DOCSLIB.ORG

When Good Enough Somare Is Best

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
When Good Enough Somare Is Best Edward Yourdon WHEN GOOD ENOUGH SOMARE IS BEST There’s a sign that my printer displays promi- of negotiating with our customers and managers Howto get people nently on his wall: “You can get it fast; you can have on what constitutes success. and technologyto zt cheap;you can get it right. Pick two!” That same sign could be displayed on the wall of evq so&are- MISAPPLIEDIDEAL. In the past, we often work together.developm ent organization. And yet most of our cus- negotiated critical success factors once, at the tomers want all three. Ed Yourdon tackles that beginning of the project, then tried to optimize dilemma in this issue’scolumn. He contends that we a few other parameters the customer was often don’t rationally establish proper balance among the unaware of. For example, functionality, sched- critical project parameters: cost, schedule, stafing, ule, budget, and staff resources typically were fh-tionality, and quality. Our customerswant 11sto negotiated in terms of political constraints: We optimize all these parameters, even when this is were told to deliver a software system with a clearly impossible. The purists among you may find certain amount of (often ambiguous, misunder- Ed’s comments grating. But I suspect that those of stood, and poorly documented) functionality you who’ve been bloodied in tbe pro-jectwars will find within a (hysterically optimistic) schedule and wisdom in his words. (imposed by fiat) budget, and with a (relatively - Rage-rPressman fixed) staff of developers. Within those con- straints, the developers often tried to optimize IN THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS, such features as maintainability, portability, our users would like us to develop software reliability, and efficiency. Thus, the battle cry instantly, at no cost, and with no defects. But for many projects was “We’ll deliver high-qual- that’s not possible in today’s world. ity, bug-free software on time, In more and more application within budget!” domains, we’ve been forced to accept ITMAY SHOCK For an important class of software that the reengineering slogan of projects, that battle cry is still relevant “faster, cheaper, better” really means PURISTS, - obviously, nobody wants to fly on “fast enough, cheap enough, good BUTTHIS MAY an airplane whose guidance-control enough.” BEA MORE software has as many bugs as the word In the past few months, the con- processor they can buy at their local cept of “good-enough” software has RATIONALcomputer store. And nobody wants been getting a lot of attention: the WAYTO their telephone or automated teller to uproar over the Pentium bug suggests malfunction as often as their PC. that it was deemed not good enough, NEGOTIATEBut for another class of software while the surprisingly numerous SUCCESS.projects - a class that is now defects that are publicly acknowl- . arguably far larger than the mission- edged in popular shrinkwrapped critical class - rapid delivery to the software products - word processors, spread- customer is sometimes more important than sheets, tax calculators, and PC operating systems number of defects. In other situations, “feature - suggest that those products are good enough. richness” may be the most important factor; in The concept of good-enough software is still others, cost may be the only thing the user beginning to challenge some of our basic cares about. assumptions about software development, and I believe it will fundamentally change the way we WHENBEST ISN ’T.The shift in expectations Editor: manage software development. Some purists - we’re experiencing stems from information tech- RogerPressman especially veterans who tend to read magazines nology’s transition into a consumer commodity: like this one, and who regard themselves as pro- unit costs are low and everyone can afford it. In R.Pressman & Associatesfessionals - may express horror at this “flight the past, most of us worked on proprietary, one- 62OE*Slo~eDr- from quality.” But I think a good-enough of-a-kind systems, developed according to Orange,Cl 06477 approach will lead to more rational software- schedules measured in years and funded by bud- [email protected] evelopment projects and a more rational way gets measured in millions. Some of us are still IEEE SOFTWARE 79 employed by organizations that want 10 times higher than your existing prod- manager? If we can assume for the custom systems - but schedules and uct. Would you switch? Maybe - but moment that we’re dealing with rational budgets have shrunk