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. _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution