In the quarterly design analysis meeting, the manager of a cancelled project blamed the failure partly on the delay in verification. In that project, the verification schedule is underestimate at least by a factor of four. I think his comment is not totally fair to the verification team. One of the problem rooted from the myth of reuse. When there is some existing infra-structure available, the management just assume there is zero effort in reusing them in a new project. The reality is most of those so-call reused component are not structured nicely for reuse, and worse many of them lacks proper documentation due to schedule pressure. A true reuse component should have the quality of verification IP purchased from 3rd party vendors. Anything thing short of that quality should use a different term instead of reuse to stop confusion in project planning. Most of the time that falls into the port category, which require complete understand of the original code in order to use it with the new device. Sometimes that should be categorize as salvage, which is marginally better than writing fresh code. Mislabel salvage as reuse will only spell disaster later in the project<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"