I think that's a vast simplification. It doesn't have to be repeatable at all. Objectively repeatability is about elimination of waste and expenditure. The big one is qualification and testing because that's what filters all the crap out. Actually I've worked as an engineer where we had to throw 20% of the products we built out because they didn't pass qualification.

And of course that is where the cost savings are usually made because it is seen as a null function in some businesses. It creates waste and reduces delivery and ROI. Those are all symptoms of other problems in the business but that's how it is generally perceived. And sometimes clients are happy to receive muck if it's cheap.

But that's also how we get planes that crash and Microsoft firing their entire QA and delivering shit for the last half a decade.

And that in turn is because management and project management culture is data driven by people who have no idea what the fuck they are doing whatsoever.

I once had to explain to a manager of hundreds of people why reproducibility in engineering (and science) is important. Not good.

What has been, in your experience, a repeatable process for quality engineering? How much does it depend on the kind of software one is engineering, or is it applicable to any kind of software with any kind of constraints?