considerably. And maybe not. What if product C required customers, and that a rational negotia- our customers will often point out that you to convert all your existing word- tion can determine the criteria for pro- they can achieve almost the same results processing documents to a different for- ject success, then it is incumbent upon by jury-rigging a combination of mat? What if it required you to switch to the manager to be as forthright and Microsoft Word, Lotus Notes, and a different operating system? You might detailed as possible about all the relevant Borland Quattro, which they can obtain well conclude that product B was good success criteria. Thus, instead of just from a discount mail-order catalog. enough. assuming that the customer requires zero- Shrinkwrapped software may be clumsy In this case, the project manager for defect quality, the project manager and limited in its functionality, our cus- product B has outsmarted the project should say something like, “Our standard tomers tell us, but it’s cheap and they can manager for product C, even though C’s approach for developing the software put it into service tomorrow morning. manager pursued a set of goals that all you’ve described will require X number software professionals would admire. of people and Y units of time with a cost LATEIS NEVERBETTER.That customers of Z dollars; we’ll deliver P units of func- now view software as a commodity has DO THEMATH. Software project man- tionality with a defect level of Q bugs per also introduced an inertia we must cope agers today must be aware that each para- function point.” with, especially- . in the consumer desktop meter - cost, schedule, staffing, func- Chances are that the proposed combi- market. It goes like this. tionality, and quality - is nation of X, Y, Z, P, and Q will not be Suppose the time has potentially critical. It is the acceptable to the customer, whose likely come to acquire a word ITIS THE customer - be they an end response might be “You can’t have Y processor. You have a user for an in-house system units of time, we need the software in choice of products A, B, CUSTOMERWHOor the marketing department half that time.” Or a less rational cus- and C. Product A costs DECIDESTHE for a software company - tomer might respond, “We want twice $500 and comes with a who decides what the proper the functionality you proposed, but you money-back guarantee; PROPER balance is. It’s also crucial to can only have half as many people, half product B costs $100 and BALANCEOF remember that the balance the time, and half the budget.” The comes with a long dis- PARAMETERS.among parameters is dynam- response then is that this is possible, claimer that basically says ic and may need to be read- assuming that the customer completely “caveat emptor.” Product justed daily. After all, the relaxes the constraint on the number of C costs only $50, has twice as many fea- business environment is likely to change defects (most likely an unrealistic tures as either A or B, and its developers in a dramatic, unpredictable way - and assumption). After all, I can deliver an are so confident of its quality they’re this can easily change the customer’s per- infinite amount of software, with an inli- bragging about a double-your-money- ception of the importance of schedule, nite amount of functionality, in zero time back guarantee. The only problem with cost, and so on. - if it doesn’t have to work. An even less product C is that it’s vaporware and Intelligent customers, especially those rational customer might constrain all the (despite glowing reviews in all the trade who have survived today’s tumultuous parameters to some demonstrably magazines) won’t be available for six business environment, know trade-offs unachievable level! It is perfectly rational months. Assuming you need a word must be made and priorities balanced. for our customers to challenge our pro- processor AOW,you will probably make a But customers are often naive about the posal for X, Y, Z, P, and Q - particularly rational choice between A and B based details. For example, it may not occur to if we can get them to focus their atten- on your assessment of the importance of them that defects (aka “bugs”) are a para- tion on one parameter at a time. If the cost versus defects. meter we must consciously plan for, and user wants the software in half the time, But now suppose you already have a for which we must trade off other para- then it’s incumbent on us to provide a word processor, perhaps B, and you’ve meters. And of course customers may not counterproposal that shows the effect been using it for a year. Some of