Comments on: Guest Post: Where there’s people, there’s problems http://edgehopper.com/guest-post-where-theres-people-theres-problems/ Brain Droppings on Innovation, Creativity, and Collaboration Thu, 10 May 2012 09:19:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jurgen Appelo http://edgehopper.com/guest-post-where-theres-people-theres-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-2645 Jurgen Appelo Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:20:50 +0000 http://edgehopper.com/?p=1346#comment-2645 @Vasco: Sorry, but your arguments are flawed. One example: "blind spots" or "editing blindness" where people are unable to see the errors in their own work because they've been working on it for so long. The only possible solution is to have someone else inspect (or review) the work. This person will find errors 10x faster than the author himself. Which evidently makes the inspection cheaper than trying to deliver with zero defects. Sure, TDD can alleviate some of that problem. But I don't see how to unit test my documents, or my book, or my blog posts. @Vasco:

Sorry, but your arguments are flawed.

One example: “blind spots” or “editing blindness” where people are unable to see the errors in their own work because they’ve been working on it for so long.

The only possible solution is to have someone else inspect (or review) the work. This person will find errors 10x faster than the author himself. Which evidently makes the inspection cheaper than trying to deliver with zero defects.

Sure, TDD can alleviate some of that problem. But I don’t see how to unit test my documents, or my book, or my blog posts.

]]> By: Vasco Duarte http://edgehopper.com/guest-post-where-theres-people-theres-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-2636 Vasco Duarte Sat, 07 Mar 2009 19:12:02 +0000 http://edgehopper.com/?p=1346#comment-2636 I think that you are missing a very important point that basically invalidates your argument altogether. If you could achieve Zero Defects your process would be much faster infinitely cheaper! Here's my argument: http://bit.ly/15lkle I think that you are missing a very important point that basically invalidates your argument altogether.

If you could achieve Zero Defects your process would be much faster infinitely cheaper!

Here’s my argument: http://bit.ly/15lkle

]]> By: Stephen F. Heffner http://edgehopper.com/guest-post-where-theres-people-theres-problems/comment-page-1/#comment-2585 Stephen F. Heffner Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:26:30 +0000 http://edgehopper.com/?p=1346#comment-2585 Isn't peer review a form of inspection? I believe a significant part of the answer is in automating the inspection process. As the author of a software engineering automation meta-tool, I'm deeply involved in the automation of every aspect of software engineering, including analysis, re-engineering, and translation to a different language. What's needed, IMHO, is a powerful meta-tool, not a bunch of rigid "point solutions". A meta-tool allows you to create your own automation tools rapidly and with low effort. Another advantage of automating software engineering is that it reduces bugs in the first place. Once you get the automation rules right, the meta-tool won't introduce bugs. Isn’t peer review a form of inspection?

I believe a significant part of the answer is in automating the inspection process. As the author of a software engineering automation meta-tool, I’m deeply involved in the automation of every aspect of software engineering, including analysis, re-engineering, and translation to a different language. What’s needed, IMHO, is a powerful meta-tool, not a bunch of rigid “point solutions”. A meta-tool allows you to create your own automation tools rapidly and with low effort.

Another advantage of automating software engineering is that it reduces bugs in the first place. Once you get the automation rules right, the meta-tool won’t introduce bugs.

]]>