• About Software Engineering and Bill Gutches
  • Afraid To Ship

IT's Lost Art of Software Engineering

~ Business Solutions should be sustainable assets designed with Engineering Principles!

IT's Lost Art of Software Engineering

Category Archives: Valid

K P I Requirements

27 Monday Aug 2018

Posted by bgbgbgbg in Attribute, compliance, compliant, content, Data, dynamic, engineering, Event, K P I, Key Performance Indicator, KPI, M T B F, management, Mean Time Between Failure, MTBF, Object, opinions, predictabable, Predictive, principles, purchase order, Relationship, requirements, risk, risk management, service, software, Standards, structured, Transaction, Valid, Value

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

analysis, design, infrastructure, management, modeling, perspective, planning, process, project, recovery, requirements, resources, software, technology

Key Performance Indicators are measurements and projections that can help a management team make decisions about the Strategic and Tactical Plans for the future of an organization.

Many business requirements describe operational necessities of an application or a business App or Function but how should we expect a Requirement for a K P I automated function be stated?

In the following list, I would like to prompt / instigate some higher order thinking about Requirements that we can document to be included in our new application development efforts so that the app can support or anticipate how the active executive or decision making management of an organization can use the operational data to consider new decisions:

  • What is a predictive inventory forecasting tool?
    • What could it be used for?
  • What could dynamic Purchase Order generation do for our organization?
    • What would we base the automated PO Generation on?
  • Could we predict the need for additional staff in specialized areas of our product or service delivery organizations?
    • Based on what criteria?
  • What information would be useful to re-design manufactured products to increase useful life, reduce maintenance costs, and provide more value to our Customers?
  • …

What questions would YOU like to ask of your operational data that could help you make critical business model decisions in the foreseeable future?

Advertisements

Time for THE BOOK

27 Friday Jul 2018

Posted by bgbgbgbg in alternate, Attribute, blog, Cloud, compliance, compliant, content, contract, Data, Diversify, Diversity, effective, efficient, engineering, Event, lifestyles, manage, management, Mandatory, master service agreement, Media, Object, opinions, Optional, predictabable, Presence, principles, project, re-useable, Relationship, repeatable, risk, risk management, royalty, Scope, service, Social, software, Standards, Statement of Work, structured, Test, Testing, Transaction, Valid, Value, Web

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

agile, analysis, best practice, career, conflict, data, design, event, file, flowchart, infrastructure, life, lifecyle, management, modeling, organization, perspective, planning, process, program manager, project, project manager, quality, records, relational, requirements, resources, retention, schedule, scheduling, scope, SDLC, software, state, technology, use case, visual

A few weeks ago (May 2018), I started a “Go Fund Me” site to gather some money so that I can publish “The Book” that represents many of the ideas from this blog.

The Title of the book will be: “IT’s Lost Art of Software Engineering” and will contain much of what has been posted in this blog for the last few years.  If you are interested, please use the link below to review my Go Fund Me site and, possibly, make a donation for me.

https://www.gofundme.com/bg039s-software-engineering-book&rcid=r01-153045704526-710aea5b95e24eeb&pc=em_co_campmgmt_w

Please keep in mind that anyone who donates $10.00 USD or more will get a FREE and SIGNED copy of the book (I will need a mailing address after the donation) once it is available in hard copy.

Your support would mean a lot to me. Thank you so much!  bgbg

27 Aug 2018: The Go Fund Me effort is dragging on very slowly and, if it doesn’t pick up its pace relatively soon, I will probably decide to return the few donations I have received and shut down this effort.

However, there is still time so if you want to make a donation (and get a FREE SIGNED copy of the book) please go to my Fund Me page (https://www.gofundme.com/bg039s-software-engineering-book&rcid=r01-15353992165-7b0de45af8ef42b2&pc=ot_co_campmgmt_w) and make a $10 or more donation quickly.

Thanx you in advance, bgbg

 

With Great Data, comes Great Opportunity

02 Monday Oct 2017

Posted by bgbgbgbg in alternate, Attribute, Cloud, content, Data, effective, efficient, engineering, manage, management, Media, Object, Optional, predictabable, principles, project, re-useable, repeatable, risk, risk management, Row, Scope, structured, Test, Testing, Transaction, Valid

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

agile, analysis, best practice, data, data design, design, event, functional decomposition, iterative, modeling, requirements, scope, state, state transition, use case

There once was a line in a movie: “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.”

