My CS 404 Thoughts

The trial case concerning the "Gimli Glider" raised some questions and ideas that I haven't thought about much. I have two years of school left, and then graduate school (I hope), but what then? What will I do when I'm in the industry and have the responsibility to design and develop a software system? Will I design only to the bare specifications I am given to reduce time to market, or will I try to envision the intent and purpose of the specifications? Chris Critical, the designer/developer at Honeywell who designed and wrote the software responsible for controlling and monitoring the fuel in the Boeing 767, obviously didn't think too far ahead or plan for contingencies when designing his software. The fact that the system actually went into service tells me that he was a good programmer, and that his code passed the quality assurance testing, but my opinion is that he could have done more. I would think that the "what if?" questions such as "What will my software do if the front-line processor fails?" are questions that cannot go unasked in development of any system, let alone a system on which thousands of lives will depend. This is a question that the design and testing teams at
Honeywell apparently didn't ask, since when the main processor died the system did not switch to the backup processor. Because of this very issue, my greatest desire when thinking about where I would like to work is that I would like to find a company where doing things right is the first priority. I would like to work in a place where if I overlook something as critical as was overlooked in the Gimli incident, someone else is likely to catch it, and where a thorough design process--with contingencies taken into account--is encouraged. Hopefully I will find that there are companies in the industry where this is the case.

For those who are not in my class and are wondering what all this is about, you can read about it here or here.