[OT] Computer news from Kassel
palcibiades-first at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Jun 24 04:55:39 EDT 2010
The most dangerous argument any company can entertain on this subject. The
question is, how the company handles reported product defects, what sort of
quality control it operates, whether the result of its resource allocations
is to end up doing many things badly, because it has taken on too much.
Does the fact, and it probably is one, that you can fix time, cost or
quality, but not all three at once, mean that its OK to have reported bugs
hanging around for years at a time undealt with? Not necessarily unfixed,
but not dealt with and disposed of one way or another? No. In the end that
is the route to failure.
Do whatever you do to appropriate and justifiable quality standards, and if
that means you have no resources left for the new products you would like to
introduce, tough. Because you are not going to succeed as a company by
introducing them at the expense of overall quality, anyway. There is no
better alternative on this than doing what you do, right. And not doing the
things you do not have the resources to do right.
View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Computer-news-from-Kassel-tp2264252p2266644.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the Use-livecode