I didn't get a warm fuzzy from this mea culpa. There is cognitive dissonance in the way the CEO accepts responsibility: "We are really sorry to have messed up... SparkFun are going to make it right..."
Going out on a limb here, but I bet "they" (MicroView) were the root of the problem. It's never mentioned in the article, but I'm guessing MicroView is eating the $58K bill.
There was a production test procedure that should have been performing 'ship-ready' verification of test-able requirements, along with an engineering deliverable (containing analysis, software compilation records, etc) that covered everything else that couldn't be tested. Between these two docs, verification of all requirements (physical, functional, non-functional, etc.) via 1 of 4 verification methods (inspection, test, analysis, or demonstration) should be documented. And the lead engineer from MicroView should have ultimately been responsible for ensuring all requirements of his (MicroView's) design were adequately verified. He should have been signing off that the product delivered is as-was designed. (Unless Sparkfun owned the whole shebang, but I doubt that is the case...)
If Sparkfun is smart (and I'm guessing they are), it should be written in the contract that they are only responsible for delivering a product that meets what MicroView's lead engineer ultimately signed on. And what was ultimately signed on was a verification method that clearly missed checking the correct software components were loaded into the HEX mix. Hence, the miss was with MicroView, so they eat the bill.
source: test and verification engineering and 3yr subcontract manager for world's largest defense contractor (ugh... shiver)
Marcus Schappi was on theamphour some time ago, and from what I understood the deal with Sparkfun is a complete takeover of a project - SP handles EVERYTHING and gives you a cut of the profits.
http://www.theamphour.com/189-an-interview-with-marcus-schap...
My bad for calling them contract manufacturers, they are more of a whole package deal.
Going out on a limb here, but I bet "they" (MicroView) were the root of the problem. It's never mentioned in the article, but I'm guessing MicroView is eating the $58K bill.
There was a production test procedure that should have been performing 'ship-ready' verification of test-able requirements, along with an engineering deliverable (containing analysis, software compilation records, etc) that covered everything else that couldn't be tested. Between these two docs, verification of all requirements (physical, functional, non-functional, etc.) via 1 of 4 verification methods (inspection, test, analysis, or demonstration) should be documented. And the lead engineer from MicroView should have ultimately been responsible for ensuring all requirements of his (MicroView's) design were adequately verified. He should have been signing off that the product delivered is as-was designed. (Unless Sparkfun owned the whole shebang, but I doubt that is the case...)
If Sparkfun is smart (and I'm guessing they are), it should be written in the contract that they are only responsible for delivering a product that meets what MicroView's lead engineer ultimately signed on. And what was ultimately signed on was a verification method that clearly missed checking the correct software components were loaded into the HEX mix. Hence, the miss was with MicroView, so they eat the bill.
source: test and verification engineering and 3yr subcontract manager for world's largest defense contractor (ugh... shiver)