« It's Snowing in the Northeast.... | Main | Now Shipping! The Cutter/QSM Benchmark Almanac »
December 12, 2007
I'm So Excited...
... and I just can't hide it. I just spent a day with our internal QSM team in McLean VA where we brainstormed about our HOT new SLIM 7.0 Release, which we're gearing up for a market launch next quarter. Building upon Larry Putnam's pioneering research on software lifecycles, we've got a new architecture that is completely adaptable to measuring, estimating, and planning Agile development projects for the software industry. It's no surprise many organizations today are moving toward agile methods. Two burning questions for many organizations are 1) how to prove that these methods really work and 2) how... more...Posted by Mike at 01:54 AM | Comments (0) |
« Making Tom Friedman Grumpy | Main | POPTech Conference 2006 - "Dangerous Ideas" »September 25, 2006
The QSM 2006 SLIM User Conference
Well, its that time of year again; the leaves begin their journey to join their neighbors already on the ground and the QSMA team treks to McLean, Virginia to likewise join our colleagues and friends at the 2006 QSM Users Conference, being held on September 28th at the Tower Club. This get together offers a stimulating, fast-paced opportunity to hear some real-world “nuts and bolts” of how the SLIM (Software Lifecycle Management) Suite of tools has improved the application development process at some of the most successful, innovative companies in the world. It’s flattering and gratifying to hear how the... more...Posted by Mike at 06:14 PM | Comments (0) |
« Speed, Slowness, and Serendipity | Main | The Cutter Summit »April 17, 2006
Permissible Defects?
An interesting thread came up on the IT Toolbox website www.ittoolbox.com on "Permissible Defects." The question had to do with acceptable industry thresholds for defects on SAP projects (as opposed to other classes of software work.)The reply from a gentleman based in the Netherlands warrants discussion. Here it is for your consideration. An interesting PDF paper that he wrote on Quality Assurance standards is here as well. It's got useful information on how software projects behave that can give understanding about reasonable expectations and commitments. Setting these expectations is the task of managers coming up with project estimates, hopefully using project estimation tools that can explore these in a "war games simulation".
Of course, my take on this is our observation at QSM of defects being directly a function of deadline pressure. Haste makes waste, as they say. But what is surprising from the research data (see the QSM IT Metrics Almanac posting) is how severe the trade-off is. If you try to compress dates without giving up on promised functionality, the defects can go up geometrically. For example, compressing the time by only 20% can yield a 4x or more rise in project defects, all of which have to be tested and corrected. As I've said in my articles, "Projects don't like to be time-compressed. They get very angry." more...
Posted by Mike at 11:49 AM | Comments (0) |
« I Wouldn't Be So Late If... (Part 2) | Main | Stainless Steel Screws in My Shoulder »March 22, 2006
2006 QSM Software Almanac - IT Metrics Edition
The 2006 QSM Software Almanac – IT Metrics Edition, is here! It contains more than 100 pages of analysis and observations that provide unparalleled access to the latest developments in the software industry.It's with great pride that we're announcing the Almanac here on the pages of Optimal Friction. My partners here at QSM have assembled overviews and in-depth analysis of more than 500 completed projects from all major industries, collected in the last 5 years. One can easily peruse the (sometimes surprising) qualities and characteristics of “best/worst in class” projects, with the attendant implications about core metrics tradeoffs. Best of all, it describes extensive actionable intelligence gathered over more than 25 years of consulting practice as revealed by the software industry’s most detailed and comprehensive database of completed projects using the analysis capabilities within the QSM SLIM Suite of tools.
Special thanks to Doug Putnam, Kate Armel, Don Beckett, and all on the QSM team. Readers of the Almanac will no doubt recognize the heritage of this work, tracing to Larry Putnam's pioneering research on metrics for the software and Information Technology fields. more...
Posted by Mike at 09:39 AM | Comments (0) |
« Stan Rifkin's Wisdom Part 1 | Main | Film Editing on “The Producers” »December 10, 2005
Stan Rifkin's Wisdom Part 2
How to Select a Software Project Estimation ToolHere’s a follow up to my earlier entry on Stan Rifkin’s wisdom. In Part 1, Stan basically said “Don’t plan beyond what you’re capable of delivering.” This might seem to be pure common sense, and that it is so obvious it’s almost insulting.
But if you consider this fact - projects that meet their deadlines and cost commitments do so by cutting out almost half of what they promise, then it follows to reason that most teams over-commit by a factor of two! Moreover, these overruns are frequently in the millions or tens of millions of dollars. One team that called me in for help in recent times was suffering an overrun of $11 million. When this happens between companies, they sue each other. My friend Ed Yourdon, an intellectual giant in the technology field, is now - almost exclusively - an expert witness for software-related lawsuits.
These things tell me that somewhere along the way, companies drastically lose sight of their estimates. (It's my belief, as you've probably read on this blog, that a major cause is the blinding bias caused by the deadline.) Estimating is very very hard. Often you need a computer to help do it right. If you were to shop for a software project estimation tool, here is what Stan says to look for, in his words: more...
Posted by Mike at 10:49 AM | Comments (0) |
« Creativity, Exercise, Music, and Brain Power | Main | Stan Rifkin's Wisdom Part 2 »December 07, 2005
Stan Rifkin's Wisdom Part 1
My good friend Stan Rifkin (formerly a key member of Watts Humphrey's team at the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, and now principal of Master Systems Inc.) once penned the following criteria for software project estimation:1) Commitments have to be based on work [scope] to be performed; therefore, there must be agreement on this. 2) Estimates have to be based on a) the work to be performed and b) historical records of performance. 3) Commitments must not exceed the capability to perform, or else there is no reason to estimate. more...
Posted by Mike at 11:11 AM | Comments (0) |
« Why This Blog... | Main | Yosemite Climbing »September 19, 2005
Tools Stimulating Change
Do tools drive change in process, or should process happen first, which then drives the organization to implement tools?This is a question I get asked frequently. My answer is both; however, I believe that the best tools allow organizations to still use what they're comfortable with, and offer a framework that a user can adapt at their own pace. This would be the case regardless of whether the tool being considered is SLIM, Seer, CostXpert, Cocomo, Price-S, or any of the widely available commercial measurement and estimation models.
For example, many estimating tools force a paradigm change that requires managers to fit their way of doing things into the tool. I believe that this is a roadblock that actually prevents change. Managers wary of new methods are risk averse. They'll likely procrastinate using a tool because it is too risky to change how they estimate with so much at stake. Defending the tool estimate is risky because one has to be able to explain all the assumptions and the end results. An example of this is when someone is forced to size the project using function points. more...
Posted by Mike at 10:17 AM | Comments (0) |
