Why Ford software sucks and why it will continue to suck

[goblues38]

I won’t disagree, but will point out that a failure in step 2 makes it somewhat unlikely to pass step 4. Not impossible, bugs happen all the time. But, if it makes it past steps 2 & 3, then gets to test, it’s likely to fail because the test will be the manufacturer (Ford) and the work was done by Acme. Ford won’t tell Acme what the test is. If they did, that would mean that they like Acme and no employer likes contractors. Also, your SDLC is idealistic.

#1 - I want a widget
#2 - define the widget
#3 - develop the widget
#4 - test the widget
#4a - what do you mean the widget has to also do cartwheels?
#4b - redefine the widget
#4c - re-develop the widget
#4d - no, in fact I cannot provide you daily progress updates
#4e - ok, widget 1.1 is ready
#4f - test the wid^^ what do you mean we don’t have time for a full QA?
#5 - deploy the widget 1.1
#6 - onboard widget support cases
#7 - escalate widget issues to the widget engineering team
#8 - engage development to correct (some) widget flaws
#9 - patch the widget v1.2
#10 - deploy widget v1.2
repeat steps 6-10 until retirement.


Agree, Ford tells the contractors ‘hey, I want this widget, here’s what the widget needs to do. How much?’ Acme says ‘Great, we specialize in Widgets, but we only produce a few hundred widgets per year and you will have to place an order. Then we will need to see if you get an allocation. You may or may not get an allocation, you can check with our affiliate to determine the status of your widget allocation’. Turnaround time for Acme Widgets is 2 weeks to 104 weeks, tops. MSRP on the widget is only $9,999.99, which we are offering to Ford at 19,999.99, which is a SMOKING deal!’ ( I couldn’t resist ).

yeah....my example was bare bones because I dont know how much experience the audience has with SDLC.

But yes. We track defect cause....5% developed wrong, 5% tested wrong, 3% environment, 87% ambiguous requirements.

dont get me started on scope creep, but I again put that in the missed requirements bucket.

I have about 300 people in my org. QA, Prod Support, Release Management

I am all too familiar with this crap

 

[TomDirt]

PUH-LEEZ! That is what the the public is for----testing prod!!

Lee Iacoca once joked(?) that at Chrysler, the final testing was left to the customers.

 

[Muchmore]

Lee Iacoca once joked(?) that at Chrysler, the final testing was left to the customers.

I was only half joking, ask Microsoft

 

[Nex]

#1 - I want a widget
#2 - define the widget
#3 - develop the widget
#4 - test the widget
#4a - what do you mean the widget has to also do cartwheels?
#4b - redefine the widget
#4c - re-develop the widget
#4d - no, in fact I cannot provide you daily progress updates
#4e - ok, widget 1.1 is ready
#4f - test the wid^^ what do you mean we don’t have time for a full QA?
#5 - deploy the widget 1.1
#6 - onboard widget support cases
#7 - escalate widget issues to the widget engineering team
#8 - engage development to correct (some) widget flaws
#9 - patch the widget v1.2
#10 - deploy widget v1.2
repeat steps 6-10 until retirement.

At what step does the dead hοοκεr get cleaned for reuse?

Asking for a friend....