The simplest cost-benefit analysis on a death in the field would show you how silly your position is.
But you're very cocksure, so I won't argue it with you. But I wouldn't pour out your certitude on this if you ever interview at a medical device company. On Tue, December 12, 2006 2:55 pm, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Lan Barnes wrote: > >> This is absolutely flat ass wrong, Stewart. I don't say that to you >> often >> -- this may be the first time -- but it is not "wasteful to try to catch >> as many defects as possible up front," it is the best and most cost >> effective approach. > > I wholeheartedly disagree. > > That thinking killed DEC. That thinking holds back medical devices. > > Catching defects *must* be balanced against shipping a product. > > DEC could have shipped EV6 at least 12 months earlier. Had they, the > company would probably still be around. However, there was no incentive > to ship. The only reward was to be a notch higher on the next project. > That meant "don't ever make a mistake as your career will never > recover." Lots of "defect" catching and testing ensued. The fact that > the company was going down the drain never entered the picture. > > My favorite in medical devices is implantable continuous insulin > delivery systems. Since the medical defect level is *zero*--cannot fail > or we wind up in the headlines--they do not make them. However, nobody > ever balances the improvement in quality of life from the shipped > product against the possible defects. A device which completely > alleviated the symptoms of diabetes in 99% of people but killed 1% is > probably a net win since the complications from diabetes eventually kill > people anyhow. > > However, nobody is ever willing to have that discussion. > > I always love the medical device "no defects". Excuse me, but the > system, known as the human body, you are trying to fix isn't that > reliable or you wouldn't be needing to fix it. > >> The longer you take to find a defect, the more its effects spread out, >> the >> more defects you introduce in your "five minutes to fix." >> >> This isn't Lan talking. Lan doesn't know much. This is an avalanche of >> opinion from brilliant, experienced professionals who have studied >> exactly >> this question over four decades. > > No argument. However, sometimes the cost is acceptable. > > This is especially true when *not* having the shipped product also has a > cost. The problem is that nobody ever adds that into the equation. > > -a > > -- > [email protected] > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg > -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
