The software quality industry continues to grow in the areas of control, test and tracking. How far has the software quality industry come in the area of design? It is the design that determines what the customer ultimately sees.
What does a person hope for when he or she sits down to use the software? Where do we expect to encounter software (are we sitting down at all)?
Its my belief that software should complement our lives. In the same way that the washing machine was meant to give a housewife more freedom and the lightbulb removed open flame lighting and its inherent fire risk, so I expect software to provide a benefit to my ongoing life. Yet, almost every day, I encounter something software related that raises my frustration level, which I may then communicate to those around me. Testing alone does not eliminate this. Sure, we can find the memory leak, which either causes the program to slow or crash. But what of the design itself? What of the endless improvements that bring with it the inevitable question "did I ask for this?" How do I do what I used to do? Where did they move that button to? Why does it keep prompting me for that? Why didn't it tell me it was going to do that? How does this make sense? Why can't I just turn on the faucet like I used to?
Design means asking these important questions. Testing and control and even requirement processes do not guarantee quality software.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
When did we stop asking Paper or Program
Reuters is reporting on an study which states that electronic medical records are no better than paper records. This leads me to think about when I first started in this computer business. Back then, people thought about whether an application would make work easier. In fact, computers were first developed to help with computing sums that were so long and tedious. We take it for granted that access to data and the internet is revolutionizing our world.
I think that's true. But we seem to have stopped asking the question -- does everything need a computer, a program, an application, a system? And I think that is part of the job if we want to create Quality Software. It applies to the process we use to make the software -- the effort it takes to populate the data, to maintain the data, to secure the data.
I think that's true. But we seem to have stopped asking the question -- does everything need a computer, a program, an application, a system? And I think that is part of the job if we want to create Quality Software. It applies to the process we use to make the software -- the effort it takes to populate the data, to maintain the data, to secure the data.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Six Sigma not for R&D
Have you read the Business Week article recently on 3M's implementation of Six Sigma? This is a good example of how enterprise wide quality changes are not always good for the enterprise. Just like many quality initiatives, you must use the right tool for the right job. Six Sigma is beneficial when a product is already created, and you want to become more cost efficient. DMAIC, Six Sigma's problem solving tool, is best used when you have something to improve. It provides a structure to identify where changes will provide the greatest cost benefit. It starts with the theory of improvement.
But innovation is about creating something new that doesn't yet exist. R&D depends on mistakes, failures and ah ha moments. There are many famous every day items that were mistakes. I once worked at a company whose researchers were investigating the properties of the various creatures of the sea to see what benefits these properties could have. I was fascinated. Was the iPod really the solution to a problem of cost efficiency?
On the other hand, many companies have failed when the entire company continues run as if it is only an R&D shop, even though it is now in revenue production. Once you have brought something to market, you have an obligation to be as efficient and effective as possible in your production.
It's possible that in an industry such as banking or insurance, you could use Six Sigma throughout, because people aren't really that comfortable with radical changes in the way their money is managed.
But in any company that wants to experience growth through new ideas, one segment of the company must be left to develop utilizing a different methodology. It will be interesting to see if 3M maintains some of the process discipline of Six Sigma while re-introducing 'growth and innovation' into the company.
But innovation is about creating something new that doesn't yet exist. R&D depends on mistakes, failures and ah ha moments. There are many famous every day items that were mistakes. I once worked at a company whose researchers were investigating the properties of the various creatures of the sea to see what benefits these properties could have. I was fascinated. Was the iPod really the solution to a problem of cost efficiency?
On the other hand, many companies have failed when the entire company continues run as if it is only an R&D shop, even though it is now in revenue production. Once you have brought something to market, you have an obligation to be as efficient and effective as possible in your production.
It's possible that in an industry such as banking or insurance, you could use Six Sigma throughout, because people aren't really that comfortable with radical changes in the way their money is managed.
But in any company that wants to experience growth through new ideas, one segment of the company must be left to develop utilizing a different methodology. It will be interesting to see if 3M maintains some of the process discipline of Six Sigma while re-introducing 'growth and innovation' into the company.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Thoughts on Quality Software
Software Quality and Quality Software aren't always the same thing. I wish it were true, but it's not. The purpose of this blog is to examine this difference and discuss what it will take for software, which has become so embedded in our world, to become quality software.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)