The Thriving Business of Poor Quality

Users have grown accustomed to shoddy quality from software and services vendors. Why?
(Page 1 of 2)

When I purchase a car, I expect it to operate reliably and safely for intended tasks. Customers would find it unacceptable if they had to reboot their cars every couple of days or if the brakes failed due to poor design when needed most. With the computer industry, things are different. Not only do we expect and accept poor quality – we reward it.

For a myriad of reasons, services have been developed with flaws and delivered to customers who then find all kinds of flaws ranging from subtle to awful, not to mention the hackers that identify flaws and then determine how to best exploit them. Clearly these are flawed products!

Through some bizarre cauldron of desires – our hopes for improved productivity and security – we then sign up for maintenance and support agreements, version upgrade programs, or whatever vendors are calling their plans. Best of all, those plans cost money!

In effect, we are rewarding vendors to fix their mistakes and make a profit while doing so. These same vendors say that only by charging customers can they afford support staffs. This is an argument that we as customers and society can no longer afford.

What's your take? Discuss faulty software vendors in the IT Forum.

Why Not Put Out a Quality Product?

Instead of focusing on reactive support, why don’t vendors focus on proactively preventing errors from being released into production in the first place? Of course the retort would be that some degree of human error will always be present. That argument should not be used as a thinly veiled excuse hiding a profitable support model.

Related Articles
Novell and Microsoft: The Vista Impact

Oracle Muscles In on Red Hat's Support Channel

Security Vendors Have a Vista Bone to Pick

New Microsoft License Ties Vista To Hardware

FREE Tech Newsletters

The rest of the world has learned so much from quality management over the past decades yet why don’t we see an emphasis on quality from software/system vendors? In short, they see no incentive to improve. They see no negatives in turning out flaws all in the name of time to market, customer service, or some other rubbish.

Instead of receiving truly high quality services that meet requirements, customers suffer along. They are conditioned to think that by subscribing to constant streams of updates that they might somehow improve their productivity by driving down bugs or getting some vital additional feature.

Let us not forget that companies exist to achieve goals – for example, maximizing returns on shareholder equity in a sustainable manner. They do this by having organizational goals that are supported by functional area objectives. Therefore, real productivity is work that moves the organization toward its goals.

Working to overcome flawed products so we can at hope to achieve previous levels of output is not productivity improvement. Work such as that is actually unplanned work that doesn't move a group toward their goals but instead serves as a constraint.

If we are going to pay a vendor, then let us pay for work that truly improves our productivity and doesn’t reward the vendor for releasing flawed products and services. By paying faulty vendors we move them toward their goal of making money while robbing ourselves of attaining our own.

Do you know what the level of acceptable system defects should be from a customer’s perspective? The answer is “zero.”

Any argument about why errors persist is more likely to be an excuse and not a reason at this point in time. If the architecture is flawed – fix it. If the processes are broken, refine them. Determine the root cause(s) and make corrections. Implement continuous process improvement now and forevermore and truly embody the spirit of quality.

Next page: Software Industry vs. the Auto Industry

Page 1 of 2

1 2
Next Page

0 Comments (click to add your comment)
Comment and Contribute


(Maximum characters: 1200). You have characters left.