Tag Archives: functional size measurement

(Mis)Perceptions about Software Estimation – Opportunities or Crisis?


Dr Dobb’s online published my article on this topic this week… and quickly comments started pouring in.  Some asked why I would publish an article with observations without solutions while others implied that this is really a customer problem or a human communications problem (I agree with the latter) –  What do YOU think?

Read it, and PLEASE give me your feedback.  Do you agree, disagree, don’t care?  Inquiring minds want to know!

Dr Dobbs

 

 


As part of ongoing writings on software sizing and function point analysis, I recently posted the following article on the QSM blog.  Enjoy!

FP as mousetrap

What’s the Point of Estimating?


Here’s the latest installment of my QSM Ask Carol blog:

Point of estimating

“What’s the Point of (Early) Estimating?”  … click on the image or the title here to read the full blog post.

-Carol

Latest installment of Ask Carol: No matter What… in Project Management, Size Matters


Just wanted to share with you my latest installment on the QSM website blog – My Dear Carol advice column.  Enjoy!

Ask Carol - size matters

Here is the link to the rest of the article:  http://www.qsm.com/blog/2013/ask-carol-no-matter-what-project-management-size-matters

Fundamentals of Software Metrics in Two Minutes or Less


 

Fundamentals of SW Metrics in two minutes or lessTo read more click on the link:
http://www.qsm.com/blog/2013/fundamentals-software-metrics-two-minutes-or-less

If IT’s important – get a second (or third) opinion!


I’d like to share with you my latest  post on the QSM (Quantitative Software Management) blog – let me know what you think!

-Carol

1st in the series

1st in my new series – here’s the URL:

http://www.qsm.com/blog/2013/ask-carol-if-its-important-get-second-opinion

Measurement and IT – Friends or Frenemies ?


I confess, I am a software metrics ‘geek’… but I am not a zealot!  I agree that we desperately need measures to make sense of the what we are doing in software development and to find pockets of excellence (and opportunities for improvement), but it has to be done properly!

Most (process) improvement models, whether they pertain to software and systems or manufacturing or children or people attest to the power of measurement including the CMMI(R) Capability Maturity Model Integration and the SPICE (Software Process Improvement Capability dEtermination) models.

But, we often approach what seems to be a simple concept – “Measure the Work Output and divide it by the Inputs” back asswards (pardon my French!)

Anyone who has been involved with software metrics or function points or CMMI/SPICE gone bad can point to the residual damage of overzealous management (and the supporting consultants) leaving a path of destruction in their wake.  I think that Measurement and IT are sometimes the perfect illustration of the term “Virtual Frenemies” I’ll lay claim to it!) when it comes to poorly designed software metrics programs.  (The concepts can be compatible – but you need proper planning and open-minded participants! Read on…)

Wikipedia (yes, I know it is not the best source!) defines “Frenemy (alternately spelled “frienemy“):

is a portmanteau of “friend” and “enemy” that can refer to either an enemy disguised as a friend or someone who’s both a friend and a rival.[1] The term is used to describe personal, geopolitical, and commercial relationships both among individuals and groups or institutions. The word has appeared in print as early as 1953.

Measurement as a concept can be good. Measure what you want to improve (and measure it objectively, consistently, and then ensure causality can be shown) and improve it.

IT as a concept can be good. Software runs our world and makes life easier. IT’s all good.

The problem comes in when someone (or some team) looks at these two “good” concepts and says, let’s put them together, makes the introduction, and then walks away.  “Be sure to show us good results and where we can do even better!” is the edict.

Left alone to their own devices, measurement can wreak havoc and run roughshod over IT – the wrong things are measured (“just measure it all with source lines of code or FP and see what comes out”), effort is spent measuring those wrong things (“just get the numbers together and we’ll figure out the rest later”), the data doesn’t correlate properly (“now how can we make sense of what we collected”), and misinformation abounds (“just plot what we have, it’s gotta tell us something we can use”).

In the process, the people working diligently (most of the time!) in IT get slammed by data they didn’t participate in collecting, and which often illustrates their “performance” in a detrimental way.  Involvement in the metrics program design, on the part of the teams who will be measured, is often sparse (or an afterthought), yet the teams are expected to embrace measurement and commit to changing whatever practices the resultant metrics analysis says they need to improve.

