Related
How do you deal with a client who has different time estimates for the software product than yours?
I am going to describe a scenario that is not mine, but that captures broadly the same problem. I am working as a subcontractor to a large company that has a programming department. The software project we are working on is in an area that the department believe they have a handle on, but because their expertise and mine are very different we tend to get different results.
Example: At the start of the project I suggested one way of development which they rubbished as being unrealistically difficult and suggested integrating a different framework (one they are familiar with) with the programming language we are using (Python) to get more or less the same result.
Their estimate for this integration: less than a week (they haven't done the integration before).
My estimate for the integration: above two weeks.
Using my suggested way to get the result needed (including using matplotlib among other libraries used elsewhere within the project): 45 minutes. This is not an estimate, the bit was actually finished in 45 minutes.
Example: for the software to be integrated with their internal system, they needed to provide a web service for me to use. They provided a broken one, though it does work with their internal tool (doesn't work with .Net or Java mainstream packages among other options). They maintain that it is my fault that the integration has taken longer than the time estimated.
The problem is not that they don't know, the problem is that they have enough knowledge about programming to be dangerous (in my opinion). Is there some guidelines for how to deal with this type of situation? A way for expectation management? Or may be I shouldn't get involved in such projects from the start and in this case what are the telltale signs?
If a client isn't happy with a time estimate, don't do the work. If they think they can do it better or faster, tell them to go ahead.
The one thing I never allow is for my estimates to be modified. That's something that caught me out early on in my career but we learn our lessons.
If clients were so good at doing the work, they wouldn't be hiring me. I'd simply point out that they hired me for my expertise so why are they disregarding that expertise. Of course, if they were to allow the scope of the project to change (i.e., less work), that would be another matter, and one up for discussion.
If you didn't lock in exactly what they were meant to provide as part of the deal, then it's a "he says, she says" situation and, unfortunately, the customer controls the purse strings. However, often, the greatest power you can have is the ability to just walk away.
No-one says you have to do the job.
Of course, all that advice above is worth every cent you paid for it :-)
I don't know your specific circumstances.
Or may be I shouldn't get involved in such projects from the start and in this case what are the telltale signs?
My answer for sure. If you can avoid those projects, do it.
Some signs : people thinking they know how to do things when you can guess they can't. The "oh no let's not use this perfectly suitable tool because I don't know it" is a major indicator that the person is technically challenged.
first of all, it is no fun to be in such an environment.
So, if you like to have fun at your job, and you do not need to take this job for extenuating financial reasons, then simply do not take the job that is not fun.
Since that is hardly realistic in many cases, you will end up with the job and need to manage the situation as best you can. One way is to make sure there is a paper trail documenting your objections and concerns with the plan. Try not to be overtly negative, but try to be constructive and present valid alternatives. Here you will need to feel out the political landscape, determine if the 'boss' will be appreciative or threatened by your commentary, and act accordingly.
Many times there are other issues that management is dealing with that you are not aware of. Be cautious of this fact, and maybe ask the management team if this is the case, again without being condescending or negative.
Finally, if you have alternatives that take less time than the meetings it would take to discuss them, just try it in a sandbox, and show it off. This would go a long way to 'proving' your points. Caution here is that you could be accused of not being a team player, or of wasting resources, or not following direction. Make sure this is mitigated by doing these types of things on your own time, or after careful consideration of how long you are spending on these things as well as how vested your boss seems to be on the alternatives.
hth
I ran into the same problem with integration. Example: for the
software to be integrated with their internal system, they needed to
provide a web service for me to use...They maintain that it is my
fault that the integration has taken longer than the time estimated.
Wow very similar to what I was experiencing with a client. The best thing I can suggest is to keep good documentation. In the end that is what saved me. When it came to finger pointing I had all of the emails and facts in order and was prepared to defend my self.
One thing I would suggest is to separate out a target/goal and an estimation. I would not change my estimate unless it involved actually removing features or something is revealed that would make it easier. Tell them you will try to hit the target in anyway you can and you care about the business goal. However, your estimate will not change. If its getting no where and they are just dense then smile and nod and take it if its the only gig around.
