Kamrad@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (08/25/87)
I know your point is well-taken and well meaning but I don't know a Program Manager of major weapon build who really cares about maintenance. His only care is to get the current system built on time and within budget. Maintenance is beyond the scope of his project. He is rewarded only for meeting performance and budget requirements of his project. There is no way that the PM gets rewarded for the easy maintenance of the software of a fielded system. Check it out! The plant managers of Japanese car companies get part of their bonues based on the maintenance record of the cars they produce. Unfortunately within the DoD there is no way to reward the PM's for the quality of software maintenance ( or any other maintenance) of field systems. Consequently the problem will persist. Therefore you don't sell PM's on maintenance value of Ada (or reusability for that matter), you sell them on the ability to perform and meet the budget. Unfortunately, it is the perception (that is becoming largely incorrect) that Ada provides neither. If it provides quality maintenance (or reusability), that's icing on the cake to Program Managers. To quote Uncle Walt (fable TV anchorman): "That's the way it is..." Mike Kamrad
agnew@trwrc.UUCP (R.A. Agnew) (08/26/87)
In article <870825204025.575689@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> Kamrad@HI-MULTICS.ARPA writes: >I know your point is well-taken and well meaning but I don't know a >Program Manager of major weapon build who really cares about Quit talking to your PMs and read your contract. If you have a DOD-2167 and /or DOD-2168 requirement then you have a problem. If you don't you will. Your PM doesn't care about Life-Cycle-Costs but the folks who awarded the bid to you do. Care to mention who your customer is? Disclaimer -- These opinions are entirely my own and do not reflect on my employer in any way.