We Need Less ASPICE. NOT.

We Need Less ASPICE. NOT.

Recently, ASPICE has been labeled as a roadblock—an inefficient, bureaucratic nightmare. But let’s pause. Is this criticism aimed at ASPICE itself or at a widespread misinterpretation of what it stands for? Let’s unpack this.

What Quality Is (and Isn’t)

Quality is not about filling out endless checklists or following rigid procedures for their own sake. Yet, this is often how standards like ASPICE are interpreted by less experienced quality managers or demanded from engineers. This approach distorts the true intent of frameworks like ASPICE.

To me, quality is a characteristic of a product and the processes by which it is developed. It’s about achieving safety, reliability, security, and excellence. When we reduce quality to superficial evidence, we miss the point entirely.

Misinterpreting Standards Equals Misinterpreting Quality

The idea that ASPICE equals checklist-driven engineering is fundamentally wrong. ASPICE was never intended to be about bureaucracy. Its true purpose is to provide a structured approach to achieving high process and product quality.

When poorly implemented, ASPICE becomes a scapegoat for inefficiency. But the problem isn’t ASPICE—it’s the lack of understanding and the misuse of its principles.

Real-World Consequences of Misunderstanding Quality

  • Volkswagen’s Data Breach: Sensitive data wasn’t properly secured. Whether this was due to oversight or cost-cutting, it reflects poor process execution—not too much ASPICE, but too little understanding of quality.
  • Audi’s Software Delays: Poor integration and missing architectures led to setbacks. Again, this is a failure of process quality, not a failure of ASPICE.

ASPICE as a Framework, Not a Straitjacket

ASPICE doesn’t prescribe how to achieve quality. It outlines what must be achieved to ensure a robust, reliable product. The flexibility is there—but it requires knowledge and experience to implement effectively.

Conclusion

The root problem isn’t ASPICE or similar frameworks. It’s how we interpret and apply them. Misinterpretation leads to inefficiency, frustration, and ultimately, poor products.

  • Is efficiency important? Yes.
  • Do we need safe, reliable, secure, and compliant products? Yes.
  • Should we blame ASPICE for misunderstandings or misapplications? No.

Let’s stop confusing standards with bureaucracy. Instead, let’s focus on what quality really means: a commitment to engineering excellence, not box-ticking.

What do you think? How do you define quality?

Sripathy Ramachandran

Transformentor and Coach | Founder of Qualitude Solutions | Principal Assessor (ASPICE, Cybersecurity, Agile)

1 个月

Well said. Those who come from a practical background can interpret the ASPICE and map practices to what is value adding and needed for the project. Processes are intended to support the project goal and not otherwise Be it agile or traditional dev approach, it can be easily fit into the framework. I also mentioned in my last post that ASPICE describes WHAT is needed and other industry best practices present the HOW. They can be beautifully integrated to provide favourable results for the project Instead of speaking the activity based language, let’s speak the deliverable based language - then we will realise that all deliverables are needed. The style of presentation may change. Instead of requirement spec we may call it product backlog etc

回复
Jan K?nig

Consultant Systems Engineering, Functional Safety and Automotive SPICE (formerly Jan Frank)

1 个月

Your article doesn't define what quality is. The question of how you can differentiate between a good and bad quality product or process is not answered.

Sébastien Gebus

ASPICE Lead Competent Assessor

1 个月

I couldn't agree more with your analysis. Often you see processes being mapped to BPs and GPs by people who want to make sure they are fully compliant with ASPICE. What is largely missed however is that although an ASPICE assessment will look at how these BPs/GPs are being deployed (by the way not just if they exist...) it does not request formal rating for them. Rating is for the Procees Attributes, which means the impact of good or bad deployment of these practices. Process for the sake of process is inefficient bureaucracy. Process for the sake of meeting a purpose is ASPICE You can also ask a manager who blames ASPICE for being paperwork if he considers that a good project does not need to meet its targets or be properly staffed, that requirements do not need to be consistent through development, that issues do not need to be understood before being fixed and prevented for recurrence... He will answer that this is common sense. So is ASPICE!

Qualit?t ist die Erfüllung von Anforderungen.

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Ronald Melster的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了