Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #17516 > unrolled thread

Who gets interviewed to produce use cases?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "David Lamb" <david.lamb@1:261/38.remove-k2r-this> - 2012-08-09 18:44 +0000
    Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Robert Klemme" <robert.klemme@1:261/38.remove-t9h-this> - 2012-08-10 18:38 +0000
    Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-t9h-this> - 2012-08-10 18:38 +0000
      Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-t9h-this> - 2012-08-10 18:38 +0000
        Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-t9h-this> - 2012-08-10 18:38 +0000

#17516 — Who gets interviewed to produce use cases?

From: "David Lamb" <david.lamb@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

From: "David Lamb" <david.lamb@1:261/38.remove-p82-this>

From: David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca>

Does anyone have data, or at least an informed opinion, on how often genuine 
users of a proposed piece of software get consulted on developing use cases (or 
some close equivalent)? I ask here because of the recent UML discussion and 
because I've seen people, especially Lew, mention use cases reasonably 
frequently.

In an informal discussion with a colleague I was arguing based on things I'd 
read that "modern best practices" recommended interviewing the people who will 
actually use a software system in their jobs, rather than only upper management 
or professional consultants. He said the industry standard was to resell an old 
system to new customers and charge for every small attempt to get it to work 
the way the customers wanted.

Is he being excessively cynical, or am I being excessively naive? Does anyone 
know which of us is closer to right? Is the answer different for the Java and 
object-oriented-development community than it is for other developers?

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#17593

  To: David Lamb
From: "Robert Klemme" <robert.klemme@1:261/38.remove-k2r-this>

  To: David Lamb
From: "Robert Klemme" <robert.klemme@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

  To: David Lamb
From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com>

On 08/07/2012 08:26 PM, David Lamb wrote:
> Does anyone have data, or at least an informed opinion, on how often
> genuine users of a proposed piece of software get consulted on
> developing use cases (or some close equivalent)? I ask here because of
> the recent UML discussion and because I've seen people, especially Lew,
> mention use cases reasonably frequently.
>
> In an informal discussion with a colleague I was arguing based on things
> I'd read that "modern best practices" recommended interviewing the
> people who will actually use a software system in their jobs, rather
> than only upper management or professional consultants. He said the
> industry standard was to resell an old system to new customers and
> charge for every small attempt to get it to work the way the customers
> wanted.
>
> Is he being excessively cynical, or am I being excessively naive? Does
> anyone know which of us is closer to right? Is the answer different for
> the Java and object-oriented-development community than it is for other
> developers?

I actually believe you could both be right: it is in fact modern practice to do 
so - but the practice might not be applied widely.  Often the people who decide 
about a software purchase and those who use it are not identical.

It may be worse with web applications: there users are often not in the same 
organization as the one who actually puts the money on the table. Users might 
be asked when the product is operational already - or never.

In telco industries there are exist a lot of specifications.  There is is 
common practice to compare the sub set of the standard a customer needs with 
the published compatibility documents of a vendor.  Often other aspects are 
given less weight, for example usability.  But customers actually describe use 
cases they want to have implemented. Although these are often more formal than 
the term suggests (i.e. contain specific protocol definitions).

Kind regards

        robert

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17596

  To: David Lamb
From: "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-k2r-this>

  To: David Lamb
From: "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

  To: David Lamb
From: Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 11:26:41 AM UTC-7, David Lamb wrote:
> Does anyone have data, or at least an informed opinion, on how often
> genuine users of a proposed piece of software get consulted on
> developing use cases (or some close equivalent)? I ask here because of
> the recent UML discussion and because I've seen people, especially Lew,
> mention use cases reasonably frequently.

I mention use cases in a rather abstract sense, that is, to signify the 
underlying
phenomenon of a collection of circumstances and needs. You seem to use the term 
in a more restricted sense of the documentation of such phenomena.

These are distinct things. The report is not the situation on the ground.

> In an informal discussion with a colleague I was arguing based on things
> I'd read that "modern best practices" recommended interviewing the
> people who will actually use a software system in their jobs, rather
> than only upper management or professional consultants. He said the
> industry standard was to resell an old system to new customers and
> charge for every small attempt to get it to work the way the customers
> wanted.
>
> Is he being excessively cynical, or am I being excessively naive? Does

You are not being naive, and he is being cynical. I cannot speak to whether his 
cynicism is excessive.

I disagree that projects generally are designed to rip off customers as he 
describes, but in some sectors such practices are more prevalent than in 
others.

Every industry has its snakes in the grass.

> anyone know which of us is closer to right? Is the answer different for
> the Java and object-oriented-development community than it is for other
> developers?

Those questions require data.

If there are data, they are either secret, in which case no one here can tell 
you of them, or publicized, in which case GIYF.

Undoubtedly people here have opinions and anecdotes, but you are asking about 
reality. To answer your questions requires data.

I can tell you from experience that projects exist that might give the 
appearance of justifying your colleague's cynicism but that was not deliberate. 
Many software projects are not well managed, but I attribute that to 
incompetence rather than malice. Industry estimates of the failure rate for 
multi-million-dollar projects (up into the billions!) range from 33% to 67%, 
that I've read.

So the data indicate that many projects fail to satisfy the requirements, or 
even see deployment, with good evidence that it's the majority of projects.

The majority of *multi-hundred-million dollar* projects.

Is that on purpose? The data I've seen don't say.

--
Lew

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17599

  To: Lew
From: "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-k2r-this>

  To: Lew
From: "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

  To: Lew
From: Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>

On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:47:02 -0700 (PDT), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 11:26:41 AM UTC-7, David Lamb wrote:
>> Does anyone have data, or at least an informed opinion, on how often
>> genuine users of a proposed piece of software get consulted on
>> developing use cases (or some close equivalent)? I ask here because of
>> the recent UML discussion and because I've seen people, especially Lew,
>> mention use cases reasonably frequently.
>
>I mention use cases in a rather abstract sense, that is, to signify the
underlying
>phenomenon of a collection of circumstances and needs. You seem to use the
>term in a more restricted sense of the documentation of such phenomena.

     I do both, but favour the underlying.  My case is a bit special.
Having worked for my customer for about twenty years off and on, I have a 
pretty good idea what needs to be handled.

>These are distinct things. The report is not the situation on the ground.
>
>> In an informal discussion with a colleague I was arguing based on things
>> I'd read that "modern best practices" recommended interviewing the
>> people who will actually use a software system in their jobs, rather
>> than only upper management or professional consultants. He said the
>> industry standard was to resell an old system to new customers and
>> charge for every small attempt to get it to work the way the customers
>> wanted.
>>
>> Is he being excessively cynical, or am I being excessively naive? Does
>
>You are not being naive, and he is being cynical. I cannot speak to whether
>his cynicism is excessive.

     I agree.

>I disagree that projects generally are designed to rip off customers as he
>describes, but in some sectors such practices are more prevalent than in
>others.
>
>Every industry has its snakes in the grass.

     I agree here, too.

>> anyone know which of us is closer to right? Is the answer different for
>> the Java and object-oriented-development community than it is for other
>> developers?
>
>Those questions require data.
>
>If there are data, they are either secret, in which case no one here
>can tell you of them, or publicized, in which case GIYF.
>
>Undoubtedly people here have opinions and anecdotes, but you are asking
>about reality. To answer your questions requires data.
>
>I can tell you from experience that projects exist that might give the
>appearance of justifying your colleague's cynicism but that was not
>deliberate. Many software projects are not well managed, but I attribute
>that to incompetence rather than malice. Industry estimates of the failure
>rate for multi-million-dollar projects (up into the billions!) range from
>33% to 67%, that I've read.

     And it could just be that the customer really does not know what
he wants.  You can try describing it, but too often, he nods and then complains 
later that it was not what he expected.  Or the old "That's just what I said, 
but it's not what I want!"

>So the data indicate that many projects fail to satisfy the requirements,
>or even see deployment, with good evidence that it's the majority of projects.

     Sometimes, what requirements?

>The majority of *multi-hundred-million dollar* projects.
>
>Is that on purpose? The data I've seen don't say.

     I have read posts by Lynn Wheeler (a long-time IBMer) of the
effect of companies having found that they can make more on marge projects by 
not getting it right the first time.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17600

  To: Gene Wirchenko
From: "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-k2r-this>

  To: Gene Wirchenko
From: "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

  To: Gene Wirchenko
From: Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>

Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> So the data indicate that many projects fail to satisfy the requirements,
>>or even see deployment, with good evidence that it's the majority of
projects.
>
>      Sometimes, what requirements?

The requirements those projects were instituted to fulfill, of course.

>>The majority of *multi-hundred-million dollar* projects.
>>
>>Is that on purpose? The data I've seen don't say.
>
>      I have read posts by Lynn Wheeler (a long-time IBMer) of the
> effect of companies having found that they can make more on marge
> projects by not getting it right the first time.

Those are anecdotes. They might even be credible and accurately describe the 
motivation for some projects of his experience. They aren't enough data to 
generalize about the degree of this practice.

--
Lew

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

-+- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 + Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
-+- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web