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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #17415 > 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-qhs-this> - 2012-08-08 19:04 +0000
    Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Robert Klemme" <robert.klemme@1:261/38.remove-k2r-this> - 2012-08-09 18:44 +0000
    Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-k2r-this> - 2012-08-09 18:44 +0000
      Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-k2r-this> - 2012-08-09 18:44 +0000
        Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Lew" <lew@1:261/38.remove-k2r-this> - 2012-08-09 18:44 +0000
        Re: 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? "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-k2r-this> - 2012-08-09 18:44 +0000
          Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-odu-this> - 2012-08-13 19:38 +0000
      Re: 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? "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-odu-this> - 2012-08-13 19:38 +0000
    Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Jukka Lahtinen" <jukka.lahtinen@1:261/38.remove-k2r-this> - 2012-08-09 18:44 +0000
    Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.vajhøj@1:261/38.remove-odu-this> - 2012-08-13 19:38 +0000
      Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Leif Roar Moldskred" <leif.roar.moldskred@1:261/38.remove-odu-this> - 2012-08-13 19:38 +0000
        Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-73m-this> - 2012-08-15 19:38 +0000
        Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Leif Roar Moldskred" <leif.roar.moldskred@1:261/38.remove-73m-this> - 2012-08-15 19:38 +0000
          Re: Who gets interviewed to produce use cases? "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-73m-this> - 2012-08-15 19:38 +0000

#17415 — Who gets interviewed to produce use cases?

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#17471

  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

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

#17474

  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

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

#17477

  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

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

#17478

  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

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

#17522

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

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

On 07/08/2012 5:23 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>       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!"

I understand that. I was under the impression that "user centred design" 
involved a collection of practices meant to improve communication between 
customers and developers, of which UML use cases were one example.  In fact I 
recently read parts of the 3 UML books I have on hand (reference, user's guide, 
and Unified Process) and found a statement to the effect that use cases in 
particular were designed to improve communications.

But, as I said in answer to Lew upthread, I should have made clearer that use 
cases were just one example of the kind of user-centred requirements 
elicitation mechanisms I had in mind.

-+- 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]

#17527

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

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

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:47:54 -0400, David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:

>On 07/08/2012 5:23 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>       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!"
>
>I understand that. I was under the impression that "user centred design"
>involved a collection of practices meant to improve communication
                                             ^^^^^^^
      I note that this word is not "perfect".  <sobs uncontrollably>

>between customers and developers, of which UML use cases were one
>example.  In fact I recently read parts of the 3 UML books I have on
>hand (reference, user's guide, and Unified Process) and found a
>statement to the effect that use cases in particular were designed to
>improve communications.

     If we skip the gory detail, we can get it wrong by missing
important detail.

     If we include the gory detail, we can get it wrong, because the
user just signs.  (Do you read every EOLA?  Etc.)

     Either way, it seems to end up being our fault.

>But, as I said in answer to Lew upthread, I should have made clearer
>that use cases were just one example of the kind of user-centred
>requirements elicitation mechanisms I had in mind.

     I think that that was understood though.

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

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

#17861

  To: David Lamb
From: "Arne Vajhoj" <arne.vajhoj@1:261/38.remove-nlb-this>

  To: David Lamb
From: Arne Vajhoj <arne@vajhoej.dk>

On 8/8/2012 9:47 AM, David Lamb wrote:
> On 07/08/2012 5:23 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>       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!"
>
> I understand that. I was under the impression that "user centred design"
> involved a collection of practices meant to improve communication
> between customers and developers, of which UML use cases were one
> example.  In fact I recently read parts of the 3 UML books I have on
> hand (reference, user's guide, and Unified Process) and found a
> statement to the effect that use cases in particular were designed to
> improve communications.

Note that use cases are not a part of UML.

UML just provides a diagram that shows use cases and their relationship.

Arne

-+- 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]

#17521

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

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

On 07/08/2012 4:47 PM, Lew 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.

Not really, which is why I said "or close equivalent." I should probably have 
expanded a bit to say some reasonably precise description of user requirements 
in a reasonably user-comprehensible form.

>> 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.

I know, which is why in the opening paragraph I asked if anyone had data and, 
if not, falling back on informed opinons -- which you gave me later in your 
response. Thanks! and thanks to everyone else who is responding
-- I'm waiting to see how the conversation plays out before saying much
more than I have already (except I plan to clarify what I meant whenever it 
becomes apparent I left out important details).

In any case the data I was hoping for was on practices, not motivations
-- my colleague's expression was to me a hyperbolic version of "they
don't ask the actual users."

-+- 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]

#17860

  To: Lew
From: "Arne Vajhoj" <arne.vajhoj@1:261/38.remove-nlb-this>

  To: Lew
From: Arne Vajhoj <arne@vajhoej.dk>

On 8/7/2012 4:47 PM, Lew 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.
>
> These are distinct things. The report is not the situation on the ground.

Real use cases are widely used.

(and UML use case diagrams are actually pretty nice to give an overview of them 
including the relationships between them)

Agile user stories are also widely used, so there are alternatives.

Arne

-+- 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]

#17518

  To: David Lamb
From: "Jukka Lahtinen" <jukka.lahtinen@1:261/38.remove-qhs-this>

  To: David Lamb
From: Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid>

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

> 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

Not as often as they should.

--
Jukka Lahtinen

-+- 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]

#17858

  To: David Lamb
From: "Arne Vajhoj" <arne.vajhoj@1:261/38.remove-nlb-this>

  To: David Lamb
From: Arne Vajhoj <arne@vajhoej.dk>

On 8/7/2012 2:26 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?

It is my clear impression that it is widely accepted that the real domain 
experts must be involved in detailed requirements gathering (use cases or other 
methods). For GUI that means the people that is to use the GUI. For business 
rules that means the people that actually make or understand those rules.

Customer management making up requirements is mostly a myth - no manager want 
to write 100's/1000's/10000's of pages of requirements documentation.

The real problems are that:
- the domain experts now how the old systems works but may have
   huge difficulties explaining how the new system should work
- asking people about requirements is an open invitation to
   scope creep

Most software development today is object oriented (not always a good/elegant 
way, but ...).

I don't think Java is different from C# or PHP or C++ regarding requirements 
(and it is common to use more than one language in the overall solution 
anyway).

Arne

-+- 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]

#17869

  To: Arne Vajhøj
From: "Leif Roar Moldskred" <leif.roar.moldskred@1:261/38.remove-nlb-this>

  To: Arne Vajhoj
From: Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com>

Arne Vajh-,j <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
> The real problems are that:
> - the domain experts now how the old systems works but may have
>   huge difficulties explaining how the new system should work
> - asking people about requirements is an open invitation to
>   scope creep

Another problem -- or perhaps rather a restating of the first problem you 
mentioned -- is that even users with a very good _implicit_ knowledge of their 
work process often have a poor _explicit_ understanding of it. Often, a lot of 
important business requirements are overlooked because the users either plain 
doesn't realise that they're there, or because they take them as implicitly 
understood.

For the same reason, users are often terrible at prioritising between features 
and choosing between different solutions. Often, the highest priority goes to 
whichever feature the user thought of most recently.

--
Leif Roar

-+- 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]

#17909

  To: Leif Roar Moldskred
From: "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-z1z-this>

  To: Leif Roar Moldskred
From: Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>

On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 05:32:48 -0500, Leif Roar Moldskred
<leifm@dimnakorr.com> wrote:

>Arne Vajhoj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>
>> The real problems are that:
>> - the domain experts now how the old systems works but may have
>>   huge difficulties explaining how the new system should work
>> - asking people about requirements is an open invitation to
>>   scope creep
>
>Another problem -- or perhaps rather a restating of the first problem
>you mentioned -- is that even users with a very good _implicit_
>knowledge of their work process often have a poor _explicit_
>understanding of it. Often, a lot of important business requirements
>are overlooked because the users either plain doesn't realise that
>they're there, or because they take them as implicitly understood.

     Such a user might also understand his job very well in terms of
how it is currently executed, but not have the strategic knowledge behind that.

>For the same reason, users are often terrible at prioritising between
>features and choosing between different solutions. Often, the highest
>priority goes to whichever feature the user thought of most recently.

     Quite.

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

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

#17911

  To: Leif Roar Moldskred
From: "Leif Roar Moldskred" <leif.roar.moldskred@1:261/38.remove-z1z-this>

  To: Leif Roar Moldskred
From: Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com>

Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> wrote:
>
> Another problem -- or perhaps rather a restating of the first problem
> you mentioned -- is that even users with a very good _implicit_
> knowledge of their work process often have a poor _explicit_
> understanding of it. Often, a lot of important business requirements
> are overlooked because the users either plain doesn't realise that
> they're there, or because they take them as implicitly understood.
>
> For the same reason, users are often terrible at prioritising between
> features and choosing between different solutions. Often, the highest
> priority goes to whichever feature the user thought of most recently.
>

Commenting to my own post here, but I really should add that the above isn't to 
mean that the software developers know best and should overrule the customer on 
requirements and priorities. Far from it. (Well, _sometimes_ we should do that 
for _technical_ requirements, but only sometimes.) It's still the users that 
actually _knows_ the requirements, but sometimes they don't know what they 
know.

Gathering requirements thus often turn into an explanatory dig into the user's 
work process and business, and you often end up with not only having the users 
teach the software developers about the buisness domain but also with the 
software developers having to teach the users about requirement gathering.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

-+- 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]

#17918

  To: Leif Roar Moldskred
From: "Gene Wirchenko" <gene.wirchenko@1:261/38.remove-z1z-this>

  To: Leif Roar Moldskred
From: Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:35:51 -0500, Leif Roar Moldskred
<leifm@dimnakorr.com> wrote:

>Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> wrote:
>>
>> Another problem -- or perhaps rather a restating of the first problem
>> you mentioned -- is that even users with a very good _implicit_
>> knowledge of their work process often have a poor _explicit_
>> understanding of it. Often, a lot of important business requirements
>> are overlooked because the users either plain doesn't realise that
>> they're there, or because they take them as implicitly understood.
>>
>> For the same reason, users are often terrible at prioritising between
>> features and choosing between different solutions. Often, the highest
>> priority goes to whichever feature the user thought of most recently.

>Commenting to my own post here, but I really should add that the above
>isn't to mean that the software developers know best and should
>overrule the customer on requirements and priorities. Far from
>it. (Well, _sometimes_ we should do that for _technical_ requirements,
>but only sometimes.) It's still the users that actually _knows_ the
>requirements, but sometimes they don't know what they know.

     It is some of this, some of that.  I have worked with one cient
for nearly 25 years.  I know some of his requirements to the point where I need 
not discuss them with him.  Some are his to the point where I do not know in 
detail why he wants it.  In the middle are the ones we discuss.  We respect 
each other and come up with a plan.

>Gathering requirements thus often turn into an explanatory dig into
>the user's work process and business, and you often end up with not
>only having the users teach the software developers about the buisness
>domain but also with the software developers having to teach the users
>about requirement gathering.

     Again, quite.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web