Was just writing about this in my blog
How to estimate the WRONG way
I'm working with Websphere Portal and Oracle. On two occasions last week, I found that the most direct way to code a particular solution involved using API's provided by IBM and Oracle. However, I realize every line of code written using these vendor API's renders us a little bit more locked in to these systems (particularly the portal, which we only implemented recently).
How would you decide whether the benefits of using a vendor API outweigh the costs of being tied (Bound? Shackled? Fettered? Pinioned?) to a particular product?
Obviously a very personal / specific question...
One thing to remember however, is that you can offset some the risks of being "held prisoner" by wrapping whatever proprietary API is supplied into your own defined API. In doing so you will not only decouple your own code from the 3rd party API, but you may also make it easier to write your own logic, by streamlining the 3rd party API to the minimal set of features you desire. A small risk, risk with this minimalist approach, however, is that you may sometimes "miss-out" on some cool features supplied by the 3rd party library/API.
If other vendors are likely to provide similar functionality with a different API, you can define your own interface for the operations, and create a vendor-specific implementation. This helps you avoid lock-in.
Whether this is worthwhile depends on several factors: how much application code will depend on the API, how complex is the API (and the wrapper it will require), how likely are you to switch vendors.
The cost-benefit ratio of being tightly bound to a custom/vendor-specific API varies a lot depending on what you're working with and with who will use your product. Vendor lock-in may be an impediment for some customers and may go unnoticed on others. Perhaps you may find these guidelines useful when deciding what to do:
If your product will target a specific company only and they're already bound to some technology stack because they have contracts that make them pay big bucks for support and there's no way that in a near or far future they'll change that stack, you should go lock-in.
If your product will target a variety of companies in the same sector and you verify that most of them have the same kind of systems, then you may go lock-in for now because it's faster or easier and later on you may adapt your code to the minority
If you will target a broad range of customers, try to avoid to lock-ins. However if you note that these will play a fundamental role in your product's time-to-market, you may again use them for your first customers and then adapt it to the needs of the others, but only as they come.
This is a pretty subjective question. My take is that if you're using Oracle, and don't have immediate plans to move away from Oracle, I can't think of a good reason to deny yourself the power and flexibility of APIs provided by the vendor. Abstracting your application to the Nth degree in pursuit of some holy grail of portability often causes more trouble than its worth, and definitely increases your cost. It can also lead to less-than-optimal performance. Even TSQL has been enhanced and tweaked by every DB vendor to the point that you're probably going to be using some proprietary extension in a query at some point; may as well get all of the benefits while you're at it.
Personally, I've found that when good developers deal with clients, they often get sucked into the after-sales support process and this process has been difficult to reverse, so was just interested to hear the various strategies that developers employ in maintaining a healthy, useful relationship that keeps clients using the right person at the right time.
So do you and, if so, how do you deal with clients?
Just a tip: Write down every single thing a client says to you.
Most of the projects I work on are done on time-and-materials contracts, which means: we give the customer an initial estimate of how long the project will take but bill for actual hours worked, whether over or under the estimate (I don't know why a client would agree to this, but they do). Once the project is "complete" and in production, we set up a service extension to the time-and-materials contract, creating a block of billable hours to cover after-sales support. When a client is aware that they're being billed for all contact with us, they tend to keep that contact to a minimum.
One other point: I've found that it's best to communicate with clients via email where possible. It's a much more efficient way to transfer information (assuming everyone involved can write), and it leaves a permanent record of what the client told you to do.
I'd go the opposite of what have been said.
The client is your number one information source
Avoid intermediaries (human and technical)
Keep tracks (not to use it against the customers, even if it can happen, but because he pays to get what he wants)
Communicate - on your initiative - in a short regular basis but for small amount of times.
Any doubt can be cleared asking the good questions. The guy don't want that ? Get rid of it (even if you like it better). The guy want that ? Why not, add time and money on the contract.
