This story has been circulating for a while now. My view is that it is Boeing trying to point the finger elsewhere. Any developer does not do the whole job. Whan I used off-shore developer the customer wrote the initial spec. We analysts wrote the detailed spec. The developers coded it and we tested it as soon as it was complete.
You never expect any code to work so you have to catch the errors in your testing. After we (basically in-house IT) tested it the customer tested it as well. The testing usually took longer than the coding.
Blaming the developers for being less well off than you is hardly an excuse.
I worked for an indian tech firm. Every corner was cut and they lied about progress and deadlines. Just completely agreed to functionality they absolutely could not develop. I was told to hide defects during demos so we could meet milestones. Anything they actually released to UAT was just bug-riddled garbage and if you tried to send it back, they'd just argue that it's working fine.
The project was eventually shelved and the company sued for breach of contract. Nothing was actually delivered, but millions were wasted.
I guess it depends on how much of the job you sub-contract. My only experience is with off-shore coders. They realeased nothing directly to UAT (User Acceptance Testing). They installed the code on the development servers and we tested it there and only released it to UAT when we were happy.
However, I also worked in the aerospace industry and they take testing very seriously. Certainly, mechanical tests on components need to be carried out and the results kept for years in case faults develop in service.
I would have expected Boeing's testing, at UAT stage or elsewhere, should have found the issues. Whether they got them re-worked or whether, like you, they fired the developers, the bugs should not have made it into service.
That's easy to say but all software does have bugs!
I agree with your points, it's not so black & white. Also, from what I understand about the 737 MAX bug, it was extremely unlikely to happen and the result of a combination of factors.
This story has been circulating for a while now. My view is that it is Boeing trying to point the finger elsewhere. Any developer does not do the whole job. Whan I used off-shore developer the customer wrote the initial spec. We analysts wrote the detailed spec. The developers coded it and we tested it as soon as it was complete.
You never expect any code to work so you have to catch the errors in your testing. After we (basically in-house IT) tested it the customer tested it as well. The testing usually took longer than the coding.
Blaming the developers for being less well off than you is hardly an excuse.
I worked for an indian tech firm. Every corner was cut and they lied about progress and deadlines. Just completely agreed to functionality they absolutely could not develop. I was told to hide defects during demos so we could meet milestones. Anything they actually released to UAT was just bug-riddled garbage and if you tried to send it back, they'd just argue that it's working fine.
The project was eventually shelved and the company sued for breach of contract. Nothing was actually delivered, but millions were wasted.
I guess it depends on how much of the job you sub-contract. My only experience is with off-shore coders. They realeased nothing directly to UAT (User Acceptance Testing). They installed the code on the development servers and we tested it there and only released it to UAT when we were happy.
However, I also worked in the aerospace industry and they take testing very seriously. Certainly, mechanical tests on components need to be carried out and the results kept for years in case faults develop in service.
I would have expected Boeing's testing, at UAT stage or elsewhere, should have found the issues. Whether they got them re-worked or whether, like you, they fired the developers, the bugs should not have made it into service.
That's easy to say but all software does have bugs!
I agree with your points, it's not so black & white. Also, from what I understand about the 737 MAX bug, it was extremely unlikely to happen and the result of a combination of factors.