its fea- want to make the cold-blooded, rational, such a change will have upon one or tures are slightly annoying, but it’s ade- calculated decisions about those trade- more of the other parameters. quate for your mundane word-processing offs. Although immensely frustrating to Some 20 years ago Fred Brooks tasks. B’s quality isn’t all that great: it developers, it’s understandable that cus- reminded us (The Mythical Man-Month, crashes once a day, and you’ve become tomers demand a software system in half Addison-Wesley, 1975) that time and accustomed to saving your documents the time, at half the cost, with twice the staff resources are not interchangeable in every 15 minutes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rugby - a Process Model for Continuous Software Engineering
    INSTITUT FUR¨ INFORMATIK DER TECHNISCHEN UNIVERSITAT¨ MUNCHEN¨ Forschungs- und Lehreinheit I Angewandte Softwaretechnik Rugby - A Process Model for Continuous Software Engineering Stephan Tobias Krusche Vollstandiger¨ Abdruck der von der Fakultat¨ fur¨ Informatik der Technischen Universitat¨ Munchen¨ zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. nat.) genehmigten Dissertation. Vorsitzender: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Helmut Seidl Prufer¨ der Dissertation: 1. Univ.-Prof. Bernd Brugge,¨ Ph.D. 2. Prof. Dr. Jurgen¨ Borstler,¨ Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Schweden Die Dissertation wurde am 28.01.2016 bei der Technischen Universitat¨ Munchen¨ eingereicht und durch die Fakultat¨ fur¨ Informatik am 29.02.2016 angenommen. Abstract Software is developed in increasingly dynamic environments. Organizations need the capability to deal with uncertainty and to react to unexpected changes in require- ments and technologies. Agile methods already improve the flexibility towards changes and with the emergence of continuous delivery, regular feedback loops have become possible. The abilities to maintain high code quality through reviews, to regularly re- lease software, and to collect and prioritize user feedback, are necessary for con- tinuous software engineering. However, there exists no uniform process model that handles the increasing number of reviews, releases and feedback reports. In this dissertation, we describe Rugby, a process model for continuous software en- gineering that is based on a meta model, which treats development activities as parallel workflows and which allows tailoring, customization and extension. Rugby includes a change model and treats changes as events that activate workflows. It integrates re- view management, release management, and feedback management as workflows. As a consequence, Rugby handles the increasing number of reviews, releases and feedback and at the same time decreases their size and effort.
    [Show full text]
  • MAKING DATA MODELS READABLE David C
    MAKING DATA MODELS READABLE David C. Hay Essential Strategies, Inc. “Confusion and clutter are failures of [drawing] design, not attributes of information. And so the point is to find design strategies that reveal detail and complexity ¾ rather than to fault the data for an excess of complication. Or, worse, to fault viewers for a lack of understanding.” ¾ Edward R. Tufte1 Entity/relationship models (or simply “data models”) are powerful tools for analyzing and representing the structure of an organization. Properly used, they can reveal subtle relationships between elements of a business. They can also form the basis for robust and reliable data base design. Data models have gotten a bad reputation in recent years, however, as many people have found them to be more trouble to produce and less beneficial than promised. Discouraged, people have gone on to other approaches to developing systems ¾ often abandoning modeling altogether, in favor of simply starting with system design. Requirements analysis remains important, however, if systems are ultimately to do something useful for the company. And modeling ¾ especially data modeling ¾ is an essential component of requirements analysis. It is important, therefore, to try to understand why data models have been getting such a “bad rap”. Your author believes, along with Tufte, that the fault lies in the way most people design the models, not in the underlying complexity of what is being represented. An entity/relationship model has two primary objectives: First it represents the analyst’s public understanding of an enterprise, so that the ultimate consumer of a prospective computer system can be sure that the analyst got it right.
    [Show full text]
  • Agile Methods: Where Did “Agile Thinking” Come From?
