Rob Casper
Posts: 1
Nickname: casperr0
Registered: Aug, 2007
|
|
Re: Object Design
|
Posted: Aug 17, 2007 2:05 PM
|
|
Enjoyed the comments Bruce and others - made me chuckle.
In my experience the real crux of the matter is getting to grips with Business Process. Unfortunately time and again I have discovered that often, some or even all stakeholders do not understand their own and colleagues' business process. Process is frequently driven by company/shop floor culture or tradition, often unnecessary or redundant or with glaring holes.
End users of a software solutions will create a process of their own to get work done in a way that suits the "real process", adding their own process to the software solution rather than how the analysts/developers and other facilitators think it is being done - enter the bolt-on.
Getting to the bottom of this if stuff is crucial in my experience; this holds true for me whether it be a new solution or a proposed improvement. Developers can use what method they like - you will deliver only what you think or are even convinced is required if you do not discover how well the various stakeholders know their own processes.
I have used several "soft" methodologies, none of which capture the whole picture but combinig parts has got me close - horses for courses. Further I find them invariably too large and cumbersome.
Useful things I have used: CUSTOM - a stakeholder analysis method Developed between The university of Huddersfield and Hull University.
Another I mix is IDEF03 which is a Business process methodology - this is great for trapping business logic (only when it is discovered what is really required/expected beforehand) - needs a little effort to grasp but once done, well worth it in my view.
The other mix I like is FDD ( Feature Driven development ), I wrote a prototype tracking tool based on this which I am experimenting with currently.
By taking out a subset from each of these I combined them without initially realizing it; interestingly each subset is a seven + or - 2 as commented by Bruce - easy to keep in the head. The other thing to note is that these combined subsets are Implementation-Independent in terms of platform, language, persistence and general architechture.
Regarding Bruce's comments on complete capture, I find that it is possible to capture a general expectation governed by mutual sign-off between the various stakeholders; as an agreed rule anything more than this is acknowledged additional, requiring additional agreement if added to the process and requirements. Hence the methodologies can be viewed as dynamic - Agile if you like, but crucially - still implementation independent, and naturally scalable.
Rob C.
|
|
Previous Topic