This happens often when a single measure or metric is used across the board to measure disparate types of work (using function points to measure work that has nothing to do with software development is like using construction square feet to measure landscaping projects!)

Is it any wonder that the software and systems industries are loathe to embrace and take part in the latest “enterprise wide” measurement initiative? Fool me once, shame on you… fool me twice, shame on me.

What is the solution to resolving this “Frenemies” situation between Measurement and IT?  Planning, communication, multiple metrics and a solid approach (don’t bring in the metrics consultants yet!) are the way.

Just because something is not simple to measure does not make it not worth measuring – and measuring properly.

For example, I know of a major initiative where a customer wants to measure the productivity of SAP-related projects to gain an understanding of how the cost per FP tracks on their projects compared to other (dissimilar) software projects and across the industry.

Their suppliers cite that Function Points (a measure of software functionality) does not work well for configurations (this is true), integration work (this is true), and that it can take a lot of effort to collect FP for large SAP implementations (can be true).  However, that does not mean that the productivity cannot be measured at all!  (If all you have is a hammer, everything might look like a nail.)

It will require planning and design effort to arrive at an appropriate measurement approach to equitably and consistently track productivity across these “unique” types of projects. While this is non-trivial, the insight and benefits to the business will far exceed the effort.  Resistance on the part of suppliers to be measured (especially in anticipation of an unfair assessment based on a single metric!) is justified, but a good measurement approach (that will fairly measure the types of effort into different buckets using different measures) is definitely attainable (and desired by the business.)

The results of knowing where and how the money is “invested” in these projects will lead to higher levels of understanding on both sides, and open up discussions about how to better deliver!  The business might even realize where they can improve to make such projects more productive!

Watch my next few posts for further details about how to set up a fair and balanced software measurement program.

What do you think?  Are measurement and IT doomed to be frenemies forever? What is your experience?

Have a good week!
Carol

Trust and Verify are the (IT) Elephants in the room


As a party involved in some aspect of software development, why do you think projects are so hard?  Millions of dollars in research work to solve this question, with the result being new models, agile approaches and standards, all intended to streamline software development.

What do you think is the core reason for project success or failure?  Is it the people, process, requirements, budgets, schedule, personalities, the creative process or some combination?

Sure, IT (information technology) is a relatively new industry, plagued by technology advances at the speed of light, industries of customers and users who don’t know what they want, budgets are preset, schedules are imposed, scope is elusive, and, ultimately computer scientists and customers still speak their own language.  Some people argue that it boils down to communication (especially poor communication).  After all, isn’t communication the root cause of all wars, disputes, divorces, broken negotiations, and failed software projects?

I disagree.

I believe that TRUST and VERIFY are THE TWO most important factors in software development

These two elements are the IT elements in the room (so to speak!) I could be wrong, but it seems like the commonly cited factors (including communication) are simply symptoms of the elephants in the room – and no one is willing to talk about them.  Instead, we bring in new methodologies, new tools intended to bring customers and suppliers together, new approaches, and new standards – and all of these skirt the major issues: TRUST and VERIFY.

Why are these so critical?

Trust is the difference between negotiation and partnership – trust implies confidence,  a willingness to believe in (an)other, the assurance that your position and interests are protected, and the rationale that when life changes, the other party will understand and work with you. A partnership means that there is an agreement to trust in a second party and to give trust in return.  Trust is essential in software development.

BUT… many a contract and agreement have gone wrong with blind trust, and that is why VERIFY is as important as trust. Verify means to use due diligence to make sure that the trust is grounded in fact by using knowledge, history, and past performance as the basis.  Verify grounds trust, yet allows it to grow.

President Ronald Reagan coined the phrase “Trust, but Verify” – but I believe it is better stated as “Trust and Verify” because the two reinforce each other.  This also suggests the saying:  “Fool me Once, Shame on You… Fool me Twice, Shame on Me.”

Proof that Trust and Verify are the Elephants in the Room

Software development has a history of dysfunctional behavior built on ignoring that Trust and Verify are key issues. It is easier for both the business (customers) and the engineers (suppliers) to pretend that they trust each other than address the issues once and for all.  To admit to a lack of trust is tantamount to declaring war and accusing your “partners” of espionage.  It simply is not done in the polite company of corporate boardrooms.  And so we do the following:

  • Fixed price budgets are set before requirements are even known because the business wants to lower their risk (and mistrust);
  • Software development companies “pad” their estimates with generous margins to decrease their risk that the business doesn’t know what they want (classic mistrust);
  • Deadlines are imposed by the business based on gut-feel or contrived “drop dead” dates to keep the suppliers on track;
  • Project scope is mistakenly expressed in terms of dollars or effort (lagging metrics) instead of objective sizing (leading metrics);
  • Statements like “IT would be so much easier if we didn’t have to deal with users” are common;
  • Games like doubling the project estimate because the business will chop it in half become standard;
  • Unrealistic project budgets and schedules are agreed to to keep the business;
  • Neither side is happy about all the project meetings (lies, more promises, and disappointment).

Is IT doomed?

Trust is a critical component of any successful relationship involving humans (one might argue that it is also critical when pets are involved) – but so too is being confident in that trust (verify).  Several promising approaches address trust issues head on, and provide project metrics along the way to ensure that the trust remains.

One such approach is Kanban (the subject of this week’s Lean Software and Systems Development conference LSSC12 in Boston, MA).

Kanban for software and systems development was formalized by David Anderson and has been distilled into a collaborative set of practices that allow the business and software developers to be transparent about software development work – every step of the way.  Project work is prioritized and pulled in to be worked on only as the volume and pace (velocity) of the pipeline can accommodate.  Rather than having the business demand that more work be done faster, cheaper and better than is humanly possible (classic mistrust that the suppliers are not working efficiently), in Kanban, the business works collaboratively with the developers to manage (and gauge) what is possible to do and the pipeline delivers more than anticipated.  Trust and verify in action.

Another promising approach is Scope Management (supported by a body of knowledge and a European based certification) – a collaborative approach whereby software development effort is done based on “unit pricing”.  Rather than entertaining firm, fixed price, lose-lose (!!!) contracts where the business wants minimum price/maximum value and the supplier need to curtail changes to deliver within the fixed price (and not lose their shirts), unit pricing actually splits a project into known components can are priced similarly to how home construction can be priced by square foot and landscaping priced by the number of trees.

In Scope Management (see www.qualityplustech.com and www.fisma.fi for more details or send me an email and I’ll send you articles), the business retains the right to make changes and keep the reins on the budget and project progress and the supplier gets paid for the work that the business directs to be done.  Project metrics and progress metrics are a key component in the delivery process.  Again TRUST and VERIFY are key components to this approach.

What do you think? 

Please comment and share your opinion – are TRUST and VERIFY the IT elephants in the rooms at your company?

P.s., Don’t forget to sign up for the SPICE Users Group 2012 conference in 2 weeks in Palma de Mallorca, Spain. See www.spiceconference.com for details!  I’m doing a 1/2 day SCOPE MANAGEMENT tutorial on Tuesday May 29, 2012.

Whats behind Project Success: Process or People?


Depending on who or what you read, most software and systems projects (over 50%) end up as unsuccessful/failures:  over budget, late, and/or fail to meet the user needs.  As a worldwide phenomenon, studies continue to expound on why projects fail (poor requirements, underfunding, overoptimistic estimates, unreasonable schedules, lack of management commitment, etc.) but few studies focus on what it takes for projects to succeed.

What do you think makes a project (of any kind) successful?  What is more important to project success:

1. The processes involved (e.g., formal project management, standards, shortened development life cycles, agility…); or

2. The people involved (e.g., the right team makeup, a good mix of skills, a motivated workforce, engaged users); or

3. Trust (e.g., collaboration rather than negotiation between customers and suppliers, reliance, cooperative teamwork; communication); or

4. Something else (e.g., other factors such as CMMI, tool sets, unlimited budgets, Steve Jobs on the team, …); or

5. Some “magical” combination of the above; or

6. None of these?

Across industries and across the world, is there a difference in what makes a project successful?  Are there certain factors that predispose a project for success (or failure?)

What do YOU think?  Inquiring minds are interested in hearing from you… (please post a comment or send me a private email to dekkers (at) qualityplustech (dot) com).

Thank you!
Carol

A Lean Journey: 10 Characteristics of a Good Measure and 7 Pitfalls to Avoid


A Lean Journey: 10 Characteristics of a Good Measure and 7 Pitfalls to Avoid.