MINOR ISSUE: "improvements on the status quo"

Bound, Jim Jim.Bound at hp.com
Fri Jun 13 18:27:55 CEST 2003

I disagree 2026 does not get at the root problem 2.2 states.  the
wording now is accurate and correct.  my input.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:44 PM
> To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: MINOR ISSUE: "improvements on the status quo"
> No, I'm not finished yet :-)
> Section 2.2 of -issue- reads:
>    Engineering requires appropriate trade-offs: Engineering success
>    needs refinement only to the point of 'fitness for purpose' which
>    should help to balance the tension between time to market and
>    perfectionism. The use of appropriate Engineering Practices should,
>    for example, prevent specifications being recycled in pursuit of
>    perfection when they are already adequate improvements on 
> the status
>    quo.
> ISSUE: "improvements on the status quo" is not the best 
> formulation - for 
> new specs, it's unmeasurable; in other cases, it is debatable 
> whether the 
> improvements are "adequate".
> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Use the language from 2026 section 
> 4.1.1: adequate 
> "with respect to the requirements placed upon it."
> Of course, appropriate Engineering Practices would be to make 
> sure we know 
> what requirements we are placing upon it before evaluating this...

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list