMM vs CMMI: from conventional to modern software management.