For Protose to trully be the source for everything software engineering then everyone in the software engineering community had to be able to easily contribute to it. Which was not the case.
So I took everything I have learned over the years and created SOENinfo - the new source for everything software engineering… a source that is open to everyone to contribute too.
I hope to see everyone there.
]]>“In software development and software engineering industry, a death march is a dysphemism for a project that is destined to fail. Usually it is a result of unrealistic or overly optimistic expectations in scheduling, feature scope, or both. The knowledge of the doomed nature of the project weighs heavily on the psyche of its participants, as if they are helplessly watching the team as it marches into the sea. Often, the death march will involve desperate attempts to right the course of the project by asking team members to work especially gruelling hours, weekends, or by attempting to “throw bodies at the problem” with varying results, often causing burnout.”
(courtesy of wikipedia)
Have you ever been on a death march?
To be honest, I was becoming a bit hesitant in the days leading up to the event, as I was unsure if the conference was really for me. To provide a bit of background, my main focus within the software realm is:
Hence a conference about XP development practices might not be suited for someone like me. But following a call with J.B. whereby I asked him “Will it be worth it for me to come to the conference?” and “Am I better off continuing to read about this stuff?” After taking the time to explain how the conference would be worth my while, I decided that I would take a chance and attend.
The day started with a keynote speech from Ron Jeffries, co-author of “Extreme Programming Installed”, entitled “Where is Extreme Programming going?” This really should have been entitled “Where is Agile going?” He asked the audience for Agile methodologies that they knew about or worked on. Methodologies that were focused on were XP, Scrum, Lean, DDD, and Crystal. He then went on to talk about each of these methodologies and pointed out that the goal of each of these methodologies is essentially the same: To develop effective software with predictable and reliable deliverables. He closed his talk by advising us not to blindly follow one practice over another in the sake of allegiance, but rather be open to all practices so that, on a per-project basis, we could develop the most effective software development methodology as it relates to the needs of the project in question.
Robert C. Martin, author of “Agile Software Development: Principles, Patterns and Practices” kicked off the tutorial sessions with an introduction to XP. He started his session by explaining that current popular software development methodologies can achieve only 3 out of the following 4 characteristics:
He then went on to give us a history of software development methodologies, most notably, the 2167 and 2167a software development methodology, more popularly known as the waterfall and iterative waterfall methodology respectively, developed by the department of defense in 1970. He then pointed out that of the $37B worth of DoD projects using 2167:
He also referenced a study performed by Fred Brooks which studied the production value of 400 software projects that were developed using waterfall. The study showed that only 5-15% of the code developed under the waterfall methodology was actually used in production. He went on to explain that the major problem with the waterfall software development process was based on the faulty premise that humans are good estimators.
To overcome our natural trait of poor estimation, he presented XP’s planning game. The planning game works essentially by gathering the stakeholders and the development team having them sit down in a meeting room together. This should be done once the project is ready to be kicked off. All the features of the project are listed on individual cue cards. A total story point value is then assigned whereby all the cue cards should add up to that number. To help explain the XP planning game, we used the example of an ATM machine. Suppose the total number of story points was assigned to be 80. The first cue card is given a story point assignment, without being based on any criteria. Suppose the first feature was login. The development team would deliberate and call it a 3 (although no criteria is used, often the fallback is degree of difficulty). The next card was logout and it was assigned a story point value of 1. The next card was deposit and this was assigned a story point value of 6. The process continued until all features were assigned with story points and the sum of all story points equaled 80. Ideally, the development team would then go back to all the features and justify or adjust the assigned story points for each feature, as each assignment is relative to the others.
For the first week of development, you pick a random number of story points to be completed. In this example, we used 40. You then ask the stakeholders which 40 story points they would like implemented. Bob explained in his experience, stakeholders would pick the features that were most important and cheapest to implement. During the first week of development suppose only 30 story points were completed. During next week’s planning session, you ask the stakeholders to only pick 30 story points to be completed. Essentially, the only week where you do not complete all planned work should be the first week. Over the course of the project, you should be able to determine the velocity of your development team. Velocity is basically story points/deliverable cycle. You should also be able to develop a story point burn rate chart. By providing these charts to managers of the project, they are presented with enough information to actually manage the project and steer the project so that it meets the Company’s business objectives.
