The problem with Raytheon managers is that they use the rhetoric of software engineering, without knowing what it means. All code written by engineers is called "modular" and "reusable" and "world class" and "cutting edge." But almost all of it is spagetti code that doesn't meet any professional standard of modularity, and is mostly undocumented. Code that their engineers write is CMMI level zero. The big push now is to try to apply design patterns (aka 1980 era) to their embedded and simulation code, but they have assimilated nothing of Computer Science algorithm design for the last 40 years. So this push will produce about 1980 era data processing quality -- not competitive software algorithms. This is the best that their self-taught "SMEs" can imagine. Software continues to be managed by middle managers who know nothing about designing software. They are trying to hire programmers using rhetoric that is popular this year from higher management ("polymorphism"), but they don't know what skills to hire or how to scope out software projects (timeline or feasibility), and will blame any software professional they hire for not meeting their (amateur) expectations. These managers are managing fantasy assets, and selling fantasy goals to boost their own status. Raytheon remains about 3 generations behind in software design. Although HR may say that they are looking for critical thinkers who are willing to point out design flaws in their software, if you do this technically and professionally, you will be ranked in the bottom 10% for performance, and layed off (despite high quality and high productivity ratings). Raytheon's definition of "polymorphic" is merely political, and polymorphic, year by year.