Subject: Re: engineering counts
From: Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: 22 Oct 2001 21:36:24 +0900

>>>>> "Forrest" == Forrest J Cavalier, <mibsoft@mibsoftware.com> writes:

    Forrest> If a CMM >=3 group is going to acquire software, they at
    Forrest> least need to get it from processes they trust to be CMM
    Forrest> 3 or above.  Nearly all of the existing open source
    Forrest> software is useless to such an organization.

Nonsense.

"Nearly all of the existing open source software is worth some
fraction of the face value to a CMM 3+ organization."  That value is
by definition equal to max{0, (cost of doing it from scratch) - (cost
of inspecting and upgrading to internal standards)}.

Furthermore, both the initial assessment of whether to do the
inspection and the assessment itself are made substantially cheaper
and more accurate by open source (no need to buy a pig in a poke and
then discover it's been wallowing in, well, you know, wallowing).

You may be correct that for almost all open source software that max
takes the first branch---reengineering is awf'ly expensive.  But there
is nothing in principle to stop the CMM 3+ process from occurring
inside the acquirer, based on the externally acquired code.

This may or may not be a foundation for an FSB business model.  It
would depend on how close the FSB can come to the CMM 3+ process
itself, and whether what's left can be supplemented by joint work with
the client.  (Stipulated, that's a very tall order.)

    Forrest> Do you think this is a problem with CMM's premise of
    Forrest> defining quality in terms of the process and not the
    Forrest> product?

No.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
              Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.