Overall, this was a very interesting and entertaining tutorial session. The planning game can even be used in non-development projects and I have already started using it in the management of my professional tasks.
The next tutorial, Estimating and Planning, was held by Mike Cohn, author of User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. This was a bit repetitive of what Bob spoke about as Mike talked about the XP Planning game. Concepts he spoke about that Bob didn’t were:
Following lunch, I attended an open space session. The format for Open Space at the conference was that anyone could suggest a topic and post it for people to sign up to the session. The person who suggested the topic had to keep track of the issues discussed and at the end of the session, had to report in the conclusion of the session. The first session I attended was entitled “How to integrate non-developers into an XP development team”. The topic was interesting, but one thing I found was that the person who suggested the topic basically presented to us his own ideas on this topic and very few other people actually spoke. One person in our session from BEA actually chewed out a participant on how his comment was irrelevant to the discussion. Open space is about open communication and that comment, even though not addressed at me, totally turned me off. The good thing with Open Space is that you are free to walk around and jump in and out of other Open Space sessions, which is exactly what I did. Another session that was running concurrently was about planning. The one thing that struck me right away was the exchange in dialogue. Interestingly enough, all participants, including the topic creator, were seated. We had some really great dialogue in this session and I actually got to talk with Ron Jeffries and Bob Martin about techniques on improving velocity (I asked questions, they gave answers). All in all, I really enjoyed the open space session.
After the open space session, there was still 1 hour to go until Mike Hill’s presentation on Transitioning to XP. So after speaking to some locals, I ventured into the project room where J.B. and friends were in the process of developing a Texas Hold’em application. It was pretty cool watching everyone at work and the communication between the different development groups (all in pairs) was astounding. It really reminded me of my university days, where group communication was always incredible and it seemed as though you always got things done faster. Having never experience an XP development environment, it was beneficial for me to have received a sample of the workspace and work processes in place.
Onto the final tutorial of the day. Mike gave an excellent session on transitioning to XP. A lot of this tutorial was aimed at techniques for getting management to buy into XP and Mike’s own personal experience on convincing management to make the necessary changes to open up channels of communication. The points that I took away from this talk were:
All in all the conference was fairly informative, but what was really beneficial for me was that I got to experience a lot of the XP practices in person. I also learned how to play “Go”. Now to apply these concepts…
We have turned commenting back on and everything is back to normal. Feel free to go back and post comments that you were unable to post the past couple of days.
If anything like this happens again or you encounter any other problems please contact me at john.kopanas [at] protose [dot] org.
]]>The study found that all project failures can be traced to one cause:
The delivered solution does not fit the problem.
This came to no surprise to me. I truly believe that a large percentage of software that is being used on a daily basis is only being used because it is forced upon the user rather then the user choosing the software.
To give a real life example, I was in the bank the other morning doing my banking and I asked my banker, who happens to be my sister, if she finds the software she uses to do her work works well and if it worked the way she worked? She told me she did not like the application they use in the bank at all. She said they are moving the system over to a webbased application though. My only concern with that is speed. I watch my sister go from screen to screen and it is scary how fast she works. I wonder if a web application will slow her down… even if done right. But then again if they understand how a banker works she won’t have to go from screen to screen and all the information will be infront of her when she needs it. Not too much to ask for if you ask me :-).
The following is the list of the six main software project risks in order of importance (with the weight of each risk in parentheses) that was found in the study:
For some odd reason I was surprised with the largest risk and it’s relative weight (“Use of an inappropriate methodology”). I wonder if it was more the risk in not having a methodoloy all together rather then the methodology choosen?
I would even consider combining numbers 2 and 6. I feel that requirements volatility can be the result of lack of customer involvement. Which would give a combined weight of 2.7 to the newly combined risk of managing requirements. Bring the importance of methology choosen and requirements to being very similar in importance.
What I am not surprised about is the fact that programming languages and the individual competency of a programmer is not on the list.
What do you guys/gals feel about the result of the study? How do you interpret it? Were you surprised by any of it? Would you add anything to the list from your experience?
