>We have one.  Actually, it covers all software development, and we call it
>GEM: Great Engineering Methodology (aka the "funnel, tootsie roll, plunger"
>model.  Really.  We have posters.  :-)
>
>While there are clearly good points to this (mostly in terms of saving
>documentation of things that have happened - design and code reviews, etc),
>it's overall pretty much a joke - ie the actual benefits to eventual product
>quality derived from the pieces necessary to pass ISO9000 certification
>are about zero.  Many of the traditional elements of "quality processes"
>seem inapplicable to software development, doubly so in a small shop (ie
>our process mandidates peer reviews of specifications, design, and code.
>Who does that if you have one programmer?)
>
Bill;

I have the same type of problem at work, except that we have to follow a
different standard called QS9000. It is the automotive industry's (ie the
Big 3's) way of making sure that everyone (their suppliers but not them) do
things right. I've worked at both QS9000 and ISO9000 companies as well as
military suppliers, and QS9000 is the worst.

But I think I'm getting the hang of it. All you have to do is have some
piece of paper (memo, meeting minutes, etc) to file showing you have done a
particular thing such as a design review. So I call a review with my team
memebers, they stare blankly while I go over my design, and I put the
meeting minutes in the book. Sure is fun (I've got one to do tomorrow). You
just have to learn the game.
Mark Walter