Re: Work to the risk was Re: Inspections Was: RE: [AM] ANN: Mashing Deadly Myt

| From: "J. B. Rainsberger" <[email protected]>
| 
| Scott E. Preece wrote:
| 
| > | From: Scott Ambler<[email protected]>
| > | 
| > | It's the same thing with software.  If I was working on truly critical 
| > | software where a mistake is costly, perhaps the control software for the 
| > | Mars Lander or control software for a medical device, then I'd very likely 
| > | insist on reviews and inspections.  In these situations the risk far 
| > | outweighs the cost.  In the vast majority of situations this isn't the 
| > | case, and frankly it makes very little sense to do inspections and reviews 
| > | when other practices such as pair programming, modeling with others, 
| > | collective ownership, ... seem to result in very high quality work anyway.
| > ---
| > 
| > If you're willing to limit your scope to projects where it doesn't
| > matter if you deliver defects, then I can agree with you.  
| 
| This is insulting. It ignores Scott A's argument entirely.
---

Scott A said "truly critical...where a mistake is costly...where the
risk far outweighs the cost".  My restatement is in line with that
statement. It wasn't meant to be insulting, just to be stark.
Scott A is saying, specifically, that these methods apply where
the cost of releasing the defects that inspections would catch is lower
than the cost of doing the inspections, which is exactly what I would
say, too.  I don't think "doesn't matter" is an inaccurate
characterization of that rule - if the defects mattered more than the
cost, you would do the inspections.

---
|  > My perceptions are
| > colored by working with software delivered to customers, with both real
| > costs and credibility costs to escaped defects.
| 
| This is equally insulting. I'm not sure that this furthers your 
| argument. No need to puff out your chest at us.
---

Agilists, of course, never puff out their chests and demean people who
use traditional methods...

My statement was not meant to be insulting in any way, it was meant to
indicate why I believe Scott's statement understated the issue.  Many of
us work in environments where the cost of user-visible defects is
potentially bankrupting, even if not life-threatening. It's very
important to understand the scope of your advice, and a lot of the agile
literature does just what Scott did - using examples like the Mars
Lander and medical devices that will imply a very small niche to their
readers.

If you're dealing with people's money or building tools that people will
depend on in earning their money or building consumer devices or dealing
with personal data whose release or mis-reporting could expose you to
liability suits, you ARE working on software that is "truly
critical...where a mistake is costly", and you should be using
appropriate methods. I don't think that's a small niche, and I think
it's misleading to describe it in ways that imply that it is.

scott

-- 
scott preece
motorola urbana design center (il67), 1800 s. oak st., champaign, il  61820  
e-mail:	[email protected]	fax:	217-384-8550
phone:	217-384-8589	cell: 217-433-6114	pager: [email protected]

For more information about AM, visit the Agile Modeling Home Page at www.agilemodeling.com
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: [email protected]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrKDA.bWnbtk.Z2NtYS1h
Or send an email to: [email protected]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^----------------------------------------------------------------