    Historical Roots of Agile Methods: Where did “Agile Thinking” Come from? Noura Abbas, Andrew M Gravell, Gary B Wills School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom {na06r, amg, gbw}@ecs.soton.ac.uk Abstract. The appearance of Agile methods has been the most noticeable change to software process thinking in the last fifteen years [16], but in fact many of the “Agile ideas” have been around since 70’s or even before. Many studies and reviews have been conducted about Agile methods which ascribe their emergence as a reaction against traditional methods. In this paper, we argue that although Agile methods are new as a whole, they have strong roots in the history of software engineering. In addition to the iterative and incremental approaches that have been in use since 1957 [21], people who criticised the traditional methods suggested alternative approaches which were actually Agile ideas such as the response to change, customer involvement, and working software over documentation. The authors of this paper believe that education about the history of Agile thinking will help to develop better understanding as well as promoting the use of Agile methods. We therefore present and discuss the reasons behind the development and introduction of Agile methods, as a reaction to traditional methods, as a result of people's experience, and in particular focusing on reusing ideas from history. Keywords: Agile Methods, Software Development, Foundations and Conceptual Studies of Agile Methods. 1 Introduction Many reviews, studies and surveys have been conducted on Agile methods [1, 20, 15, 23, 38, 27, 22].
    [Show full text]
  • Alignment of Business and Application Layers of Archimate
    Alignment of Business and Application Layers of ArchiMate Oleg Svatoš1, Václav Řepa1 1Department of Information Technologies, Faculty of Informatics and Statistics, University of Economics, Prague [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. ArchiMate is widely used standard for modelling enterprise architec- ture and organizes the model in separate yet interconnected layers. Unfortunate- ly the ArchiMate specification provides us with rather brief detail on the rela- tions between the individual layers and the guidelines how to have them aligned. In this paper we focus on the alignment between business and applica- tion layers especially alignment of business processes and application functions, which we see as crucial condition for proper and consistent enterprise architec- ture. For this alignment we propose an extension for ArchiMate based on the development done in Methodology for Modelling and Analysis of Business Process (MMABP). Application of the proposed extension is illustrated on an example and its benefits discussed. Keywords: business process model·Enterprise Architec- ture·ArchiMate·TOGAF·MMABP·functional model·object life cycle 1 Introduction The enterprise architecture plays an important role in current corporate management. Enterprises realized that after the initial spontaneous growth and accumulation of dif- ferent legacy systems over the years, it is necessary to create the living organism forming an enterprise under some kind of control in order to allow managing it. The enterprise architecture is one of the tools which help them to do it. There are different frameworks for capturing the enterprise architectures like FEAF [20], DoDAF [21], ISO 19439 [22], etc. out of which the most popular standard is the TOGAF [14] accompanied by ArchiMate as the modelling language [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamentals of a Discipline of Computer Program and Systems Design, Edward Yourdon, Larry L
    Structured Design: Fundamentals of a Discipline of Computer Program and Systems Design, Edward Yourdon, Larry L. Constantine, Yourdon Press, 1978, 0917072111, 9780917072116, . DOWNLOAD http://bit.ly/1gngZ6L The practical guide to structured systems design , Jones Page, Meilir Page-Jones, 1986, Computers, 354 pages. Structured programming: tutorial, Part 3 tutorial, Victor R. Basili, Terry Baker, IEEE Computer Society, 1975, Computers, 241 pages. Method integration concepts and case studies, Klaus Kronlöf, 1993, , 402 pages. Using a systematic approach, it describes the concept of method integration. Presents a detailed investigation of several major techniques, including Information Modeling .... Structured walkthroughs , Edward Yourdon, 1985, , 140 pages. A-Plus Pascal , Richard Tingey, Suzanne Loyer Antink, Feb 1, 1994, , 741 pages. Current and timely, this