My take on that is that the more Data we receive, the more Opportunity we get to use that data.

Big Data, the Internet of Things, Business Intelligence and the current evolution in newer, faster, fresher data puts responsibility and opportunity squarely in our laps or IDE’s (Interactive Development Environments) if you will.

What, if anything, are we doing to prepare for these opportunities and responsibilities?

I would really like to hear your thoughts on how we prepare.

The Path To Inkc Profile

30 Saturday Sep 2017

Posted by bgbgbgbg in alternate, Attribute, blog, Cloud, compliance, compliant, content, contract, Data, Diversify, Diversity, effective, efficient, engineering, Event, manage, management, master service agreement, Media, Object, opinions, Optional, predictabable, Presence, principles, project, purchase order, re-useable, Relationship, repeatable, risk, risk management, royalty, Scope, service, Social, software, Standards, Statement of Work, structured, Test, Testing, Transaction, Valid, Value, Web

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

best practice, business sponsors, data, data design, flowchart, functional decomposition, iterative, modeling, old school

  • How many ways would you be willing to collect income:
    • Full Time Employment with Salary and Benefits?
    • Part Time Employment paid by the Hour or Piece of Work?
    • Signed Master Service Agreement(s) for predefined services, rate and duration?
    • Signed Purchase Order(s) for your product offering(s)?
    • Incorporation of your own new company and the creation of new jobs for yourself and others?
    • Royalty / Investment Income?
  • Do you still think that you only need ONE Source of Income to survive in our current world?

I don’t expect that many people could manage all of these incomes sources (or others), but wouldn’t it be nice if you could maintain two or more of these?  And, IF one of your new income sources were to “dry up” for a time, wouldn’t it be nice that you could have the others to keep you going?

If the answers to these questions intrigue you, reach out to me for an initial free review: William (Bill) Gutches at 610.662.5658 or whendoyoustoplooking@gmail.com .

My Social Media Web Presence techniques and Business Planning experiences coupled with your passion for your products and/or services have the potential to get you in a position where two or more of these income sources can be sustained.  Please let me know if you are interested in talking to me about these possibilities.

William (Bill) Gutches ► Social Media ☑ Web and Blog Content ☑ Income Search Coach ☑Business Planning Coach ☑ Contact Info: ☛ whendoyoustoplooking@gmail.com  ☛  610.662.5658

Testing Centric Life Cycle

17 Wednesday Jun 2015

Posted by bgbgbgbg in alternate, Attribute, compliance, compliant, Contract Career, Data, effective, efficient, engineering, Event, manage, management, Object, opinions, Optional, predictabable, principles, project, re-useable, Relationship, repeatable, risk, risk management, Scope, software, Standards, Statement of Work, structured, Test, Testing, Transaction, Valid, Value

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

agile, analysis, best practice, business sponsors, conflict, data, data design, design, event, flowchart, functional decomposition, iterative, jackson, lifecyle, management, model choices, modeling, organization, perspective, priority issues, priority sequence, process, project charter, punch list, requirements, scope, SDLC, state, state transition, state transition diagrams, swim lane, technology, use case, visual

Could there be such a thing as a Testing Centric Life Cycle?

What would it have to look like to be Testing Centric?  Wouldn’t we have to ask questions of each Deliverable to prove that it somehow supports what we believe our end goal to be?  How would we construct these questions to ask of our Life Cycle Deliverables so that the answers would be good indications of our reasons to proceed?

Imagine if we were to create a Statement of Work (SOW) for a project intended to build a new business application for an organization.  If we wanted to TEST this SOW, what questions would we ask of it that could help us understand that its content was supportive of our end goals?

