[Note: This article is reproduced and posted on the TQM BBS with the permission of "Software Quality." It is intended for the personal use and study by TQM BBS and Internet subscribers. Permission for further distribution may be obtained by writing to the editor, Bill Brown, at 18217 Southeast 43rd Court, Issaquah, Washington 98027. Phone: 206-644-7288. Fax: 206-644-1364.] [The following article appears in Issue 4 Volume 1 (July 1995) edition of "Software Quality," the ASQC quality software newsletter, page 7.] JAPANESE SOFTWARE QUALITY GUIDELINES PROPOSED, OPPOSED BY TAZ DAUGHTREY This past May, the Japan Accreditation Board for Quality System Registration (JAB) distributed a draft "Quality System Registration Program for Software Suppliers." Based on the internationally accepted ISO 9001 standard and its companion ISO 9000-3 guidelines for software, the proposal places the Japanese firmly in the mainstream of professional practice in applying quality management principles to software development. The draft recognizes the need for software-specific arrangements and seeks to harmonize with similar programs being operated internationally. The bulk of the Japanese document (some 40 of 55 total pages) is a "Guide for the Assessment of Software Suppliers by Registration Bodies on the Basis of JIS Z9901 [the Japanese designation of ISO 9001]." This assessment guide provides interpretive comments on how requirements of ISO 9001 apply to the special situations of software development. It focuses on the key sections of Design Control, Process Control, and Inspection and Testing; some additional guidance is provided for four other of the standard's 20 sections. The JAB's program offers neither new nor modified requirements for auditors or registration bodies. Instead, it proposes that the JAB begin to accredit registration bodies that wish to certify software developers, but only if they conduct their assessments "in reference to" the software assessment guide and use "appropriate" auditors, as outlined within the draft. Although there would be no separate mark, as with the UK's TickIT logo, both the registration certificates and lists of registered suppliers would explicitly identify software as the object of any assessment. Activity in Japan seems to have paralleled a similar effort in the United States throughout 1993 and 1994, but with strikingly different results. The Software Quality Systems Registration proposal was greeted with skepticism by this country's Registrar Accreditation Board (RAB) in the face of concerted opposition from some high-profile domestic computer and electronics firms. In contrast, the JAB received clear support from Japan's Information-Technology Promotion Agency, based on a committee of purchasers, suppliers, and third-party experts. Given the industry recommendations in favor of software management registration, the JAB stated it had "little room for reconsidering...its basic policy" despite U.S. failure to establish an equivalent system. More interesting than the proposal itself have been the intemperate responses in the United States. Based on prompt American Electronics Association denunciation, the technical press headlined, "Japanese Standard Threatens U.S. Software" and "U.S. Companies Fear Barrier to Trade." Quality Digest editorialized, "The biggest question, Will it improve quality? has already been answered [in the negative]." Then, in July, the Wall Street Journal carried two stories on American action ("U.S. Industry Asks [Trade Representative] Kantor to Help Block Japanese Plan for Software Standards") and Japanese reaction ("Japan, Facing U.S. Anger, May Delay Software Plan"). The proposal has drawn opposition from a number of well-established American firms, playing upon fears of trade barriers and stealing American competitive advantage. Opponents range from companies whose officials have publicly belittled the whole ISO 9000 approach (Motorola) to those who have been attacking third-party auditing (Hewlett-Packard) to those who have said they only seek software-specific registration where obligated (IBM). The director of quality for Microsoft went so far as to claim, "The primary motivation is to generate revenue for the "Japanese] registrars." A trade association official made the unsubstantiated projection that compliance by U.S. software firms would drive up their development costs by 20%. However, a paper accompanying the draft makes a sturdy defense of the JAB proposal. Point-by-point it rebuts specific concerns enumerated as coming from U.S. software suppliers. Assertion: Software development is unlike the hardware manufacturing processes for which ISO 9001 was intended Response: The consensus document ISO 9000-3 provides adequate interpretation of ISO 9001 for software suppliers. Assertion: Quality system registration is too lengthy and costly for software suppliers. Response: The JAB received sufficient support for such arrangements from both Japanese software purchasers and suppliers. Assertion: Unregistered U.S. software suppliers, without access to registration bodies, would lose markets in Japan. Response: JAB accreditation in software will not be limited to domestic registration bodies. Assertion The program, begun voluntarily, could become mandatory in Japan. Response: Purchasers voluntarily choose whether to require registration of their suppliers. The JAB has no role in dictating public- or private-sector procurement policies. The RAB has circulated for comment the JAB documentation, and the American National Standards Institute may also become involved. The United States now finds itself alone among advanced technological nations in choosing not to implement any arrangements for quality system assessment that provide for the unique aspects of software development and management.