Successful Software Development, Second Edition in .NET Creator Data Matrix 2d barcode in .NET Successful Software Development, Second Edition

How to generate, print barcode using .NET, Java sdk library control with example project source code free download:

Successful Software Development, Second Edition use none none writer toconnect none with none bar code 39 absence of none none such norms, software systems development within an organization will invariably degenerate into process anarchy with little likelihood of consistent, successful process repeatability.. Figure 7-6 Making successful software systems development happen involves cultural change that, in part, is tied to ADPE implementation. The ADPE can be viewed as a code of software systems development practices defining the "right engineering thing to do.".

However, i none for none t is basic human nature that people resist doing things in other people"s ways. One reason for this resistance is that breaking habits (good, bad, or otherwise) is generally painful. A corollary to this fact of life is that resistance tends to magnify the more experienced the individual is.

Thus, for example, as shown in Figure 7-7, people such as Sam, Pam, and Ham within a seller organization may have become accustomed to doing things their own way. Their experience has taught them what is needed to get the job done. They are naturally reluctant to cast aside what has worked for them in favor of some other process simply because it is for the greater organizational good.

Thus, a critical element of PEG practice is to ensure that project staff is given an opportunity at least to comment on proposed ADPE elements as they are being developed.. Successful Software Development, Second Edition Figure 7-7 Individuals within the seller organization (e. g., Sam, Pam, and Ham) should be given an opportunity to contribute to the practices defined in the ADPE.

. Furthermor none for none e, the PEG must make it evident to project staff that all comments are indeed considered during element development or updating. The PEG must also make it evident that not everybody"s comments can be incorporated. The larger the organization, the more diverse the background of its members.

This diversity will, in general, give rise to a diverse set of comments and attitudes that the PEG will have to struggle to accommodate.[7] To provide insight into the challenge facing the PEG regarding its response to comments on ADPE elements, it is useful to illustrate the types of diversity that can arise from the. To offer y ou ideas for managing this struggle, we present a figure later in this chapter showing the process for ADPE element development (i.e., Figure 7-10).

We also provide an annotated outline for an ADPE element (i.e., Figure 7-12) whose purpose is to detail the process of creating, coordinating, promulgating, and updating ADPE elements.

. Successful Software Development, Second Edition community that a PEG serves. The following examples relate to the ADPE elements discussed in previous chapters:. Regarding none for none an ADPE element governing project planning ( 2), we suggested that the element should use risk assessment as the basis for planning allocation of resources to the management, development, and product assurance disciplines. With respect to resource allocation strategies, comments can range from "show me where in the industry it has been established that 20 percent of project resources should be allocated to product assurance for a high-risk project" to "your product assurance resource percentages are too conservative for all risk categories." Regarding an ADPE element governing the software system development process ( 3), we suggested that the process should identify the key activities involved with developing and delivering a product to the customer (e.

g., peer review, technical editing, product assurance review). With respect to these key activities, comments can range from "tell me the order that I have to follow in performing these activities" to "give me the freedom to pick which of these activities I need to apply to each of my products.

" Regarding an ADPE element governing CCB practice ( 4), we suggested that the element should offer guidance regarding CCB minutes. With respect to this practice area, comments can range from "just tell me that I need to take minutes" to "give me a detailed CCB minutes outline." Regarding an ADPE element governing independent product assurance ( 5), we suggested that the element should offer guidance regarding product assurance participation in CCB meetings.

With respect to this practice, comments can range from "it is a waste of time for product assurance to participate in CCB meetings" to "I want product assurance to take the minutes at every CCB meeting.". The follow ing two final comments are in order regarding the ADPE implementation suggested in Figure 7-7:. "Organizat none none ional Software Systems Development Process" could apply to any level within an enterprise. In general, an enterprise consists of an organizational hierarchy. At each level in the hierarchy, there may be certain policies, directives, and other enterprise legislative publications that define acceptable enterprise practice.

For example, an enterprise devoted to software systems development may have an enterprisewide set of practices, and all subordinate units have to tailor the enterprisewide practices to their specific projects. However, there may be instances in which a customer does not want the enterprisewide practices implemented for their particular project(s). In this case, the seller may have to create and implement another set of practices.

As can be seen, one PEG challenge is to achieve a proper balance between (1) what may already exist that is applicable to the PEG"s home organization and (2) what may need to be newly developed (and that may need to depart from what already exists). "Sam"s or Pam"s or Ham"s Process" could apply to the entire software systems development process (as described in 3) or to any element of that process (e.g.

, CCB operation as described in 4). The point here is that process anarchy can manifest itself across a broad range. A constant PEG challenge is to strike a balance between (1) giving Sam/Pam/Ham leeway in doing their jobs and (2) setting up an organizationwide consistent way of doing business.

That is, the "organization"s process" should provide a "consistent" approach that allows "diverse" implementations.
Copyright © . All rights reserved.