That's an interesting argument. In construction, the larger a project, the more justifiable it is to invest in quality. Is it different than software? I think a better argument against licensure is that it makes small projects too expensive, but I disagree. It shifts not the overall cost, but when cost is paid: "The upfront cost will increase, but a long tail of costs stemming from quality issues will decrease."
I worked for 10 years in medical devices. QMS was business as usual. I think large software projects with millions budgeted should have them. But the difference between a QMS and licensure is a person's signature and their personal commitment to a statement of ethics as well as their accountability and ability to appeal to a professional organization.
Comments
That's an interesting argument. In construction, the larger a project, the more justifiable it is to invest in quality. Is it different than software? I think a better argument against licensure is that it makes small projects too expensive, but I disagree. It shifts not the overall cost, but when cost is paid: "The upfront cost will increase, but a long tail of costs stemming from quality issues will decrease."
I worked for 10 years in medical devices. QMS was business as usual. I think large software projects with millions budgeted should have them. But the difference between a QMS and licensure is a person's signature and their personal commitment to a statement of ethics as well as their accountability and ability to appeal to a professional organization.