It might be possible for us to start asking questions about the Scope described in this Statement of Work:

  1. Does the scope indicate where our input data will be coming from?
  2. Does the scope explain how our product / application will affect the data?
  3. Does it show how the affected data will provide additional value over our inputs?
  4. Can we tell from the scope statement what external events and/or operators our application will have to respond to?
  5. Can we predict how we will have to maintain the data collected, modified, reported, used to accomplish the intended functions of our product / application?
  6. Is our design and scope Orthogonal?  (Not a trick question; read other portions of this blog!)

If we accept the notion that each Deliverable in the path of our project plan must answer questions that relate to its completeness and its alignment with previous deliverables, then the Test Centric Life Cycle Model can be strongly directed by the premise behind Orthogonality:

  • All modeling components MUST be reflected in all Other Modeling perspectives so that when each component and its related model components are removed, nothing remains in any of the models
  • Model perspectives should address, at least, the following disciplines or viewpoints:
    • Event Diagram
    • Process Diagram
    • Data Model Diagram
    • State Transition Diagram

Do you think, dear reader, that this thread of discussion should continue or be dropped?

Please Respond / Comment on this post OR Reply to me at whendoyoustoplooking@gmail.com

Thanx, bgbg

Infrastructure Project Management

21 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by bgbgbgbg in alternate, Attribute, Cloud, compliance, compliant, Contract Career, Data, effective, efficient, engineering, Event, manage, management, Object, Optional, predictabable, principles, project, re-useable, repeatable, risk, risk management, software, Standards, structured, Valid, Value

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

boredom, consistence, consistent, infrastructure, management, precision, process, project, propagate, propagation, quality, reliability, reliable, resources, schedule, scheduling, software

There could be hundreds or thousands of components to change, migrate, upgrade, affect somehow in an Infrastructure Project.

There might be a very finite list of things to apply to each set of the Infrastructure and these changes will have to be applied in the same manner for each component.

Once you set up a process for applying these changes OR migrating servers, data bases, web apps, etc., this process will need to be repeated with Quality, Precision, Dependency and BOREDOM for each of the components that will be affected.

It would be much more important to manage the BOREDOM than the other aspects once your team gets started making these changes.  Of course, in some cases, you COULD acquire propagation software that would execute a script to make your changes over and over again and, therefore, reduce the BOREDOM.

But, what else could we as Project Managers do to increase the likelihood of consistent, reliable results?

Did you say: “What’s a WalkThrough?”?

21 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by bgbgbgbg in alternate, Attribute, Cloud, compliance, compliant, Data, effective, efficient, engineering, Event, management, Object, Optional, predictabable, principles, project, re-useable, repeatable, risk, risk management, software, Standards, structured, Transaction, Valid, Value

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

agile, analysis, best practice, data design, design, flowchart, functional decomposition, iterative, lifecyle, model choices, modeling, organization, planning, priority sequence, process, project charter, project priority, punch list, rapid, requirements, resolution, scope, SDLC, state, state transition, state transition diagrams, swim lane, technology, use case, visual

For some, a walk through has to do with looking at a new apartment or house that they are thinking about moving into.  For others, it could be an opportunity to STEP all over somebody else’s work.

For me, many years ago, when Programmers used Coding Pads and had to handle very large decks of cards so they could get their programs compiled for Desk Checking, a Walk Through was a very important part of preparing to write that program along with flowcharting, doing record and print layouts, and trying to figure out just exactly what the user might want considering how little  they would have actually said to me about what they need this program to do for them.

So, a typical Walk Through scenario could be something like this:

  • User wants a new report from an existing file of data
  • User tells programmer’s boss what they need and boss writes down what he/she thinks they asked for
  • Boss calls out to programmer

Watch this space: I’m writing AGAIN!!!

15 Sunday Sep 2013

Posted by bgbgbgbg in alternate, Attribute, Cloud, compliance, compliant, Data, effective, efficient, engineering, Event, lifestyles, manage, management, Mandatory, Object, opinions, Optional, predictabable, principles, project, re-useable, Relationship, repeatable, risk, risk management, Row, sixty somethin, sixty something, software, Standards, structured, Transaction, Valid, Value

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

agile, analysis, best practice, business sponsors, conflict, data, data design, design, event, flowchart, functional decomposition, investors, iterative, jackson, lifecyle, management, model choices, modeling, nassi-schneidermann, old school, organization, perspective, planning, politics, priority issues, priority sequence, process, project charter, project priority, punch list, rapid, recovery assessment, requirements, resolution, scope, SDLC, state, state transition, state transition diagrams, stockholders, swim lane, technology, use case, visual, warnier-orr

I just want you all to know that I have started writing again. Recently, I have spent a lot of time NOT writing (did have some other things to take care of, and still do), but it appears I have the bug again!

