Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 21 Apr 95 21:12:56 MDT
From:      terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert)
To:        phk@ref.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp)
Cc:        hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Minutes of the Thursday, April 13th core team meeting in Berkeley.
Message-ID:  <9504220312.AA06440@cs.weber.edu>
In-Reply-To: <199504220106.SAA20941@ref.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Apr 21, 95 06:06:58 pm

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I cheated.  By definition, a company that has fallen victim to S^3
> > will not be successful.  If it is, then it hasn't been a victim.
> 
> We're clearly inside the 20% zone where Terry is completely and utterly
> off the mark.
> 
> IBM "not successful" ????

Are you claiming that they would have been equally or less successful
for having recognized and elimited S^3 by using competent release
engineering practices?

Or are you claiming "any profitability over 0%" as "successful enough"?

Companies that _allow_ themselves to fall victim to S^3 are "*lucky* if
they survive", not "*successful* if they survive".

The difference (in software) between not being hit by S^3 and being
clobbered over the head by it is the difference between committed,
competent release engineering that has been empowered to do their jobs
vs. a failure in commitment, competence, or empowerment that should
have been there but wasn't.

Products that fall victim to S^3 deserve to die.

IBM (or any company) surviving an S^3 crisis is either over-capitolized
(and therefore not hitting their full profit potential) or otherwise
independent of the failing product for their income (survival).

Man, I feel like the only person outside of Japan who has read Demming.

8^).


					Terry Lambert
					terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9504220312.AA06440>