Related Links:
For those who are interested in PHP the following is information about PHP Quebec 2005:
PHP Quebec 2005: the professional free software
PHP Québec is pleased to invite you to its third annual conference. It will take place March 30th and 31rst, and April 1rst, at the hotel Crowne Plaza, Montreal, Quebec.
During two days, the conference offers three sessions tracks and a debate :
Wednesday is a power session day : Web security, MySQL 5, PHP 5, web services and PEAR.
A certification Center will provide exams for PHP, MySQL and other free software. Special prices are available to everyone.
With the participation of Rasmus Lerdorf (PHP co-inventor), Brian Aker (MySQL AB), Ken Coar (Apache Software Foundation), Robert Gerin-Lajoie (CIRANO), Jordi Adame (Gouv. du Mexique), Sebastien Brodeur (C.Fed. Desjardins), Sylvain Carle, Ilia Alshanetsky, Derick Rethans, John Coggeshall.
The sessions are given in English or French. The organisation provides you with lunchs and coffee breaks, plus an area to meet speakers and attendees.
All information concerning the conference is available on the web site: schedule, sessions, subscription and fees, and sponsors.
http://conf.phpquebec.com/ or via email at : board@phpquebec.com
Come and take advantage of this unique event!
Louis-Philippe Huberdeau
The PHP Quebec team.
http://conf.phpquebec.com/
board@phpquebec.com
That being said, why were there so few Computer Science students at CUSEC? Is it a sibling rivalry? Is the organizing committee advertising to CS undergrads? The obvious answer is that the SE in CUSEC stands for software engineering. But, from my understanding, software engineering is a very multi-disciplinary field of study and the community, and subject matter, seem to welcome other disciplines of study (the easiest example that comes to mind is Psychology). No doubt CS undergrads would benefit as much, if not more, than SE students as the material covered would most likely be relatively new to them. In general, I definitely think that everyone would benefit from having more synergy in the software development community (I know software engineers hate this term, but that is the ultimate end-goal, to develop software). Anything that inspires thought is a great thing, and that was exactly what CUSEC 2005 did for me. Since the conference, I started reading some of Kent Beck’s work, I’m attending XP day in Toronto and I bought an iBook :-).
On a final note, the conference itself was an absolute blast for me. Being from Montreal and never going through the dorm experience, I definitely got a feel of it on Saturday night in room 907. I’m pretty sure we had most, if not all of the out-of-town students partying in our room. It was pretty cool (even though I found myself spooning with Pavlidis on Sunday morning).
I can’t wait for CUSEC 2006. Expectations are probably quite high, but just from the buzz I can feel from the organizing committee, CUSEC 2006 will really deliver… for starters it’s being held in Montreal :-).
Hope to see you all there!
PROTOSE.ORG/CUSEC Monthly Newsletter Monday, January 31st, 2005
Table of Contents
The Newsletter
Protose.org – Home of Software Engineers, was created and is being maintained by the same people that founded and have been involved with CUSEC over the years.
We call protose.org the place where we all go between the yearly conferences to keep up to date with everything software engineering because one year just seems so long.
On protose.org you will find articles that are of importance to software engineers including links to articles that have been published by other people.
It has only been around for a couple months so it is in it’s infancy. We are presently looking for contributors. If you want to help by being an editor and or contributor to protose.org email me at john.kopanas [at] protose [dot] org.
I really want to thank the organizers from Carleton University for putting on a good show. I know it was a hard year for them but they pulled it off. They made CUSEC officially a national conference. Thanks again! You should be proud of yourselves.
We have been getting some good feedback from CUSEC 2005 but we are always looking for more feedback. Hear what others have had to say about CUSEC 2005 and add your own comments, please remember each one of your voices helps determine the direction, content and events around the conference:
http://www.protose.org/archives/2005/01/cusec2006and1.php
The presentation archives for CUSEC 2005 is up. Not all presentations have been submitted but the large majority are up so far. As we get more we will post them.
I have gotten a lot of pictures from attendees of CUSEC so far but I am looking for more. I have created an FTP site where you can upload the pictures you took. Here is the info:
FTP Address: barclay.textdrive.com username: cusec password: #upload!
If you prefer to email them to me. Email me them at john.kopanas [at] protose [dot] org.
