| Home | Introduction to SPIN | Schedule of Events | Speaker Guidelines | Contact Us |
| |
Southern California Software Process Improvement Network | ||||
|
|
| Friday, November 04, 2005 Meeting Topic:Avoiding the Failed-System Destiny of Most Large Systems - Involving all of the stakeholders in early planning is critical to ultimate success. Presenter: John Cosgrove Abstract A recent article by Watts Humphrey in CrossTalk magazine* notes that most large systems are not successful and that software systems larger than $5M have virtually no likelihood of successful completion. The most that can be hoped-for is a “challenged” result where major capabilities are absent or seriously compromised. In Humphrey's view, this is primarily a result of an unrealistic approach to planning and managing large software projects. Since there is little or no visible way of judging the progress and current status of most software projects, the means used to set goals, formulate plans, measure progress & status, etc., must be even more rigorous than other (inherently visible) projects of similar magnitude. Unfortunately, the opposite is the usual case. Performance objectives, budgets, schedules, specific plans, etc., are typically created without the active participation of those responsible for developing the system. Furthermore, plans should be treated as works-in-progress, needing constant update to remain realistic as the system evolves. The result is inevitable – missed schedules, budgets exhausted, performance & quality failures – all happening with little warning after a period of optimistic progress status reports. The record of failure does not have to continue. A return to basic engineering principles as they apply to software-systems can change it. All other engineered systems require a fully conceived, realistic plan to meet functional and resource objectives before those objectives are committed. This is a good place to start. Additionally, all elements of risk must be identified and plans created to reduce and manage that risk by well-established means. These principles must be honored in spirit as well as formally. For instance, another useful article by Phil Armour in a recent Communications of the ACM issue**, points out that identified risks are seldom quantified in actual exposure to costs. As Armour states “It is as if the concepts of risk and failure are somehow disconnected.” Without the step of assigning an actual cost to the possibility of failure, no action is likely to be approved by project management to minimize or avoid the perceived risk. This should also become part of the project management process on an on-going basis. * Humphrey, Watts, Why Big Software Projects Fail: The 12 Key Questions, CrossTalk, March 2005. ** Armour, Phil, Project Portfolios: Organization Management of Risk, The Business of Software, Communications of the ACM, March 2005. Your Presenter: John Cosgrove, PE, CDP has over forty-five years experience in computer systems and has been a self-employed, consulting software engineer since 1970. He was a part-time lecturer in the UCLA School of Engineering and LMU graduate school. He regularly gives a lecture on Ethics of Software Engineering as part of UCLA's undergraduate course in Engineering Ethics. He has an invited article, Software Engineering & Litigation in the Encyclopedia of Software Engineering . He holds the CDP, is a member of ACM, NSPE, a Life-Senior member of IEEE Computer Society and a professional engineer in California. Formal education includes a BSEE from Loyola Marymount and a Master of Engineering from UCLA. John Cosgrove, P.E. If you wish to receive email flyers of future meetings please send a blank email, with a subject line of "subscribe" to: spin@uces.csulb.edu SoCal
SPIN is sponsored by: |
|
| ©2004 University College and Extension Services |
