Re: [SystemSafety] Logic

From: Heath Raftery < >
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:35:35 +1100

On 19/02/2014 11:28 PM, Michael J. Pont wrote:
> It may - of course - be that the organisations I have closest contact with
> are atypical: they are, after all, a self-selecting group. However, while
> I'm sure that there are many organisations that have mature processes in
> place for the development of real-time embedded systems, I'm equally sure
> that this isn't the norm.
> If we assume - for the moment - that my model is correct, how do we ensure
> that the situation is different in 10 years time?

Great points. I'd suggest that changes to education focus, while very important, wont be the necessary trigger. There needs to be a market force. The scenario that plays out in my world goes like this:

  1. Customer C requests doodad D to solve problem P.
  2. Engineer A says right, no problem, we just need to articulate the requirements and capture them in an unambiguous way. Formal methods can help, I'll show you the way.
  3. Engineer B says, no problem, in fact here's a prototype I whipped up. We're almost there.

Engineer A studied embedded development at an excellent facility and has sound knowledge of formal methods.

Engineer B taught herself programming and has been writing code since before she could drive.

4. A's manager asks how D is coming along and A says fine, we're working through the requirements.
5. B's manager asks how D is coming along and B says fine, look I've got the LEDs flashing and the relays clicking.

Guess which engineer gets rewarded?

The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Thu Feb 20 2014 - 00:35:48 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:06 CEST