I will put online all the pictures I have by Monday night so please get all your pictures in by Sunday. There are some great pictures that bring back some good memories :-).
If the information for FTPing does not work email me at john.kopanas [at] protose [dot] org.
Please make sure you send me original full size images if you can.
We announced at CUSEC 2005 that CUSEC 2006 will be taking place in Montreal and CUSEC 2007 will be taking place in either Toronto or Waterloo.
We are taking a method developed by Poly and Concordia for CUSEC 2004 to the next level. Anyone passionate and crazy enough who wants to organize CUSEC, not matter what school they are going to, can be involved in the organization. Presently the organization committee for CUSEC 2006 consists of students from McMaster and Concordia but we hope to bring on students from each university that has historically attended the conference.
(We are testing this method this year, if it works CUSEC 2007 will be held in Toronto if not it will tentatively be held by the University of Waterloo, either way Waterloo will be involved in CUSEC 2007. My friends at Waterloo, please don’t worry.)
You coming back to CUSEC 2006 that is being held in my beautiful hometown of Montreal? Why don’t you consider becoming a head delegate for your school?
It is a prestigious position but it does take effort. You will be responsible for:
You like getting your hands dirty and getting involved get into contact with us about being a head delegate. I even hear that if you bring more then 10 people you might get your ticket paid for :-).
(note: please don’t take this position lightly… it does take effort and time but we will be there to guide you.)
You too busy to refresh protose.org every hour but you want to be notified when new articles on software engineering or new information on CUSEC because available.
If you are already an RSS Feed junky subscribe to our RSS Feeds:
RSS 1.0: http://www.protose.org/feeds/index.rdf RSS 2.0: http://www.protose.org/feeds/index.xml Atom: http://www.protose.org/_feeds/atom.xml
Don’t know what RSS Feeds are? Here are some good resources on RSS compiled by Mark Pavlidis.
A good technical description: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/12/18/dive-into-xml.html
A historic timeline: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssVersionHistory
Tutorials: “RSS Tutorial for Content Publishers and Webmasters” http://www.mnot.net/rss/tutorial/
“RSS Workshop” http://rssgov.com/rssworkshop.html
Aggregators: Recommended aggregators from Aaron Swartz http://blogspace.com/rss/readers
Did you enjoy JB Rainsberger’s and Allistair Cockburn’s talks at CUSEC 2005? Are you really interested in Agile Methodologies like eXtrememe Programming? If so, JB Rainsberger is organizing a one day conference in Toronto called XP Day Toronto and he is extending a hard to ignore promotion for his friends from CUSEC that he is calling the “Starving Student Discount”. Here it is:
If you stay at the hotel at the conference rate ($129 plus taxes), registration is $119. If staying dual occupancy, each person sharing the room gets into the conference for $119. That’s 60% off the regular price of $299 and below cost! Call it a starving student discount.
For more information on XP Day Toronto check out the conference website at: http://www.xpday.info
Please note that the hotel rate special ended yesterday but if some of you decide quick enough that you want to go I am confident he will be able to give you the same discount.
(I am driving down from Montreal and I might have two places in my car if you want. Check with me.)
If you liked CUSEC and you are impressed with Protose.org please try to spread the word. The more people involved in both CUSEC and Protose.org the better they become for you!
If you have any feedback on this newsletter, CUSEC or Protose please don’t hesitate to contact me at john.kopanas [at] protose [dot] org and I will forward your comments to the rest of the gang and make sure that you get a quick response as well.
Your Friend,
John Kopanas
If you have any comments on the newsletter in general or any specific topic covered please post your comments below.
I know a lot of you have be emailing to get your hands on the pictures we have. We are going to upload them shortly. We are just waiting for some more people to send us the pictures they took at CUSEC.
If you have any pictures you want to share with everyone please email them to john.kopanas [at] protose.org or if the files are too large email me and I will give you access to an FTP site you can upload them to.
We are going to be sending out our newsletter in the next 24-48 hours. Please make sure to sign up to it now.
It is now time to look to the future. You can start by having your say (by commenting below) of what you want to see and do for CUSEC 2006, in Montreal, and CUSEC 2007, tentatively in Waterloo/Toronto. Who are some of the speakers you want to hear and meet? Are there any past speakers you want to come back? Are there any events you liked/disliked/would like to have?
