[trustable-software] Exploring the "Hypothesis for software to be trustable"
trustable at panic.fluff.org
trustable at panic.fluff.org
Wed Jan 3 11:20:22 GMT 2018
On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, Paul Sherwood wrote:
> Edmund - so far I haven't concluded that we need to be able to measure
> everything. If you believe that we *do* need to measure something like this,
> can you justify why?
>
> br
> Paul
>
So I believe that without the ability to measure we are unable evaluate
change and so we cannot assess risk or uncertainty.
To quote a conversation elsewhere discussing the following volume
[https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00INUYS2U]
" 1. Management cares about measurements because measurements inform
uncertain decisions.
2. For any decision or set of decisions, there are a large combination
of things to measure and ways to measure them but perfect certainty
is rarely a realistic option.
3. Therefore, management needs a method to analyze options for reducing
uncertainty about decisions. "
I'd make the point that though designing experiments which allow us to
measure things can sometimes be complex, without being able to do this we
are unable to confirm our findings and verify that the cause of aberrant
behaviour in the systems or the construction of the systems.
More information about the trustable-software
mailing list