Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Steve_Straley

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13
151
Uml Process / Re: Proposed Product Oriented Nature of This Forum
« on: December 28, 2002, 08:16:35 pm »
Tom,

Yeah, VO was unstable and was rushed.   I've found 2.5x to be fun to work with at times.  Take away the initial instability, What is odd in the evolution of VO is what happened to people at that time.  Here, the history of Clipper, people wanted more power, more things.... and yet, unless the IDE made moving intot he OOP/Windows world easier, they didn't like it.  As a result, Delphi and VB got the foothold and VO was doomed.   Now it's just been taken over by Windmill-stabbing zealots that can't let it go.   Eventually, after working at CA and seeing how "corporate thinking" works, I dropped all ideas of books and seminars and things like that.  

Moreover: the people heading method support are the first onces to start shortcutting everything in the name of some self-imposed and thus divine deadline. But there's little one can do about this: I tend to wait for all those numerous cases when they have to rework because of things skipped, and try to improve at that point in a way that aligns with the foundation one would have got when working properly.

Oh so true.  The trouble with waiting is that by the time the rework has to be done, the mucky muck that pushed the schedule to cause the gaps has been promoted and the re-work is on someone else's shoulders.   Ah... yes... the sour cream does rise to the top in most of these places.

Let me know what you think about Six Sigam.   We just released another beta version of EA-Req and went into alpha mode with EA-QA... so I hope this next year will be better than the one leaving.

Again, happy New Year to you and your family...

Steve

152
Uml Process / Re: Proposed Product Oriented Nature of This Forum
« on: December 25, 2002, 04:58:50 am »
Tom,

Yes, most of the problems stem back to scoping and requirements but there is an added dimension to this that I've had the pain to realize.   One of the things that RUP misses IMO is "weighting" which is stressed in Six Sigma.   Part of the Six Sigma scope involves "MEASURE" which means all stakeholders outline CTQ's or Critical to Quality and they scorecard their "desires" based on the team's set of CTQ's.   You then gather the values and average and mean average them out to get a perspective on what is "important" versus "nice to have".   This ties into the requirements and helps all people in the process evaluate what high-level items are critical, which requirements tie into those critical items, and which are just "nice to have".

The other problem I've found is problematic for both RUP and Six Sigma.   Managers, executives, et cetera love the structure of a square but once they start down the path they tend to cut the corners off the square to save time (and money so they perceive).   The trouble is that by the time you get to the point in testing, you've got now a circle and the gaps between the process you DID take (the circle) and the process you SAID you would take (the square) leaves all the room in the world for software to miss the mark.  So while it is scoping and requirements, it's also sticking with the process to the very end that is so critical.   Again, the thing about Six Sigma that I like are the TollGate Steps involved in the process.  Circles are still built but to a less degree.

As far as Clipper, well... Savannah Brentnall and Dave (I can't remember his last name) introduced me to OOP and Class(y).  From that point on, with VO then Java and the open source stuff, and now .NET, I've been in love with the OO paradigm.  Along the way came UML, then RUP and then Six Sigma and ever since, I've been happier than a pig in a stye (now that I'm in the South!).

Merry Christmas!

Steve

153
Uml Process / Re: Proposed Product Oriented Nature of This Forum
« on: December 24, 2002, 10:30:24 am »
Tom,

You've touched on a good point although RUP is more of a process than a model, although it certainly blends the two.  

Having worked extensively with RUP and Rose and EA and yadda yadda, I've got to say there are areas in the PROCESS where RUP falls apart.   I can't stress this enough: if Six Sigma is modifed to encorporate RUP concepts and in turn modifed to blend in the modeling aspect, then we've got something.   That's what we've done here.   Six Sigma starts us off and gives us something that we can measure and quantify.  It also has some of the project management stuff and "tollgates" that we feel is necessary.   RUP is part of the associated documentation we require and then connects via the UC's into the Model, where the actual development team takes over.

Just a couple of toughts.

Steve

154
Uml Process / Re: Proposed Product Oriented Nature of This Forum
« on: December 18, 2002, 07:39:31 am »
Jason,

I like your outline and then break it down into the various sub-parts encompassing what Phil said.   I would also like to see something on "measurement" of those requirements perceived by users.  Also, an "as is" process to show in those cases new systems either replacing existing systems OR integrating into/with existing systems.

Just my .02.

Steve

155
Uml Process / Re: The best way to write use cases?
« on: February 15, 2003, 07:02:25 am »
Larry,

I'm not sure "user" works for all situations.  For example, in the system I just UC'd, there were ALOT of system-to-system interactions.  "Actor" is much more "neutral" between an actual person and a system whereas "user" seems to be more restrictive, especially in my situation.

Cheers,

Steve

156
Uml Process / Re: The best way to write use cases?
« on: January 22, 2003, 10:35:28 am »
Mikkel,

Perhaps I didn't phrase myself correctly last time.   When I made the comparison to code versus design, I was trying to imply that we here don't like to duplicate code and that philosophy is carried over in the design phase along with the UC's.   That's all.