textbook prepares students for the College Entrance BoardUs Advanced Placement Computer Science Exam.. Structured systems development , Ken Orr, Jan 1, 1977, Computers, 170 pages. Problem solving and computer programming , Peter Grogono, Sharon H. Nelson, 1982, Mathematics, 284 pages. Problem Solving Using Pascal Algorithm Development and Programming Concepts, Romualdas Skvarcius, 1984, Computers, 673 pages. Programming logic structured design, Anne L. Topping, Ian L. Gibbons, Jan 1, 1985, Computers, 285 pages. Reliable software through composite design , Glenford J. Myers, 1975, Computers, 159 pages. Structured Programming Theory and Practice, Richard C. Linger, Jan 1, 1979, Computers, 402 pages. Precision programming. Elements of logical expression. Elements of program expression. Structured programs. Reading structured programs. The correctness of structured programs .... Manernichane musically. Impartial analysis any creative act shows that the whole image causes catharsis, thus, all the listed signs of an archetype and myth confirm that the action mechanisms myth-making mechanisms akin artistic and productive thinking.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: Introduction
    Just Enough Structured Analysis Chapter 1: Introduction “The beginnings and endings of all human undertakings are untidy, the building of a house, the writing of a novel, the demolition of a bridge, and, eminently, the finish of a voyage.” — John Galsworthy Over the River, 1933 www.yourdon.com ©2006 Ed Yourdon - rev. 051406 In this chapter, you will learn: 1. Why systems analysis is interesting; 2. Why systems analysis is more difficult than programming; and 3. Why it is important to be familiar with systems analysis. Chances are that you groaned when you first picked up this book, seeing how heavy and thick it was. The prospect of reading such a long, technical book is enough to make anyone gloomy; fortunately, just as long journeys take place one day at a time, and ultimately one step at a time, so long books get read one chapter at a time, and ultimately one sentence at a time. 1.1 Why is systems analysis interesting? Long books are often dull; fortunately, the subject matter of this book — systems analysis — is interesting. In fact, systems analysis is more interesting than anything I know, with the possible exception of sex and some rare vintages of Australian wine. Without a doubt, it is more interesting than computer programming (not that programming is dull) because it involves studying the interactions of people, and disparate groups of people, and computers and organizations. As Tom DeMarco said in his delightful book, Structured Analysis and Systems Specification (DeMarco, 1978), [systems] analysis is frustrating, full of complex interpersonal relationships, indefinite, and difficult.
    [Show full text]
  • Edward Yourdon
    EDWARD YOURDON EDWARD YOURDON is an internationally-recognized computer consultant, as well as the author of more than two dozen books, including Byte Wars, Managing High-Intensity Internet Projects, Death March, Rise and Resurrection of the American Programmer, and Decline and Fall of the American Programmer. His latest book, Outsource: competing in the global productivity race, discusses both current and future trends in offshore outsourcing, and provides practical strategies for individuals, small businesses, and the nation to cope with this unstoppable tidal wave. According to the December 1999 issue of Crosstalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, Ed Yourdon is one of the ten most influential men and women in the software field. In June 1997, he was inducted into the Computer Hall of Fame, along with such notables as Charles Babbage, Seymour Cray, James Martin, Grace Hopper, Gerald Weinberg, and Bill Gates. Ed is widely known as the lead developer of the structured analysis/design methods of the 1970s, as well as a co-developer of the Yourdon/Whitehead method of object-oriented analysis/design and the Coad/Yourdon OO methodology in the late 1980s and 1990s. He was awarded a Certificate of Merit by the Second International Workshop on Computer-Aided Software Engineering in 1988, for his contributions to the promotion of Structured Methods for the improvement of Information Systems Development, leading to the CASE field. He was selected as an Honored Member of Who’s Who in the Computer Industry in 1989. And he was given the Productivity Award in 1992 by Computer Language magazine, for his book Decline and Fall of the American Programmer.
