Re: Airbus Safety

Date:         29 Dec 98 03:12:45 
From:         Michael & Iain Butler <mbutler@ihug.co.nz>
Organization: Chaos
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

John S. Maddaus wrote:
> Interestingly, one of the SW QC efforts that I heard about years ago
> (irrevelant bits snipped) was that AI had three separate
> development organizations develop the same functional code.  These
> three organizations did not know the others existed and were located
> in three different countries.  The theory behind this was that AI
> would catch more bugs in critical flight control sw this way because
> each group would develop differently, discover different bugs, and
> would provide AI with better de-bugging capabilities (hence higher
> quality sw) when the time to integrate the sw into the hw took place.
> Oddly, what they found was that bugs detected during testing were very
> much the same across groups with few exceptions, even though the code
> may have been significantly different.

Actually this doesn't surprise me at all. The major problem in
software testing is creating "abnormal" conditions to test the handling
of these.  No doubt all the teams managed to create pretty much the
same set of test conditions and therefore found the same errors.  I
think AI would have got better results by having one team of
developers and three teams of testers.

--
Mike Butler                  Wellington NZ
Tip CD Lab/Terrier           New Zealand Dog Agility on the Web
Ben BC X                     http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~mbutler/nala/