This question already has an answer here:
- Does craftsmanship pay off? [duplicate] 16 answers
I have observed a correlation between a customer ordering software of "good enough" quality and the same customer not willing to pay for good engineering practices (unit testing, code reviews and the like) that many times that I would call it causality. Still, I am having hard time coming up with any logical reasoning behind such thinking so I would appreciate some insights from the community here.
As I see it, the engineering practices mentioned above have effect on only two quality attributes: maintainability and, to a lesser degree, reliability. Except for throw-away prototypes, I can hardly imagine a customer in their right mind who would want to get software that
- crashes every now and then (although I realize that MTBF expectations vary depending on the cost of error), and/or
- incurs considerable maintenance costs down the road.
On the other hand, other quality attributes such as scalability or performance are not directly affected by the engineering practices (if we don't count architecture reviews which are kind of from another league). What's more interesting, relaxing one or more of these could lead to way more considerable cost reductions, while not following proper engineering practices might as well lead to increasing project costs due to so called "endless debugging / stabilization cycle"
I should be missing something important since the preference to "save" on not doing software development properly is so prevalent among customers.
Please enlighten me :)