    [Show full text]
  • Death March Projects Ed Yourdon Email: [email protected] Web: Blog
    Death March projects Ed Yourdon email: [email protected] web: http://www.yourdon.com blog: http://www.yourdon.com/blog JaSST keynote presentation January 30, 2007 What is a “death-march” project? Origin: "extreme" sports, ultra-marathon, triathlons, etc. Sometimes known as "death- march" projects Almost always: Significant schedule pressure -- project must be finished in far less than "nominal" time. Often: Staffing shortages -- project must be done with significantly fewer people than in a "normal" project Sometimes: budget limitations -- inadequate funding to pay for people, development tools, and other resources. Inevitably: greater risks (>50% chance of failure), more pressure, unpleasant politics Almost always: heavy overtime (more than just 10-20% extra effort), personal sacrifices, increased burnout, higher turnover, lower productivity, lower quality Increasingly often: significant corporate consequences (e.g., bankruptcy), lawsuits, personal legal liabilities Copyright © 2007 by Edward Yourdon 2 Your next assignment “Give me an estimate for the XYZ system. I think it will take… 6 months 5 people ¥2,500,000 I need the estimate by the end of the day.” Copyright © 2007 by Edward Yourdon 3 Your assessment I think it will take… 12 months 10 people ¥10,000,000 …but I really need more time for a careful estimate!” Question for discussion: what if this scenario occurs on every project? Copyright © 2007 by Edward Yourdon 4 INTRODUCTION : What’s so different about death-march projects? Users and managers are becoming ever more demanding. Many of today's projects are defined as “mission-critical” Many "extreme" projects require BPR to succeed -- just like the early days of client-server projects, during which we learned that 80% of BPR projects were failures.
    [Show full text]
  • Microservice Architecture: Aligning Principles, Practices, and Culture
    Compliments of Microservice A r c h i t e c t u r e ALIGNING PRINCIPLES, PRACTICES, AND CULTUREIrakli Nadareishvili, Ronnie Mitra, Matt McLarty & Mike Amundsen Praise for Microservice Architecture The authors’ approach of starting with a value proposition, “Speed and Safety at Scale and in Harmony,” and reasoning from there, is an important contribution to thinking about application design. —Mel Conway, Educator and Inventor A well-thought-out and well-written description of the organizing principles underlying the microservices architectural style with a pragmatic example of applying them in practice. —James Lewis, Principal Consultant, ThoughtWorks This book demystifies one of the most important new tools for building robust, scalable software systems at speed. —Otto Berkes, Chief Technology Officer, CA Technologies If you’ve heard of companies doing microservices and want to learn more, Microservice Architecture is a great place to start. It addresses common questions and concerns about breaking down a monolith and the challenges you’ll face with culture, practices, and tooling. The microservices topic is a big one and this book gives you smart pointers on where to go next. —Chris Munns, Business Development Manager—DevOps, Amazon Web Services Anyone who is building a platform for use inside or outside an organization should read this book. It provides enough “a-ha” insights to keep everyone on your team engaged, from the business sponsor to the most technical team member. Highly recommended! —Dave Goldberg, Director, API Products, Capital One A practical roadmap to microservices design and the underlying cultural and organizational change that is needed to make it happen successfully.
    [Show full text]
  • Part I the Scrum Guide
    Senior Project - Part I CSc 190-01 (Seminar 32218) Tu 8:00 to 8:50 AM, Benicia Hall 1025 CSc 190-04 (Seminar 32545) Tu 9:00 to 9:50 AM, Benicia Hall 1025 Spring Semester 2018 Course Instructor: Professor Buckley Office Hours Office: Riverside Hall 3002 Time TBD Phone: (916) 278- 7324 or by appointment Email: [email protected] Required Prerequisites: Senior status (90 units completed) WPJ score of 70+, or at least a C- in ENGL 109M/W Courses completed: CSc 130, CSc 131, and four additional 3-unit CSc upper division courses that fulfill the major requirements (excluding CSC 192-195, CSC 198, CSC 199) Catalog Description: The first of a two-course sequence in which student teams undertake a project to develop and deliver a software product. Approved project sponsors must be from industry, government, a non-profit organization, or other area. Teams apply software engineering principles in the preparation of a software proposal, a project management plan and a software requirements specification. All technical work is published using guidelines modeled after IEEE documentation standards. Oral and written reports are required. Lecture one hour, laboratory three hours. 2 Units Required Text: SCRUM: A Breathtakingly Brief and Agile Introduction, Chris Sims & Louise Johnson, Dymaxicon ©2012 (If not in the bookstore, available from Amazon) Required Text (link to document is on the Course website): The Scrum Guide: The Definitive Guide to Scrum: The Rules of the Game Jeff Sutherland & Ken Schwaber, July 2017 READINGS (links available on course website): Agile Manifesto and Guiding Principles Establishing Self-Organized Agile Teams Self-organizing Scrum teams – Challenges and Strategies Collaboration Skills for Agile Teams Use cases versus user stories in Agile development Death March, Edward Yourdon (excerpt) “You can’t make teams jell.