So, I want to let all of you, my readers, know that I am starting again with new materials AND I also want you to know that I have several blogs I am writing on:

Project Management Handbook: http://www.projectmanagementhandbook.wordpress.com

BG Opinions: http://www.opinionsarefree.wordpress.com

Sixty Somethin: http://www.sixtysomethin.wordpress.com

Please check these out and I hope that you continue to enjoy reading, and please send me your comments or suggestions at whendoyoustoplooking@gmail.com or some of my other email addresses for these blogs.

Thanx, bgbg

On Conceptual Modeling: 1984; Brodie, Mylopolous, Schmidt

27 Wednesday Feb 2013

Posted by bgbgbgbg in Attribute, Cloud, compliance, compliant, Data, effective, efficient, engineering, Event, management, Object, Optional, predictabable, principles, re-useable, Relationship, repeatable, Row, software, Standards, structured, Transaction, Valid, Value

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

analysis, best practice, data, data design, event, functional decomposition, inverted, iterative, lifecyle, management, model choices, modeling, perspective, planning, process, relational, requirements, resolution, scope, SDLC, state, state transition, technology, use case, visual

From a recent review of this book (see Blog Post Title), I have a question:

Main Question:  Is it more efficient to build the indexes in support of invisible keys or to store this same data in each row of a set of tables?

What is an Invisible Key?

A row of data must have fields included that uniquely identify each individual row.  For example, a row in a “Person” data object will be identified by some combination of fields containing: Name, Tax identifier, Country of Origin, Birth Date, etc.  No one of these data fields would be enough to uniquely identify each “Person” in the object, but a combination will usually work well.

Each of these fields has a certain specific size or number of characters allowed at a maximum or absolute size: Birth Date could be represented by the following data pattern: yyyymmdd; whereas the Tax Identifier could be different sizes depending on the Country of Origin.

The notion of Invisible Key is that even though these data fields are used to uniquely identify each row in an object, the specific data values for each row of data, the birth date field, do not have to be physically present in the row in order to find it in a search or inquiry.  As a simple example, let’s use the Birth Date field to describe how this is possible.

The date field, as described above, has 8 characters in it which we should agree can identify each and every Birth Date for the foreseeable past and future.  This statement should be true from January 1, 0000 through and including December 31, 9999.  The dates prior to the first recordable year would need another representation that we will not include in these discussions.  And, the dates beyond December 31, 9999 will need a conversion/expansion similar to the Y2K efforts which some of us may remember.

The allowable values in each of the characters in our Birth Date field are limited to a range of numbers from Zero (0) to Nine (9) only.  If we were to build a data base that would maintain an individual index for each of these data characters so that each of these indices has a list of all data rows that have a Zero in position one, One in position one, Two in position one, etc. through Nine in position one; and repeat these lists for each position in our data field: Position One through Eight, then we can select the lists of indices that we will want to look for in a search:

  • Year 2010 will use a search for:
    • All records where Birth Date Position One equals “2”
      and Birth Date Position Two equals “0”
      and Birth Date Position Three equals “1”
      and Birth Date Position Four equals “0”
    • The result of this search will be a list of all record locations that contain 2010 in the first four positions of Birth Date!

Using this type of inverted list index, we can extract any Birth Date or range of Birth Dates based on the content and record locations in the Indices rather than requiring that that same content be present in each row of data!

As far as the original question, I would like to know how much space would be required to maintain the List Indices for all these data positions versus how much space will be required to maintain these same data in both an index structure AND the data rows themselves.

If we take the inventory of fields proposed earlier and guess at their physical sizes then each row of data represents (and could contain) the following number of characters:

  • Last Name                   Char (25)
  • Middle Name                Char (15)
  • First Name                   Char (15)
  • Country of Origin         Char (25)
  • Tax Identifier               Char (15)
  • Birth Date                    Char (8)

For a total number of positions of: 103 characters.

