Bruce Bruen
bbruen at bigpond.com
Thu Oct 2 20:16:26 CDT 2003
Woops! Too quick on the send button.
I am currently neck deep in a consultancy project for a large company
who are looking to "shortcut" system development methods as there
current methods have become too bogged down in detail and have resulted
in a situation where the price of a development is too high because of
the development methodology, the number of people involved and the level
of detail required in every deliverable at each stage of a process that
has become soooo waterfall it's crippling.
They however, have a good attitude to the fact that systems must be
built from a design which comes from an agreed set of requirements. The
problem is that the process has become and end in itself - i.e. every
issue has a resolution of "follow the process" but the process itself
doesn't answer the questions:
1) What are we trying to build
2) How are we going to build it
3) How long will it take
When I arrived the developers, strangely enough, are the ones that were
crying - "we don't need requirements and design documents". After some
weeks of getting them to explain how they were going to answer the above
fundamental questions without some level of documentation and providing
them with options that may just allow that - the so called "agile"
methods like eXtreme programming and the like - we came across the
following amusing little tale: www.iconixsw.com/aliceinusecaseland.html
Of particular interest regarding the "don't want to pay for a spec"
clients is section 25. However the real point of this message is the
spectacular failure of the C3 project at Chrysler - so much for extreme
programming! The link for that story is at
http://c2.com.cgi.wiki?CthreeProjectTerminated and relates the tale of
woe (?) Kent Beck is spreading about the failure of that project and as
far as I'm concerned the failure of the "its 2 o'clock, why aren't we
coding" brigade and all their fancy ideas...
I would also like to point out to Hadyn the famous CHAOS report from The
Standish Group, which although a bit dated still is relevant regarding
the facts:
1) MOST IT projects fail - in their study in 1996 only 26% of
projects completed on time and within budget.
2) A significant number of the failures were due to REQUIREMENTS
related aspects, such as "unclear requirements", "incomplete
requirements", "realistic expectations", "clear vision and objectives".
(these total around a third of the cited primary failure reasons)
I would like to include the site for the "Chaos report" but I cant find
it.
Hth
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Bruen [mailto:bbruen at bigpond.com]
Sent: Friday, 3 October 2003 10:34 AM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Project Official Start
This may help, see especially the reference to C3 in the wiki
www.iconixsw.com/aliceinusecaseland.html
Rgrds
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Hadyn Morgan
Sent: Wednesday, 1 October 2003 2:39 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Project Official Start
The client does not want to pay for the time to write a spec. We have
spent the last 2 weeks doing this at our own cost. It is based on a web
application that was built and paid for on an hourly basis, because
again they did not want to pay for a spec. ~40% of the cost of it could
have been avoided on the stuff they requested then changed their minds
about.
They have paid a premium so far (our largest customer to date), and I
would like to keep them as a client. Then again I don't want to be
royally screwed either :(
Hadyn
-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Christopher
Hawkins
Sent: Wednesday, 1 October 2003 15:49
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Project Official Start
You can still walk away from a client like this, and should - 1999 be
damned.
IMHO, a client that is trying to negotiate penalty clauses before
defining what it is the developer is supposed to be developing is a
client looking to screw a developer and get something for nothing. This
is a HUGE red flag.
-Christopher-
---- Original Message ----
From: Developer at ultradnt.com
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com,
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Project Official Start
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:38:42 -0400
>Remember the good old days of 1999 when you could just walk away from a
>client like this?
>
>BTW - I'm a newbie, just signed on the list. (NYC-based independent
>contractor: Access, VB, SQL, MS-Office training, and when I can't get
>out of it, a little networking)
>
>Short answer is, when both sides have signed, that's your begin date.
>
>As for the penalty, YES - get their responsibilities in writing ... I
>have a client who pays me to keep re-importing their old system's data
>because by the time they check the import, it's a month out of date
>and
>they want all the new entries from the old system in the new system
>...
>This is going on like this for six months, It's boring as hell and
>keeping me from getting started on their .net based intranet, but
>... As
>long as they are paying, it doesn't matter. In your case, though,
>since
>they are making noise about not paying, make sure that the "clock
>stops"
>when you are waiting for them to test or review or deploy or
>whatever.
>Try to get the wording to be a count of days from execution, since
>you
>could lose a month just getting the lawyers from both sides to accept
>the document ("project will be completed 77 days from execution of
>this
>contract", for example).
>
>Hth,
>Steve
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
>[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Hadyn Morgan
>Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 10:22 PM
>To: AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
>Subject: [AccessD] Project Official Start
>
>
>When do you say a project has started? I have a client that has said
>'Yes' to a project, but has not signed off the spec, or the quote, and
>now wants to negotiate penalty clauses before they sign (if we don't
>deliver on time to the proposed end date (11 weeks from start of
>project) they reduce total payment by 8% for each full week we are
>late). I have managed to get them to exclude Acts of God etc, and
>have
>suggested that if they are to blame for the delay we should be
>allowed
>to charge them for the extra time.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Kind regards
>Hadyn
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003
>
>_______________________________________________
>AccessD mailing list
>AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
>http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
>Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>AccessD mailing list
>AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
>http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
>Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003
_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com