You must train your communication skills
Most of what has been said here before is essentially related to the fact that programmers usually have poor communications skills. So they fall into the typical traps :
customers give them bad info
they waste time
they get stressed
At the end, nobody is happy.
But with trained communication skills you will learn to direct when, how long and about what your chats will be, and so :
Make any deal quick and nice
Give confidence to the client
Understands what the client wants (not what he says he wants)
Ensure is satisfied with the answer (even if it's nonsens for you)
Everybody will be happier : the customer will feel good and let you work in peace while you will have the information to keep working. Eventually, the resulting software will be better.
Think talking to customer is boring ? They think it too. And paperwork is boring as well, but you must do it, so do it well instead of looking for excuses.
This is a pain we feel as well. Once you help out a customer it is too easy for the customer to directly contact the developer later on and request support. And since we usually aim to please, and probably feel sort of responsible when the application we built for them has a problem, we too often give the customer a quick helping hand.
I think that the developers should be separated from the customers, but this requires that the company has a support/concultancy department which can fix the problem instead. They in turn should be free to contact the developer, unless it's a huge company with a mainstream application where there is a less risk that the problem can be traced back to a problem with the sourcecode.
But let me tell you, I understand how difficult this is. I've been working in our consultancy shop for many years, starting from support and now I'm mostly managing the other consultants and developing. There are a lot of customers (like hundreds) who feel they have a personal relationship with me, and assume that they can call me directly even after years and years.
My tip is to make sure you have a good network of concultants and supportworkers who can help the customer for you, and have them contact you instead if they can't figure it out.
I just finished my education and am working at my first job, but here is what we do:
I communicate through a third party from the same company with "higher rank". The third party is someone knowledgeable of the requirements the software should have, but not in software engineering. When I ask about specifications, or send them proposals he distills the essence of their answers send them to me.
I think this way of working with stuff limits the amount of bullying a customer can get away with when it comes to changing specs, expanding specs etc.
For me it's especially useful since I'm only 21 years old, and people might have trouble believing I can get things done.
best practices:
Remember the client is the one who signs the checks.
Users work for the client.
Refer any user requests to the client for approval.
Always deal with the client because they understand that everything you do will cost them money.
If the client wants after the sale support and is willing to pay for it then give it to him cheerfully.
Oh and what MusiGenesis said!
The best way is to never ever ever give your direct line to a customer. Have them go through Tech support (if it exists) first. We employ this method and it works well. The software developers are the last resort - for things that support simply can't do/don't know how to fix -- such as a DBA not knowing that the servers are instanced. But it will cut down on the "it's not connecting to the internets" type of phone calls.
You could also force all support requests to go through email/secretary. At that point, you can discern which ones are critical, and which ones can be solved with a simple 'tutorial' on how to fix the problem.
And as stated above - record EVERYTHING in an exchange with a customer. Doing so prevents the 'well he said she said' deal that customers can fall into.
Then again -- if you're getting a ton of customer support issues, you should be looking at the cause of it - whether it's a training issue, or whether the software is legitimately buggy.
In our company, every developer is also a salesman. If I step over the door of a Customer then I'm in a good position to make more business.
They know me and I have credabillity because I've allready delivered to them.
I have knowledge about their business
I use my knowledge to ask questionas about other parts in their business
I plant hooks to them when I talk to them, in their best interrests of course.
I make clear that we are not a "hit and run"-company, but there to really support their business.
Maybe this is not how all company does, but I think you should use the people you have that allready has a foot inside the customers company to really work with them and make more business and tie the customer tighter to you.
I personally think developers should never interact with clients. This is why you have the Q/A team. They get requirements, hand them to developers, discuss any issues, schedule development progress meetings. If developers have questions, the go to the Q/A personnel responsible for the requirements and documentation. Developers are engineers, not salesmen or negotiators. They should be given environment to develop stable, working code without getting distracted by customer phone calls. This is how many companies deal with customers regardless of company size. In the end, your chances of completing a project on time are higher than when you customer calls up and decides to change requirements or requests a feature. Which would probably mean you have to go back a couple of iterations and change something that may break everything completed past that point.
