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.
/jim
> -----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