Just What the World Needs… Another “free” Browser… Costs Industry Big Bucks
I admit I used Firefox until Microsoft’s latest, tabbed browser. At that time the tabs made a lot of browsing easier. And I ran IE when things didn’t work right with Firefox. That was a long time ago. I now use IE exclusively. No significant reason to use another browser. But now we have Opera, Fire Fox, Internet Explorer, and the new Google browser. I suppose this is, in some ways analogous to having different java environments (something I try to avoid) or multiple versions or .net for different applications. Thankfully I believe the majority of businesses have standardized on Internet Explorer. But what is the cost of testing software on a myriad of browsers? And keeping up the latest versions of browsers. How many SAAS systems stop working because the browser the user is interacting with just got “better” This certainly adds the test time that another version of a local OS does (groan… I hate to see developers testing for windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista (home and professional) and on and on.
PS It is important to distinguish between browsers used as the infrastructure for business applications versus people web browsing. Hopefully organizations have some limitations on people “surfing” the web. And getting involved with unsavory sites. Perhaps those surfers need more consumer based surfing features.
Dan Galorath On Eweek Podcast
I did a podcast interview last week with Mike Vizard of Eweek. He entitled it “A failure to learn from past experience” I think SEER for Software and SEER for IT really do provide some learning from past experience but Mike Vizard is one of my heroes. Software estimating and IT estimating are key to plans that can actually be implemented. Plans that can actually be implemented are key to successful projects.
GAO Knowledge Points
A valuable GAO document discusses knowledge points.. the certainty that systems are appropriate. “Because military programs tend to start product development with more unknowns, it takes them additional time, sometimes until well after production begins, to actually discover and capture enough solid information to attain full product knowledge and thereby virtually eliminate risk.” Read more
Over 4000 Raw Datapoints Available To SEER for Software Via ISBSG
Galorath and ISBSG have partnered to provide SEER users with access to the ISBSG database. ISBSG is a data repository ” The global and independent source of data and analysis for the IT industry” with over 4000 datapoints. These datapoints can be used within SEER’s Benchmarking and Metrics as well as its comparison sizing, knowledge base selection and training SEER’s crosscheck (secondary data driven estimate) capability. The following screen captures just touch the surface of the capabilities. Ton Dekkers of Galorath and past president of ISBSG explains how the two work together in the Galorath recorded webinar. Skip the first 15 minutes if you can.
More IT Effectiveness Metrics
Mean Time to Repair:How long it takes ro resolve an outage.
First Fix Rate: The percentage of incidents that are correctly repaired the first time.
Change Success Rate: Percent (and number for scope) of changes that are successfully deployed without creating an incident.
Server to System Administration Ratio: Number of servers that can be handled by an administrator (high performers can handle about 125 servers.. while medium and low performers can handle about 25)
Effectiveness Measurement for Project Managers
It is generally difficult to access project manager’s performance as discussed in a CIO magazine. THey discuss how project managers are sometimes evaluated on soft skills, how well they interact with people, passion for results, ethics, etc. They provide a potential solution…
Start each project manager with a perfect score, 100. for completing a project that meets business objectives.
Then deduct something (like 2 points) for each week a project is late.
Deduct another half point for each defect found in the first 60 days.
And deduct another for each feature originally promised that was not delivered.
I think this is an excellent example of applying effectiveness metrics, ones that measure what we are doing that we shouldn’t be doing and what we are not doing that we should be doing into a clear definition of performance.
Estimating The Cost of Software Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V)
Since IV&V is a level of effort activity (purchase a much as you want) people can buy as much or as little as the want as a level of effort activity. IV&V is not estimated out of the box with SEER-SEM since it is not part of the development itself. Of course some people calibrate in IV&V practices from their organization.
Of course more critical systems would might have more IV&V than less critical ones (which need none) One customer with severe security issues spend about 40% on top of development for IV&V.
Full IV&V is not just independent testing but is an independent look at requirements sufficiency and traceability, design, coding, and testing as well as independent text.