Multiplying this number of positions by the number of “People” in our data collection could be a staggering sum of physical space in a data object.  For example, ten thousand (10,000) people in an “Employee” data base would require over One Million (1,030,000) characters.  That may not be a ‘staggering’ number but what if we are talking about the “person” data for an Electronic Medical Records data object servicing a National or Global Health Care application?  Three hundred billion people (300,000,000,000) would require almost 31 Giga Bytes (30,900,000,000,000 characters)!  And, this is just for the data values that might need to be indexed.

So what would it take in physical space to represent the indices for these same data fields/values?

The simple truth about THAT is that I don’t know enough about physically building indices to answer THAT question.  Can you?  Please?

The answer to this question, in my opinion, can have a significant effect on the approach and the ability of the technical community to respond to the organizational demands for an ever increasing amount of data for their analytical needs.

“I’m just asking…”

Hello World! Thank You, World!

20 Thursday Dec 2012

Posted by bgbgbgbg in Attribute, Cloud, compliance, compliant, Data, effective, efficient, engineering, Event, management, Mandatory, Object, Optional, predictabable, principles, re-useable, Relationship, repeatable, Row, software, Standards, structured, Transaction, Valid, Value

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

agile, analysis, best practice, business sponsors, conflict, data, data design, design, event, flowchart, functional decomposition, investors, iterative, jackson, lifecyle, management, model choices, modeling, nassi-schneidermann, old school, organization, perspective, planning, politics, priority issues, priority sequence, process, project charter, project priority, punch list, rapid, recovery assessment, requirements, resolution, scope, SDLC, state, state transition, state transition diagrams, stockholders, swim lane, technology, use case, visual, warnier-orr

I’ve been writing random and sometimes organized thoughts in this blog for quite a while now and I just took a closer look at the statistics of people who have read my stuff.

So, I want to Thank every one of you who have read my materials and I hope that you all continue to take benefit from or enjoy these materials.

Here is a graphic of the geographical reach that I have benefited from and I would like each of you to know that I appreciate every minute you take to follow me, read this stuff, and, hopefully comment on and invite others you know to read this same information:

Image

Thank you, bgbg

← Older posts

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 484 other followers

Send me your Ideas: whendoyoustoplooking@gmail.com

As you review these opinions and you have some of you own (I know that you do!), please send me your comments, diagrams, or relevant attachments to my email address. I look forward to making a connection with others who either agree with me or don't agree with me. Thanx, bgbg

Blogroll

  • Symbiosys Consulting 0
  • Veteran Computer Consultants – PCs for the Returning Vets and other IT Services 5

Computer

  • Symbiosys Consulting 0

Consulting

  • Symbiosys Consulting 0

Training

  • Symbiosys Consulting 0

WPEntry

  • Discuss 0
  • Get Inspired 0
  • Get Polling 0
  • Get Support 0
  • Learn WordPress.com 0
  • WordPress Planet 0
  • WordPress.com News 0
Advertisements

Archives

Categories

  • alternate
  • Attribute
  • blog
  • Cloud
  • compliance
  • compliant
  • content
  • contract
  • Contract Career
  • Data
  • Diversify
  • Diversity
  • dynamic
  • effective
  • efficient
  • engineering
  • Event
  • K P I
  • Key Performance Indicator
  • KPI
  • lifestyles
  • M T B F
  • manage
  • management
  • Mandatory
  • master service agreement
  • Mean Time Between Failure
  • Media
  • MTBF
  • Object
  • opinions
  • Optional
  • predictabable
  • Predictive
  • Presence
  • principles
  • project
  • purchase order
  • re-useable
  • recover
  • recovery
  • Relationship
  • repeatable
  • requirements
  • risk
  • risk management
  • Row
  • royalty
  • Scope
  • service
  • sixty somethin
  • sixty something
  • Social
  • software
  • Standards
  • Statement of Work
  • structured
  • Test
  • Testing
  • Transaction
  • Valid
  • Value
  • Web

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy