Software Engineering: A Perspective For 2003: Linda Shafer Director

Software Engineering:
A Perspective for 2003
Linda Shafer
Director, Software Quality Institute (SQI)
The University of Texas at Austin
www.utexas.edu
lshafer@mail.utexas.edu
Don Shafer
Chief Technology Officer, Athens Group, Inc.
www.athensgroup.com
donshafer@athensgroup.com
Seminar Dedication Enrico Fermi referred to these
brilliant Hungarian scientists
as “the Martians,” based on
speculation that a spaceship
from Mars dropped them all off
in Budapest in the early
1900’s.
Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Shafer 2
Software Engineering Seminar
Many professionals feel that the Waterfall Model is old fashioned or
simplistic, having long ago outlived its usefulness – the very name
seems wrong, since water cannot “fall” uphill to accommodate the
backward arrows. All sorts of new models have been depicted to better
show how the “real world” works, or how software can be developed
faster, or how customers can become more engaged in the process to
improve functionality. The Spiral Model, the Evolutionary Rapid
Prototyping Model, the “V”-Shaped Model and others have emerged to
solve one issue or another. Today, most practitioners might agree that
there are so many different types of projects, a one size SLC cannot
possible fit all. The modern viewpoint is that unique projects require
unique models, or combinations of models to succeed. We will discuss
the choice of appropriate SLC models, or modified versions of SLC
models, the real baseline for beginning software engineering. We will
describe several of the more modern SLC’s (e.g. eXtreme, RUP), and
how a project manager can decide which one to use. We will also
explain what the various bodies of knowledge (e.g. PMBOK, SWEBOK)
map to our life cycles.

Shafer 3
Presentation Description
The key to managing a software development project is having a
high level road map to identify where you are on the project. The life
cycle model you adopt for your development project is this roadmap.
Using IEEE 1074, we will walk through a "standard" development life
cycle and all the supporting processes required; e.g. configuration
management, documentation, project management, software quality
assurance. Using this as the baseline we'll construct a first pass WBS
for the life cycle.
The next steps will be to customize the baseline life cycle for two
different types of development: evolutionary rapid prototyping and
commercial-of-the-shelf package selection.
To wrap up, some metrics on life cycles for web-based application
delivery.

Shafer 4
NOT the Model you want!
Inputs Outputs
Code & Test
Do Until
Done

Shafer 5
Product Development
Te
ch
s
ol
n ol
To
o
Products
gy
Methods

Shafer 6
A Quick Level Set
Technology
 Application of scientific knowledge in industry
or business
Tool
 An implement or machine used to do work or
perform a task.
Method
 A manner, means or process for accomplishing
something.

Shafer 7
What’s in each segment?
In tr n O
te n et ie
In tr t
rn e t
Ex bje
a
et
O
a
P
ic
pe le
L O oI
rn
Co rac
c
Te
XM ML V
-
U va
r
ch
ls
Ja
nt
n
o
ed
ol
To
Products
o g y
Methods
Software Engineering Project Management

Shafer 8
How do products happen?
Products
Pr
o
d
Te
u
ch
s l
ct
no
To
s
lo
gy
Method
s
Te
ch
ls
no
o
To
lo
Prod
gy
ucts
Methods
Ideas

Shafer 9
Project Management Mitigates the Front End Risks
Plan
k
Ris tion Pl Concept
e
an
ov
c nin
du
Re
pr
Re g Definition
sea
Im
Management
rch
Plan
Risk
Candidate
Databases
Quality
Architecture
Estimating
Analysis
ROI
Specifications Identification
Analysis
Needs
Project Assessment Market and
apt
Ob
Co Plans System
M nfig
d
ser
Requirements
A
an ur
ag at ni ng v
rai
e
em ion T
en
t
Analyze

Shafer 10
Defining Your Life Cycle Model
1) Become familiar with the various models
2) Review, analyze the type of work: development,
enhancement, maintenance, etc.
3) Review project criteria
4) Identify a minimum set of phases
5) Identify phase activities
6) Establish a minimum set of deliverables
7) Define templates and content guides for
deliverables
8) Evaluate progress and effectiveness of the life
cycle framework
9) Implement improvements
Shafer 11
Build and Fix

Shafer 12
Build and Fix – Good and Bad
Pros: Cons:
Works for projects One step beyond code
generating less than and test
200 LOC
Does not scale with
large projects
No specifications
Not a life cycle model

Shafer 13
Basic 1074 Life Cycle

Shafer 14
Full 1074 Life Cycle (1)

Shafer 15
Full 1074 Life Cycle (2)

Shafer 16
Full 1074 Life Cycle – Good and Bad
Pros: Cons:
THE starting point for Too much process
defining you life cycle
Contains all the life Contains more than you
cycle supports you may reasonably use
would need
Is a process for defining Is not in and of itself a
your life cycle life cycle to implement

Shafer 17
Waterfall Model
Planning
Analysis
Design
Build
Test
Deploy
Shafer 18
Waterfall Model – Good and Bad
Pros: Cons:
Easiest to understand Does not model the real
world
Easiest to instrument Too much
documentation
Enforced discipline
Document and
deliverable driven

Shafer 19
Waterfall with Prototyping
Process Steps Process Gates Prototypes
REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION PROTOTYPE

REVIEW 1
HIGH LEVEL DESIGN PROTOTYPE

REVIEW
2
DETAIL DESIGN PROTOTYPE

REVIEW
3
SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION
REVIEW
VERIFICATION & VALIDATION

REVIEW
SYSTEM DELIVERY POST

REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION
REVIEW
Project Management Support Processes

Risk Reduction Training Planning Configuration Management Estimating Metrics Quality Assurance
Shafer 20
Prototyping Model - Pros and Cons
Pros: Cons:
Easiest to understand Not stopping the
prototyping
Easiest to instrument Prototyping becomes
early code hacking
Real world modeling
Recursion among
process steps
Document and
deliverable driven
Shafer 21
Spiral Model

Shafer 22
Spiral Good and Bad
Pros: Cons:
Emphasizes risk Internal development of
reduction large systems
Supports reuse High overhead costs
Maintenance and Requires a mature
development mesh organization
Easy look at product Risk and prototyping
with prototypes tools a must
Risk focused testing

Shafer 23
Rapid Application Development

Shafer 24
RAD – Good/Bad
Pros: Cons:
Lots of user interaction Users intimately involved
Early proof of concept Needs maturity of tools
and process
Incremental building Increased overhead if
too many prototypes
Tight delivery control
Poorly set expectations

Shafer 25
Selecting a Life Cycle Model - Project Characteristic
Category Matrix Requirements
Requirements Waterfall Prototype Spiral RAD

Are the requirements easily
Yes No No Yes
defined and/or well known?
Can the requirements be defined
Yes No No Yes
early in the cycle?
Will the requirements change
No Yes Yes No
often in the cycle?
Is there a need to demonstrate
the requirements to achieve No Yes Yes Yes
definition?
Is a proof of concept required to No Yes Yes Yes

demonstrate capability?

Shafer 26
Category Matrix Project Team
Project Team Waterfall Prototype Spiral RAD

Are the majority of team members new
to the problem domain for the project? No Yes Yes No

to the technology domain for the Yes No Yes No
project?

Yes No Yes No
to the tools used on the project?
Are the team members subject to

reassignment during the life cycle? No Yes Yes No
Is there training available for the project

team if required? No No No Yes

Shafer 27
Category Matrix User Community
User Community Waterfall Prototype Spiral RAD

Will the availability of the user
representatives be restricted, or limited Yes No Yes No
during the life cycle?
Are the user representatives new to

No Yes Yes No
system definition?
Are the user representatives experts in
the problem domain? No Yes No Yes
Do the users want to be involved in all No Yes No Yes

phases of the life cycle?

Shafer 28
Category Matrix Project Type and Risk
Project Type & Risk Waterfall Prototype Spiral RAD
Does the project identify a new product

direction for the organization? No Yes Yes No
Is the project a system integration

project? No Yes Yes Yes
Is the project an enhancement to an

existing system? No No No Yes
Is the funding for the project expected to

Yes Yes No Yes
be stable throughout the life cycle?
Is the product expected to have a long Yes No Yes No

life in the organization?

Shafer 29
Two Derived Development Methods
COTs
eXtreme Programming

Shafer 30
Before Customizing Remember the Framework
Activities …
An effective process model should define a small set of framework activities that are
always applicable, regardless of project type. The APM defines the following set of
framework activities:
I. project definition - tasks required to establish effective communication between developer and
customer(s) and to define requirements for the work to be performed
II. planning - tasks required to define resources, timelines and other project related information
and assess both technical and management risks
III. engineering and construction - tasks required to create one or more representations of the
software (can include the development of executable models, i.e., prototypes or simulations)
and to generate code and conduct thorough testing
IV. release - tasks required to install the software in its target environment, and provide
customer support (e.g., documentation and training)
V. customer use - tasks required to obtain customer feedback based on use and evaluation of the
deliverables produced during the release activity
Each of the above framework activities will occur for every project. However, the set of
tasks (we call this a task set) that is defined for each framework activity will vary
depending upon the project type (e.g., Concept Development Projects will have a
different task set than Application Enhancement Projects) and the degree of rigor
selected for the project.

Shafer 31
… and the Umbrella Activities
In addition to the framework activities, a set of umbrella activities
persist across the entire software process. These umbrella activities
include:
software project management
formal technical reviews
software quality assurance
software configuration management
reusability management
measurement
document preparation and production
risk management
Each of these umbrella activities is defined by a set of tasks that are
adapted to the project type and degree of rigor with which software
engineering is to be applied.

Shafer 32
COTS Application Selection (1)

Shafer 33
COTS Life Cycle (2)

Shafer 34
COTS Life Cycle (3)

Shafer 35
eXtreme Programming


Shafer 36
eXtreme Programming - the propaganda
Light methods are adaptive rather than predictive. Heavy
methods tend to try to plan out a large part of the
software process in great detail for a long span of time,
this works well until things change. So their nature is to
resist change. The light methods, however, welcome
change. They try to be processes that adapt and thrive
on change, even to the point of changing themselves.
Light methods are people-oriented rather than process-
oriented. They explicitly make a point of trying to work
with peoples' nature rather than against them and to
emphasize that software development should be an
enjoyable activity.

Shafer 37
eXtreme Programming - the truth :-)

Shafer 38
Classical “Best” Effort per Phase
5% 5% 30% 30% 20% 10%
Front end: 40 – 50% Back end: 50 – 60%
100% of Product Full Life Cost

Shafer 39
Real Web Project Metrics(1)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Planning Analysis Design Implement Validate Deliver
Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4 Series5
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
What is the 40.00%
message here?
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Planning Analysis Design Implement Validate Deliver
Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4 Series5

Shafer 40
Series 1
Deliver Planning
3% 13%
Validate Analysis
27% 10%
Design
16%
Implement
31%

Shafer 41
Series 2
Validate
Deliver Planning
4% Analysis
2% 6%
9%
Design
Implement 23%
56%

Shafer 42
Series 3
Deliver Planning
1% 1%
Validate
Analysis
1%
10%
Design
23%
Implement
64%

Shafer 43
Series 4
Validate
Analysis
0%
Planning 1%
Deliver
2% Design
1%
18%
Implement
78%

Shafer 44
Web Effort per Phase (Preliminary
Research)
7% 10% 16% 65% 2%

-3% -20% -14% +45% -8%
Front end: 40 – 50% Back end: 50 – 60%
100% of Product Full Life Cost

Shafer 45
Best Practices that Work
1. Define your life cycle
2. Set up a metrics system
3. Formalize project management
4. Develop a prototyping process
5. Institute reviews and inspections
6. Implement non-invasive configuration
management
7. JAD with your customers

Shafer 46
Defining Your Life Cycle Model
1) Become familiar with the various models
2) Review, analyze the type of work: development,
enhancement, maintenance, etc.
3) Review project criteria
4) Identify a minimum set of phases
5) Identify phase activities
6) Establish a minimum set of deliverables
7) Define templates and content guides for deliverables
8) Evaluate progress and effectiveness of the life cycle
framework
9) Implement improvements

Shafer 47
Why a metrics system?
$100.00 0.80
$90.00
0.70
$80.00
0.60
$70.00
0.50
$60.00
$50.00 0.40
$40.00
0.30
$30.00
0.20
$20.00
0.10
$10.00
$- 0.00
Production Control
Production Control
Machine Integration,
Inventing
accepted tools
Performance Analysis
Build to spec, JAVA

Build to spec,
accepted tools
Upgrade
Debug
Tool

Shafer 48
Best Practices that Work
8. Evolve to an object-oriented model
9. Embrace modeling with UML
10. Build early and often
11. Build anywhere
12. Communicate, communicate,
communicate

Shafer 49
Key Life Cycle Message
Whatever life cycle you start

with will not be the one that
will really work for you. You
have to take charge of your life
cycle, monitor it and adapt it to
your circumstances. In the end
it must become yours!

Shafer 50
Are you secure with your process???
??
s ?
o n
ti
e s
Qu

Shafer 51
Linda Shafer Bio:
Linda Shafer has been working with the software industry since
1965, beginning with NASA in the early days of the space
program. Her experience includes roles of programmer,
designer, analyst, project leader, manager, and SQA/SQE. She
has worked for large and small companies, including IBM,
Control Data Corporation, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Computer Task Group, Sterling Information Group, and
Motorola. She has also taught for and/or been in IT shops at
The University of Houston, The University of Texas at Austin,
The College of William and Mary, The Office of the Attorney
General (Texas) and Motorola University. Ms. Shafer's
publications include 25 refereed articles, and three books. She
currently works for the Software Quality Institute and co-
authored a SQI Software Engineering Series book published by
PrenHall in 2002: Quality Software Project Management. She is
on the International Press Committee of the IEEE and an
author in the Software Engineering Series books for IEEE. Her
MBA is from the University of New Mexico.

Shafer 52
Don Shafer Bio:
Don Shafer is a co-founder, corporate director and Chief Technology Officer of
Athens Group, Inc. Incorporated in June 1998, Athens Group is an employee-
owned consulting firm, integrating technology strategy and software solutions.
Prior to Athens Group, Shafer led groups developing and marketing hardware
and software products for Motorola, AMD and Crystal Semiconductor. He was
responsible for managing a $129 million-a-year PC product group that
produced the award-winning audio components. From the development of low-
level software drivers in yet-to-be-released Microsoft operating systems to the
selection and monitoring of Taiwan semiconductor fabrication facilities, Shafer
has led key product and process efforts. In the past three years he has led
Athens engineers in developing industry standard semiconductor fab equipment
software interfaces, definition of 300mm equipment integration tools,
advanced process control state machine data collectors and embedded system
control software agents. His latest patents are on joint work done with Agilent
Technologies in state-based machine control. He earned a BS degree from the
USAF Academy and an MBA from the University of Denver. Shafer’s work
experience includes positions held at Boeing and Los Alamos National
Laboratories. He is currently an adjunct professor in graduate software
engineering at Southwest Texas His faculty web site is
http://www.cs.swt.edu/~donshafer/. With two other colleagues in 2002, he
wrote Quality Software Project Management for Prentice-Hall now used in both
industry and academia. Currently he is working on an SCM book for the IEEE
Software Engineering Series.

Shafer 53

Software Engineering: A Perspective For 2003: Linda Shafer Director

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Software Engineering: A Perspective For 2003: Linda Shafer Director

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Software Engineering: A Perspective For 2003: Linda Shafer Director

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Software Engineering:

A Perspective for 2003

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Code & Test

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION PROTOTYPE

HIGH LEVEL DESIGN PROTOTYPE

DETAIL DESIGN PROTOTYPE

VERIFICATION & VALIDATION

SYSTEM DELIVERY POST

Project Management Support Processes

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Requirements Waterfall Prototype Spiral RAD

Is a proof of concept required to No Yes Yes Yes

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Project Team Waterfall Prototype Spiral RAD

Are the majority of team members new

Are the majority of team members new

Are the team members subject to

Is there training available for the project

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

User Community Waterfall Prototype Spiral RAD

Are the user representatives new to

Do the users want to be involved in all No Yes No Yes

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Does the project identify a new product

Is the project a system integration

Is the project an enhancement to an

Is the funding for the project expected to

Is the product expected to have a long Yes No Yes No

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

Copyright © 2002 Linda and Don Software Engineering: A 2003 Perspective

5% 5% 30% 30% 20% 10%

Front end: 40 – 50% Back end: 50 – 60%