A Titan briefing on the internet showed IV&V as 35 to 45% http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/systems/Rogers2.pdf
The book “Independent Verification and Validation By Robert O. Lewis”
shows IV&V being up to 18% of software development cost.
Wallace and Fuji (1989) report mixed results on the effectiveness of independent verification and validation (IV&V), largely due to the fact that IV&V adds 10 to 30 percent to development costs while saving 0 to 180% of IV&V costs.
Estimating Systems Engineering…. The Upcoming Book.. and SEER
I had the opportunity to review Dr. Ricardo Valerdi’s (MIT) upcoming book on the COSYSMO model for estimating systems engineering: Systems Engineering Cost Estimation with COSYSMO. There were some real gems in it.
From the book: ‘It is known that increasing front-end analysis reduces the probability of problems later on (Blanchard and Fabrycky 1998) but excessive front end analysis may not pay the anticipated dividends. The key to accurately estimating early in a program is to estimate the appropriate level of systems engineering in order to ensure system success within cost and schedule budgets’ This chart is included showing a relationship of systems engineering effort. Of course COSYSMO is a model for estimating systems engineering effort parametrically.
Galorath is proud to offer an implementation of COSYSMO for those desiring that methodology for systems engineering.
The SEER Allocation handles much more:
Additionally, for complex systems Our SEER for hardware, Electronics, and Systems estimates for software, hardware and the total system: 1) systems engineering, 2) systems program management, 3) integration Assembly & systems test / 4) System support equipment. SEER-H’s organization is summarized as follows:
The Difference Between ITIL and ISO 9001
Galorath Incorporated and Galorath International are both ISO 9001:2000 certified. This was done to provide repeatable processes throughout the organization and to remove the “folklore” of how things are done. ISO9001 is an excellent tool for ensuring that the organization is “doing what they say they do”
ITIL, is a framework for deciding what should be done in IT services and IT Infrastructure, developing the processes in the first place.
Both provide potential cost reductions, or in some cases, cost increases as things are done as they are expected to be done, not with extra shortcuts, and not with extra fluff.
Risk On IT Infrastructure Projects
Identifying the risk on IT infrastructure projects is a key to viable cost & schedule analysis. While working on risk identification I ran across this list which is a decent starting point for IT Infrastructure risks. I will post enhancements to this risk list as they are determined:
From http://www.projectmanagement.net.au/infrastructure_risks
|
Schedule |
Unscheduled changes/delays |
|
|
Personnel turning up without notification |
|
|
Non-conformance - not starting/failures |
|
|
Reliance on external sub-contractors/organisations |
|
|
|
|
Technical |
Unplanned/unapproved changes |
|
|
Disasters |
|
|
New design not working |
|
|
Version control problems |
|
|
Hardware failure |
|
|
Software failure |
|
|
Incorrect image/version loaded |
|
|
Integration with existing systems |
|
|
|
|
Personnel |
Changes of personnel - CUSTOMER/Vendor |
|
|
Lack of skills/knowledge |
|
|
Not aware of policy/procedures |
|
|
|
|
Logistical/Equipment |
Supply availability |
|
|
Physical storage of equipment on arrival - security |
|
|
Contingency equipment availability |
|
|
|
|
User |
Not aware of Vendor schedule/activities |
|
|
Inability to perform core business activities |
|
|
Inability to perform non-core business activities |
|
|
User expectations |
|
|
Confusion about CUSTOMER/Vendor responsibilities |
|
|
Loss of data |
|
|
Data not moved to C:\userid |
|
|
|
|
Project Management |
Lack of detailed site information |
|
|
Lack of reporting |
|
|
Unaware of Customer site requirements |
|
|
Absence of quality control/management process built into plan |
|
|
Absence of issue log/change request log/configuration management log |
|
|
Role confusion |
|
|
Lack of issue identification - trends |
|
|
Inconsistent project documentation |
|
|
|
