<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Embedded Insights Channels &#187; Accountability</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.embeddedinsights.com/channels/topics/accountability/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.embeddedinsights.com/channels</link>
	<description>Shedding Light on the Hidden World of Embedded Systems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:33:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>How do you ensure full coverage for your design/spec reviews?</title>
		<link>http://www.embeddedinsights.com/channels/2011/04/27/how-do-you-ensure-full-coverage-for-your-designspec-reviews/</link>
		<comments>http://www.embeddedinsights.com/channels/2011/04/27/how-do-you-ensure-full-coverage-for-your-designspec-reviews/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 19:37:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert Cravotta</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Project Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Question of the Week]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accountability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.embeddedinsights.com/channels/?p=536</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I worked on a development specification with an approval list that was several dozen names long; however, it felt as if there was no one besides the author that had looked at the document as a whole and considered all of the requirements together as a system. What process do you use to ensure that the review process provides appropriate and full coverage of the design and specification documents?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.embeddedinsights.com/channels/2011/04/27/how-do-you-ensure-full-coverage-for-your-designspec-reviews/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is design-by-committee ever the best way to do a design?</title>
		<link>http://www.embeddedinsights.com/channels/2011/04/20/is-design-by-committee-ever-the-best-way-to-do-a-design/</link>
		<comments>http://www.embeddedinsights.com/channels/2011/04/20/is-design-by-committee-ever-the-best-way-to-do-a-design/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:38:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert Cravotta</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Project Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Question of the Week]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accountability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.embeddedinsights.com/channels/?p=530</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A common expression to illustrate what design-by-committee means is “a camel is what you get when you design a horse by committee.” In essence, design-by-committee could be described as design-by-consensus. None of the design-by-committee projects that I am aware yielded excellent results. Is this a skewed perspective? Can design-by-committee ever deliver superior results?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.embeddedinsights.com/channels/2011/04/20/is-design-by-committee-ever-the-best-way-to-do-a-design/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
