🚀 go-pugleaf

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
I find this whole train of thought about the validity of defect management tacti
 cs kind of odd.

I've been working in software production for 10 years.  All but the last few mon
 ths has been with a large outsourcing/consulting firm that pioneered life cycle
  methods, quality assurance processes, etc., in the manufacturing of software.

I am also a BPR trainee and facilitator with plenty o' exprience, so I think I'm
  qualified to give a working man's opinion of this situation.

1.  Each site is different, even within a highly controlled organization.
    From some teams/groups the harsh, "fear" tactics work well, and in others
    it will fail.  That's a fact of life, and you can certainly not validate
    or invalidate "fear" as a tool by comparing disparate environments.

2.  Shouldn't the objective of quality be bigger profits, better product,
    and a continuous improvement in all features of the organization?  I
    think the idea of continuous improvement doesn't just mean a growth
    in profit.  There are a lot more factors in managing a company than
    growing short-term profits.

3.  What point is there in comparing the Japanese to Americans?  The
    workers in Japan are brought up in a culture that incorporates
    quaility concepts.  Americans, in general, are not.  That doesn't
    matter, except that comparing one culture to another is, at best,
    difficult to normalize.

I could say a whole lot more, but I think we can all agree that there are 1001 w
 ays to skin the cat, and some of them even work.  Maybe the discussion should t
 rend more towards identifying quality or defect management tactics that have wo
 rked in the past, and talk about the environmental and cultural factors that le
 ad to that success.