To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (22088 ) 12/10/1998 6:49:00 AM From: Charles Hughes Respond to of 24154
<< Not to mention the fact that a huge % of software "failures" are actually due to poor up-front negotiations with the client >> Again, that is where the professional association and rules and laws come in. If you, as an engineer, agree to build something shoddy, you lose your ticket, just as a PE or other professionals can. To the extent that such processes don't work, you get the failures, e.g. more lawyers and doctors should probably have their licenses pulled. << It has nothing to do with the core competency of the individuals involved. >> Gross overstatement on your part, if a nice charitable thought. Actually, the more incompetent you are in software the more likely you are to be the manager making the final judgement calls. See 'dilbert' for classic examples based on real world experience. :0) << There are benefits to competency evaluations Im sure, but to assume that a direct result of that will be fewer failures is naive, imo. >> Do you take this attitude when flying on 747s? Would you prefer that your paramedic had passed a test? That your lawyer had passed the bar? There are jobs where professional licenses make little difference. This is not likely to be one of them, because of the extremely baroque technical difficulties involved. However, many people now have such contempt for software 'professionals' that they can not imagine enabling them professionally and treating them seriously with exams, the right to reject projects, and so forth. This contempt stems largely from the failures you ascribe to other causes, like contracts. But only when a profession has real credibility does it have the clout to veto such arrangements. As doctors working for HMOs have recently found out. Not to mention constitutional lawyers. Cheers, Chaz