|Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 20:50:52 -0700|
03 00050 61 02052201
Mr. Garold L. Johnson
|Subject:||Boeing Case Study, SDS Requirements|
Glad you are thinking about working on a Software Requirements Specification
(SRS) for the SDS program, as explained in
Not sure, but I think I have the code Morris has created for SDS. The past few years, when Morris has worked on Medit, he uses code on my computer, because it is important for me to maintain it to support SDS, and this has become less of a priority for Morris, because he does not use the code for anything else. On the other hand, if there is other stuff you need from Morris, it is mostly a matter of making a request. He has always been fairly accommodating in providing this kind of support.
Having said that, I am at a bit of a loss to understand why the assembly code for Medit is needed to get started on SRS for SDS?
Since all of the functionality is created above the underlying code it would seem there is a level of product description that says what are the pieces, what do that do, how are they used and how will this improve upon what is being used now, or something like that. Then at a lower level, there is an engineering description of how to write code that implements functionality and interface. Since the code that is contemplated to be created is not assembly code, it just seems that the original code is not terribly instructive. So this raises a question about the need for that resource as a predicate to start an SRS?
Your feedback on FAR is helpful. You might note that none of the links to the SDS review of your report on 020315 are active, nor is there access to your report pursuant to the request for confidentiality. On 020217 you noted that we need to give people an example of problems that SDS solves. Similarly, Stuart Harrow at DCMA, the agency for implementing FAR on projects like ISS wrote on 010608 that SDS is needed to improve management....
Later Stuart advised that we need intellectual bridges to help people grasp the need for SDS....
The case study on Boeing seems to fill this requirement, although the ability of people to look at the face of disaster and shrug is amazingly limitless, so long as other people are paying the bill.
In any case, not pushing this too hard, but would like to explore with Stuart whether there might be a constructive way to use the ISS example to help him get some traction with SDS at his end, in a way that does not have negative repercussions on anyone. So far none of your remarks in your letter on March 15, 2002, nor today are in the public record. I think the treatment in SDS of this information illustrates a general problem without criticizing Boeing, since Boeing is in the mainstream of what everybody else is doing. However, subject to your release this remains confidential.
Please let me know what you think when time permits.
Thanks for thinking about this.
THE WELCH COMPANY