A mailing list will be setup soon (detail to follow), but in the mean time email John Kopanas to be added to the list.
written by: Mark Pavlidis
]]>As we listen to the presentations and get them from the presenters we will add them to a new section to our website that has been created to house an archive of all presentations given at previous CUSECs. The link to the CUSEC archives is in the main menu at the top of the screen.
For those of you who could not make it to the conference you don’t know what you are missing. But for those of you who are at the conference Niraj and I’s room has been upgraded to a suite so the party is in our room tonight… room 907! See you there after the banquet.
Related Links:
]]>Mark H Pavlidis: Dr. Wassyng, could you give us an overview of your background and how you got into the Software Engineering field?
Alan Wassyng: I graduated (B.Sc. and B.Sc. Hons.) in Applied Math and specialised in numerical mathematics and mathematical modeling. My masters was an analysis of stereo turntable reproduction (math modeling and numerical methods). My Ph.D. was on the solution of large systems of linear algebraic equations, especially those that arise in the application of boundary element methods to problems in rock mechanics. Focusing on using the computer to solve practical problems got me involved in looking for better ways to develop the software. I also started a project (at University of Minnesota) supported by IBM to develop software and techniques for using PCs to improve engineering education. Some of these packages were developed to IBM standards (and were reviewed by IBM), and so I started to see, first-hand, many of the problems that face developers of large software applications. We eventually developed 30 applications to teach elements of civil engineering, operations research, transportation engineering, etc. Soon after the completion of that project I moved to Toronto and started a computer consulting business. Alan Wassyng Consulting Ltd was incorporated in January 1987, and I spent the next 15 years developing a variety of software solutions for companies in the GTA, advising clients on computer related technologies, installing and maintaining computer systems. Much of my effort during those years went into developing safety-critical software with Ontario Power Generation.
MHP: What is your current role and area of research at McMaster University? What is some of the research you are currently working on?
AW: Acting Director of SQRL. SQRL’s mandate is to develop methods that enable us to produce high quality software. SQRL is also involved in application of these methods, development of related tools, technology transfer. An overriding interest is to maintain an industry focus. My research is mainly in hard real-time and embedded systems. I am particularly concerned with timing issues - their specification in requirements, their feasibility, and our ability to verify and test conformance to those requirements.
MHP: You have worked with Ontario Power Generation (previously Ontario Hydro) on highly safety critical projects. What do you see as some of the most important discoveries/innovations that came out of this work?
AW: The power of integrated methods and tools. Proof that industrial safety-critical projects can be undertaken. Technology transfer of academic theories into practical methodologies.
MHP: There is currently some disparity between the Software Engineering methods used in practice today, and Software Engineering methods developed in academia. How do you see this “methods gap” closing, and how long do you think it will take?
AW: Evangelists and newly graduated software engineers can help to close the gap. I think it will still take time, and it may even be delayed until there is a(nother) significant software failure that results in either massive financial hardship, or in loss of life.
MHP: As the Software Engineering profession matures, what types of changes do you think the industry will see?
AW: Software professionals taking responsibility for their advice and products. More reliable and more secure systems. Maybe even more efficient/predictable software development. Hopefully a few comprehensive development/maintenance methodologies together with good tool support.
MHP: What books should be on every Software Engineer’s shelf?
AW: I like the list(s) publicized by Steve McConnell (I also like his books). Parnas’s collected papers would also be good, although I think someone needs to now take those papers and produce a book for practising software engineers based on those papers (plus…).
MHP: Many in the software industry catch the entrepreneurial bug because of the low barriers to entry. What advice would you give those looking to start their own software business?
AW: Don’t get into it only because you think you can create the next Google etc. If you look at the successes over the years, they almost all come from people already in the field. They knew enough to have a great idea, know it was a great idea, and have some knowledge about how to develop it. There are two ways to do this: i) Join an existing company first and get experience and contacts in the industry (and capital); ii) Have an idea and sink all your efforts into developing and promoting the idea (product or service). If you are starting your own company, be prepared for a very slow start - it typically takes about 2 years to start producing non-neglible income, and that’s for the companies that succeed. Doing something on your own is tough. You have to convince everyone that you can deliver - and there’s only one of you. Most important - don’t do it if you don’t really believe in it AND really enjoy what you are doing.
