<docdwarf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fvu996$5ns$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <68f55lF2rpuveU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>><docdwarf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:fvsi79$iae$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Mr Dashwood, consider the following:
>>>
>>> Given that a corporation has finite resources then how are user
changes
>>> (which consume resources) to be co-ordinated and allocated in a manner
>>> which is not reflective of 'the squeakiest wheel' and which is most
>>> profitable to the organisation?
>>
>>It's easy. Change the way you develop stuff. Take a look at Active
>>methodology. (Both IBM and MicroSoft have recently...)
>
> Mr Dashwood, I've taken a look at Active methodology and have found
> nothing which addresses this question above.
Then you simply didn't get it. It specifically addresses how resources can
be allocated in a way that is most profitable to the organisation.
User changes do consume resources, but NOT doing them costs more.
Delivering
systems that don't provide what is actually needed, (rather than what was
specified), is simply a waste of everyone's time. (And consequently,
money).
Fortunately, after 40 years, we now have technology and methodology that
can
deliver systems that DO provide what is needed right now. Techniques like
object modelling, prototyping, and goal oriented rather than task based
PM.
Iterative, evolutionary development using timeboxing are all ways to make
the best use of resources and deal effectively with change. The Active
movement is an embodiment of many of these.
(DISCLAIMER: You can't do it easily with COBOL. The effort required to
produce anything that requires thousands of lines of manual code is just
too
great and will take too long. If you want responsiveness to change, you
need
smarter, component based, systems that can be assembled and disassembled
quickly and easily. Tools that generate most of the code are a big help
also.)
Second request, then...
> given that a corporation has finite resources how are user changes
(which
> consume resources) to be co-ordinated and allocated in a manner which is
> not reflective of 'the squeakiest wheel' and which is most profitable to
> the organisation?
>
Last response, then...
It's easy. Change the way you develop stuff.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
|