    [Show full text]
  • Tool Support for Risk-Driven Planning of Trustworthy Smart Iot Systems Within Devops
    Tool support for risk-driven planning of trustworthy smart IoT systems within DevOps Andreas Thompson Thesis submitted for the degree of Master in Informatics: programming and networks 60 credits Department of Informatics Faculty of mathematics and natural sciences UNIVERSITY OF OSLO Autumn 2019 Tool support for risk-driven planning of trustworthy smart IoT systems within DevOps Andreas Thompson © 2019 Andreas Thompson Tool support for risk-driven planning of trustworthy smart IoT systems within DevOps http://www.duo.uio.no/ Printed: Reprosentralen, University of Oslo Abstract The Internet of Things is rising in popularity across many different domains, such as build automation, healthcare, electrical smart metering and physical security. Many prominent IT experts and companies like Gartner expect there to be a continued rise in the amount of IoT endpoints, with an estimated 5.8 million endpoints in 2020. With the rapid growth of the devices, the physical nature of these devices, and the amount of data collected, there will be a greater need for trustworthiness. These devices often gather personal data and as the devices have relatively less computational power than other devices, security and privacy risks are greater. With the IoT systems often operating in highly dynamic environments, the development of these systems should often be done in an iterative manner. De- vOps is an increasingly popular agile practice which combines the development and operations of systems to provide continuous delivery. This is well suited for the development of IoT systems. However, there is currently a lack of support for risk driven planning of trust- worthy smart IoT systems within DevOps.
    [Show full text]
  • Death March by Ed Yourdon
    Death-March Projects ICSE conference — May 20, 1997 [email protected] http://www.yourdon.com An informal survey N In general, our projects are: N Under budget and ahead of schedule N About 10% over budget, 10% behind schedule N About 50-100% over budget, 50-100% behind schedule N Substantially more than 100% over budget, 100% behind schedule Copyright © 1996 by Edward Yourdon 2 Death-March definitions N Definition 1: Project parameters exceed the norm by >50% 3 Schedule compression (most common) 3 Staff reduction 3 Budget/resource constraints 3 Functionality/performance demands N Definition 2: risk assessment (technical, legal, political, etc.) indicates >50% chance of failure N Observation: this is now the norm, not the exception Copyright © 1996 by Edward Yourdon 3 Different kinds of Death- March projects N Small-scale: 3-6 people for 3-6 months N Large-scale: 100-200 people for 3-5 years N Mind-boggling: 1,000 - 2,000 people for 7-10 years Copyright © 1996 by Edward Yourdon 4 Why Do Death-March Projects Occur? N The technical answer: we’re dumb 3We don’t practice software engineering 3We don’t use the right methods and tools 3We don’t know how to estimate our projects N The “don’t blame us” answer: 3it’s all the fault of Machiavellian managers 3Managers are evil, and they cunningly force us to take on 12-month projects with a 6-month deadline N The sobering reality: whatever the reason, this has now become the “norm,” not the exception Copyright © 1996 by Edward Yourdon 5 Why Do Death-Marches Occur? N Politics, politics, politics N Naive promises made by marketing, senior executives, project managers, etc.
    [Show full text]