MHP: What are some of your non-computing interests?
AW: Photography (but that is now merging with computing). Listening to classical music. Reading (non-technical) mysteries, historical novels. Love golf - but it does not love me back.
MHP: Could you give us a sneak peak about what you will be talking about in your keynote at CUSEC 2005?
AW: The talk is based on the experience of developing safety-critical software over a thirteen-year period. It focuses on and integrated approach to software development, and emphasises engineering discipline. It includes discussion on the dynamics of teamwork, and briefly looks forward to what will be expected from the current generation of graduating software engineers and computer scientists.
Related Links:
It feels like only yesterday when a group of software engineering students from Concordia University got together to organize a conference for software engineering students from across Canada. I feel very fortunate to have been apart of that first organizing committee as well as still being apart of the organization.
At our first conference only a couple of universities started to offer a software engineering degree but there still was nobody in canada who had graduated from an accredited software engineering program. Five years later many schools from across Canada have had one or more graduating classes.
When I graduated I was really disappointed that I would not be able attend CUSEC any longer (some would even say CUSEC is the reason why it took me so long to graduate). After asking around I realized I was not the only one that felt this way. Students have graduated, entered the real world and have so much more knowledge now to share at CUSEC… why close the door to them?
CUSEC 2006, our 5th anniversary, will evolve to adapt to the changing environment of software engineering in Canada. The conference will cater equally to all three groups that make up the software engineering community: students, members of academia and now professionals; while never forgetting its root as a student only conference.
I worked with Frederic Rioux, one of the most active contributors of CUSEC over the years and founding member of the CUSEC’s Central Committee, to come up with an updated version of CUSEC’s mission statement:
CUSEC is a national conference organized for and by the software engineering community in Canada. It is a conference where academics, professionals and students come together to exchange ideas, experiences and learn from each other. We makes sure that there is an equal representation between academics and industry and the conference is a springboard to reducing the divide between the often separated groups.
Students play a large role as both organizers and attendees of the conference. As a student the cost of attending the conference will remain as minimal as possible so software engineers can start attending the conference as students and continue to attend the conference past retirement. Each university with a computer related program will be encouraged to be represented at the conference by organizing and sending delegations.
For each conference a theme will be chosen and the format of the conference will be designed to make sure that attendees will learn the most on that theme while focusing on interactive learning. The environment will be relaxed and laid back so that people will feel comfortable to be themselves. Activities will be organized so that all attendees from different backgrounds and experiences will feel comfortable to open up communication.
In general our mission is to make sure that all of the groups that make up the the software engineering community can attend a mutually beneficial conference and learn from each other while leaving the conference as better software engineers.
The conference will return to my hometown and one of the most beautiful cities in Canada. It is tentatively scheduled to take place from Thursday January 12th to Saturday January 14th 2006 at the Mount Royal (same place as CUSEC 2003 and 2004) Conference Center in the heart of downtown Montreal.
I realize some people are skeptical about CUSEC catering the conference to both professionals and students. It will take much discipline to make sure the conference does not get taken over by corporations. But you have to remember when we were students we were in the same position. We could of easily chosen keynotes from large corporations that would of given us the biggest sponsorship package but instead we choose keynotes that we felt would be the best pillars for that years theme. We stuck to our values back then and there is no reason to believe that we will after four amazing years change our values now.
Here is a list of some of the benefits we envision from going to a 50/50 split with equal tickets being available for professionals and students/academia:
We are not going to only strengthen our corporate presence but our academic presence by strengthening our promotion of our Call For Papers as well as create a stronger and more credible review process and committee.
Will the cost of all these benefits be put on the back of students. Absolutely not. The cost of the conference will remain under $100 CDN for students.
All along we have been organizing this conference for you. All the changes that have been implemented from year to year have been the result of your feedback. We have two questions for you that we would like for you to take the time to respond (in the comments section):
If you have any additional comments, suggestions and or questions don’t hesitate to share them with us.
We look forward to seeing you at CUSEC 2005 in Ottawa and CUSEC 2006 in Montreal.
Related Links:
Related Links: