Dear ADSM-L subscribers.  I have read your comments surrounding ADSM code
quality.  Let me start by
telling you quality is very important to ADSM development. I would like to take
a few minutes of your time
to share information on our development processes and procedures.  We are
continuously reviewing
our methods to identify areas for improvement.  Like you.  we are disappointed
when problems reach
the field.

Release to Release our quality has been improving at a very good rate.  Within
IBM we are required to
project code quality by using "defects per thousand lines of code (KLOC)"
measurement.  We do projections
when planning new releases, based on new code we will develop.   In the first
version of ADSM-  V1
we were experiencing 1.3 defects per KLOC.  Progressively at each delivery we
have been improving,
for V3 we had projected .5 and in reality we are achieving significantly better
quality in the < .2 range.
For EM we projected .15 defects/KLOC.  Any defect in the code is bad, but our
results demonstrate
we are continuously improving.  Benchmarking ADSM against other products like
it, shows us
ADSM is one of the leaders in code quality.

Defects  that escape to the field are reviewed by a causal analysis group.  This
team was put in place in 1998
and has helped us identify holes in our development and testing processes.  The
data from the analysis also
provides us views of how customers are using and experiencing problems with the
product.  Many positive
actions have resulted from this work.

It is  our philosophy that you cannot test quality into the product.  With this
in mind during the last two
years we have implemented a very comprehensive development process.  Examples
include
documented and reviewed designs, co-ordinated driver schedules, and  code which
is managed in
change control libraries.  We have comprehensive Function Verification Testing,
with
approved plans and metrics.  System Verification Testing simulating customer
environments, and
running stress loads.  We continuously benchmark at industry practices and
insert those into
our processes.  These are a few examples.

Finally, the area we are weakest in is service process.  To benefit this area,
we are expanding
our processes used during development to encompass service.  Using more
stringent control
techniques and review processes, this area will continue to improve.

Finally, I'll  be personally reviewing these recent defects and meeting with the
team to identify
actions which need to be inserted into the process to prevent these types of
problems.
Unfortunately, all our efforts and hard work are little solace when you, the
customer hit
a problem which causes you extra work.  Please be assured we care and are
continuously
working to be the best.


Cindy Bogle
ADSM Development Manager