On 31 Jan 2002, at 18:26, [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Too many managers would not know quality if they could see it.
> Worse, I doubt we could even begin to agree on what quality
> means in this context.

The fundamental change is that like shoes, software has
become 'disposable'.  A disposable product just does not
warrant the care and expense of careful manufacture.  Cost is
the overriding consideration.  Quality only has to meet a
sufficient level to allow the product to reach its anticipated end
of life without encountering a catastrophic failure in at least
95% of the units produced.

This is ultimately the environmental change that doomed the
HP3000 and will probably do in the AS400 at some point.  The
'need' for rock-solid reliability is in the end one of perception.
The closer one is to having to actual get things to work the
greater the value of this characteristic.  However, the vast
majority of computer users are as far from this point of view as
they can get without leaving the known universe.
Consequently reliability is not widely perceived as a valuable
(read: worth the cost to acquire) attribute.

To be fair, it is difficult to communicate the value of such a
concept to someone conditioned to turning their computer off
in order to clear some transient condition.  The frame of
reference needed to appreciate it is normally totally absent on
the part of the listener.

Regards,
Jim
---   *** e-mail is not a secure channel ***
James B. Byrne                Harte & Lyne Limited
vox: +1 905 561 1241          9 Brockley Drive
fax: +1 905 561 0757          Hamilton, Ontario
mailto:[log in to unmask]  Canada L8E 3C3

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *