|
|
|
|
|
by rramadass
825 days ago
|
|
Developing Safety Critical Systems is nothing like developing "ordinary" systems. The stakes are so much higher that absolute rigour at every step is demanded and enforced. This is why "Software Engineering Process" methodologies were invented and enforced using "Formal Methods". When this rigour is lost you have catastrophic system failure like in the "current-day" Boeing company. > Never mind that this idea of an offshore team diligently implementing the spec to the letter hand-waves away the software engineering, as if it’s a mere implementation detail not intimately connected to the system delivering the desired safety and performance characteristics. If the "offshore" team does not have the requisite Domain Expertise (which seems to be the case here), then it is Boeing's job to provide rigorous specifications and more importantly have safety checks/verification/tests/etc. in place to guarantee "correctness to spec." Problems in the specifications itself are the responsibility of the Boeing Design/Engineering team. |
|