| SYSTEM | ASSESSMENT |
| Federal Aviation Administration Advanced AutomatIon System (AAS) - program was restructured and descoped in 1994 | Lincoln Lab report: Shifting requirements. “[T]he benefits of using Ada for the development and maintenance of large systems are well-known.” |
| F16 Avionics - system worked but had cost and schedule overruns | Development team unfamiliar with Ada and F16, had 18 mo. schedule, used new parallel processor w/shared memory, changed runtime and methodology, used rate monotonic scheduling. |
| SUBACS - Failed to deliver “on schedule” | Well into the project the sponsor cut one year off the schedule; product delivered on original schedule. |
| P3C Update 4 - Cancelled while behind schedule | Mission need diminished due to declining Soviet threat. Technology transferred to allies. |
| Previous slide | Contents | Next slide |
From the Script: SLIDE 44 - Perceived Failures
For years, people have been spreading the myth that Ada has been the cause of some major project failures. Not so!
Failures perceived to be caused by use of Ada are actually the result of other problems. And the way you can tell this is to talk to the people involved in that project - there is nothing better than first hand information. And since it's difficult for everyone to personally go to each of these projects, we're bringing you excerpts from reports and/or e-mail on four sample projects that are often mentioned as failures caused by Ada. Then, we'll detail one of them: The FAA's Advanced Automation System (AAS).
The restructuring and descoping of the FAA AAS in 1994 was primarily the result of changing requirements. For one example article, see IEEE Software, January 1996, p. 104, "Anatomy of a Runaway: What Grounded the AAS," by Stephen Barlas and part two in IEEE Software March 1996, p. 110, "FAA Shifts Focus to Scaled-Back DSR," by Stephen Barlas.
The F16 Avionics cost and schedule overruns were more the result of unfamiliarity with the Ada language, new equipment, modified methodology and faulty scheduling - not the direct fault of using Ada. Much of the information on this project was gathered by Les DePaix of the Software Technology Support center, in phone interviews with the F16 project folks.
Insert cites to one or more reports here.
The only failure of SUBACS was the failure to meet a revised, severely condensed schedule. The final delivery worked as advertised. Much of the information on this project was gathered by Robert Harrision of NSWCDD in discussion with SUBACS project folks.
Insert cites to one or more reports here.
P3C was a victim of timing, not a victim of Ada. Some of the P3C's technology is being used by our allies - something that wouldn't happen if the Ada software were the cause of a failure. Much of the information on this project was gathered by Curry Colket of SPAWAR, in phone interviews with the P3C project folks.
Insert cites to one or more reports here.
None of these perceived failures can be attributed to the use of Ada