Wording of Engineering Processes Problem
charliep at IPRG.nokia.com
Tue Jun 10 10:44:50 CEST 2003
I am reminded of the story about the start-up where things
were finally getting taken care of, loose ends straightened
out, and so on. They folded soon after. The moral is that
work on the edge of technology is messy and unpredictable.
I'd rather encourage timeliness than predictability, because
the latter probably means that the timeline by which the
predictions are made will be expanded to assure success.
It seems to me that once interoperability is achieved and
major technical difficulties are overcome, the process should
be oriented towards expedient publication.
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> As I mentioned in SF, I think we may want to change the
> wording of the "Engineering Processes" problem...
> IMO, the problem isn't that we don't use effective
> engineering processes (although using them may be part
> of the solution). I'd state the problem as:
> "WGs do not consistently produce timely, high-quality
> and predictable output."
> Solutions to this problem might include: adoption of
> quality processes, training, better review during document
> production, flogging WG chairs who produce crap, etc.
> What do others think?
More information about the Problem-statement