Steve

157
Uml Process / Re: The best way to write use cases?
« on: January 22, 2003, 06:41:29 am »
Mikkel,

I want to echo Jason's comments; however, having said that, I tend to lean to many UC's.   To me, there are a couple of reasons.

First, the point about "causes duplicate use cases" can easily extend to class structures.  I know I want to abstract down classes to manageable segments and thus avoid duplicate code.   If that is good for code, why can't it be good for the models describing the behavior of that code?

Second, I like to think of UC's in terms of testing.  In other words, QA is going to rely on the UC's to develop test scripts.  Again, if a UC is broken down and can be "re-used", then the test script can be "re-used" and not duplicated.   Of course, there is a balance... the test must have enough information to come to a proper resolution.   Too little and the test is meaningless; too much and the test itself gets complicated.

So there is a balance and as I said, I agree with Jason.  Striking that balance can be complicated.  For example, I just completed a UML set with 203 UC's, 1060+ steps, and over 60 actors.   With this complexity already built into the system, I tried to make the testing and readability of the UC's the primary focus.

Just my .02...

Steve

158
Uml Process / Re: Mil-Std-498 / J-Std-016
« on: January 06, 2003, 05:55:31 am »
Tjerk,

Six Sigma was originally, as I understand it, by Motorola.  It has since been developed as a separate "thing" and used by several companies including Johnson & Johnson and GE.   You can do a GOOGLE search on Six Sigma to see a TON of resources.

As a side note, once we get our suite of products finished, we will be teaching, consulting and offering Six Sigma and UP white papers to provide a complete process.

Steve

159
Uml Process / Re: Mil-Std-498 / J-Std-016
« on: January 03, 2003, 06:24:15 am »
TJerk,

From what I could see, this appears to be similar to Six Sigma!

Steve

160
Uml Process / Re: USE CASE Cookbook
« on: March 13, 2003, 09:13:31 am »
Jon,

Nice to see you here and nice to speak to another fellow published author.

The "catelog" you worked on is exactly along the lines that I was referring to at the start of this thread.  The idea to "tweak" an existing model to fit a current need is similar to taking a recipe and tweaking it to fit the tastes of guests at a dinner party.   Of course, I'd like to see a TON of examples, particular interest and focus are those large cumbersome UC's that are system-to-system only found in large corporations.   And of course, having these available via the web with a cool search engine attached would be ideal!!!!

Steve

161
Uml Process / Re: USE CASE Cookbook
« on: January 16, 2003, 11:48:28 am »
Doug,

Hi and welcome to the fray.  I am familiar with those books.  As a published author myself (and the guy who started this thread) I know the problems between the publisher's needs standing between the author's desires and the public's wishes.

A single application's Use Case set is the problem IMO.  I mean, we can get language reference guides and books and even pocket reference guides (C# and O'Riley for example).  It just would be nice to have a TON of various types of application (from legacy to new and a mix between) UC's in one guide.   That way whenever someone had a scenario they had to UC document, they could get some idea of how the diagram might be established.

Just an idea...

Steve

162
Uml Process / Re: USE CASE Cookbook
« on: December 25, 2002, 08:37:15 am »
TC,

I am very concerned about "I am concerned that folks will start a war over someone else is doing it "wrong" but I think it is worth a shot."  I totally agree.   And I've experienced this myself and didn't like it one bit.   But, like you, the potential or the "marginal benefit" versus the "marginal cost" make it tempting!

I have some space on my server and will have more once we move our web site over to our .COM site.   Once this is finished, the .NET and .ORG sites could be used to help facilitate this.   I'll see if I can hook up some Cold Fusion stuff and to use a database to store these things and then dynamically display them upon request.   Just an idea if people are into this.

Steve

163
Uml Process / Re: USE CASE Cookbook
« on: December 25, 2002, 05:03:11 am »
TC,

Well, I kindof thought the same thing... gathering a TON of "examples" but again, the time to do this and organize it and everything else that goes into a book is extensive.  Not sure if people are willing to give up their UC's to their software AND to write a BRIEF outline to the scope and intent of the UC as it fits in with the overall process.     Also, not sure if people will agree with everyone else's UC's... the art form of our industry lends itself to various interpretations.

Steve

164
Uml Process / Re: USE CASE Cookbook
« on: December 24, 2002, 10:32:15 am »
Tim,

I have it and it is _NOT_ thorough enough.  I'm thinking far more exhaustive.   The situations I found myself in at GE with the last project were only .10 covered in the above mentioned book.   I can't cook a meal if the only recipe I've been given is for the soup course.

Steve

165
Uml Process / Re: USE CASE Cookbook
« on: December 24, 2002, 03:20:28 am »
Tim,

The idea of the cook book I had was based on the system I'm doing at GE.   There are over 300 UC documents with over 1120 UC steps.   Now, the interesting thing about this is system-to-system, actor-to-system, web method and pub/sub integration, et cetera...   The idea of the cook book was to have so MANY different types of systems, more than even a complete accounting system or ERP system, that you could find a similar scenario, see how it was mapped out, and emuluate.   I've got 37 different types of packages in this endeavor, web methods, BPM stuff, and rules engine beans... squirly doesn't do it justice.

Steve

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13