Minimum
loss
0
1
2
3
5
4
6
7
8
9
X
Y
Losses
Performance
338 Appendix 2: Product Upgrades Based on Minimum Expected Quality Loss
product is shipped. This minimum loss represents the most effective peri
odicity for the product upgrade within the product’s specified environment,
given the conflicting constraints of STB and LTB. The goal of the stakeholder
negotiations is to minimize the total system losses due to and during the
course of upgrading and releasing upgraded products. There are an infinite
number of quality loss functions, each with a minimum loss determined by
cooperative negotiation between buyer and seller. But there is only one
Pareto-efficient quality loss function that reflects the optimized minimum
loss during a product upgrade cycle (Figure A2.4).
Losses to the buyers can result from an early release of an upgraded prod
uct that may not take full advantage of better technology. These losses may
manifest through lower performances of product functions, relative to the
lost opportunity available from more current and relevant technologies.
Later release of an upgrade product may deprive customers of productivity
that could have been achieved given an earlier release of the upgrade.
Premature release of an upgraded product may require fixes and patches to
achieve an acceptable operational effectiveness, while perfectly functioning
upgrades may be function rich, but performance poor.
The result of an early or late release is in effect to slide the performance
target parameter m horizontally as the quality loss functions show an
FIgure A2.4
Pareto-efficient quality loss function optimized for minimum loss.
loss
0
1
2
3
5
4
6
7
8
9
X
Y
Losses
Performance
338 Appendix 2: Product Upgrades Based on Minimum Expected Quality Loss
product is shipped. This minimum loss represents the most effective peri
odicity for the product upgrade within the product’s specified environment,
given the conflicting constraints of STB and LTB. The goal of the stakeholder
negotiations is to minimize the total system losses due to and during the
course of upgrading and releasing upgraded products. There are an infinite
number of quality loss functions, each with a minimum loss determined by
cooperative negotiation between buyer and seller. But there is only one
Pareto-efficient quality loss function that reflects the optimized minimum
loss during a product upgrade cycle (Figure A2.4).
Losses to the buyers can result from an early release of an upgraded prod
uct that may not take full advantage of better technology. These losses may
manifest through lower performances of product functions, relative to the
lost opportunity available from more current and relevant technologies.
Later release of an upgrade product may deprive customers of productivity
that could have been achieved given an earlier release of the upgrade.
Premature release of an upgraded product may require fixes and patches to
achieve an acceptable operational effectiveness, while perfectly functioning
upgrades may be function rich, but performance poor.
The result of an early or late release is in effect to slide the performance
target parameter m horizontally as the quality loss functions show an
FIgure A2.4
Pareto-efficient quality loss function optimized for minimum loss.