Lots and lots of communication. Communication can be as simple as checking in with your customers by stopping by at their desks (if you are co-located) or keeping in touch over the phone. The more personal the communication is (in-person beats phone call, phone call beats email, etc.), the stronger your relationship will be.
Another good conflict resolution practice I've used is keeping as much information as possible in a single, shared place. I've used a bug/feature database (JIRA), a wiki, and even a network share drive for this purpose, but the point is that neither party has exclusive lock/write access. Updates can be made together with your customers, and there is a clear, public record of the change history of your system.
I know that there is no way to fully protect our code.
I also know that if a user wants to crack our app, then he or she is not a user that would buy our app.
I also know that it is better to improve our app.. instead of being afraid of anticracking techniques.
I also know that there is no commercial tool that can protec our app....
I also know that....
Ok. Enough. I've heard everything.
I really think that adding a little protection won't hurt.
So.... have you ever used code virtulizer from oreans or vmprotect?
I've heard that they are sometimes detected as virus by some antivirus.
Any experiences that I should be aware of before buying it.
I know it creates some virtual machines and obfuscates a little the code to make it harder to find the weaknesses of our registration routines.
Is there any warning I should know?
Thanks.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Jag
In my humble opinion, you should be lucky or even eager to be pirated, because that means your product is successful and popular.
That's plain incorrect. My software that I worked many months on was cracked the moment it was released. There are organised cracking groups that feed off download.com's RSS channel etc and crack each app that appears. It's a piece of cake to extract the keygen code of any app, so my response was to:
a) resort to digital certificate key files which are impossible to forge as they are signed by a private AES key and validated by a public one embedded in the app (see: aquaticmac.com - I use the stl c++ implementation which is cross-platform), along with.
b) The excellent Code Virtualizer™. I will say that the moment I started using Code Virtualizer™ I was getting some complaints from one or two users about app crashes. When I removed it from their build the crashes ceased. Still, I'm not sure whether it was a problem with CV per se as it could have been an obscure bug in my code, but I since reshuffled my code and I have since heard no complaints.
After the above, no more cracks. Some people look at being cracked as a positive thing, as it's a free publicity channel, but those people usually haven't spent months/years on an idea only to find you're being ripped off. Quite hard to take.
Unfortunately, VM-protected software is more likely to get affected by false positives than conventional packing software. The reason for that is that since AV protection is so complicated, AV software are often unable to analyze the protected code, and may rely on either pattern libraries or may issue generic warnings for any files protected by a system it can't analyze. If your priority is to eliminate false positives, I suggest picking a widely-used protection solution, e.g. AsProtect (although Oreans' products are becoming quite popular as well).
Software VM protection is quite popular today, especially as it's now available at an accessible price for small companies and independent software developers. It also takes a considerable amount of effort to crack in comparison to non-VM techniques - the wrappers usually have the standard anti-debugging tricks that other protections have, as well as the VM protection. Since the virtual machine is generated randomly on each build, the crackers will need to analyze the VM instruction set and reverse engineer the protected code back to machine code.
The main disadvantage of VM protection is that if it's overused (used to protect excessive parts of the code), it can slow down your application considerably - so you'll need to protect just the critical parts (registration checks, etc). It also doesn't apply to certain application types - it likely won't work on DLLs that are used for injection, as well as device drivers.
I've also heard that StrongBit EXECryptor is a decent protection package at a decent price. (I'm not affiliated with said company nor guarantee any quality what-so-ever, it's just word of mouth and worth checking out IMO).
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
We have a series of closed source applications and libraries, for which we think it would make sense opening up the source code.
What has been blocking us, so far, is the effort needed to clean up the code base and documenting the source before opening up.
We want to open up the source only if we have a reasonable chance of the projects being successful -- i.e. having contributors. We are convinced that the code would be interesting to a large base of developers.
Which factors, excluding the "interestingness" and "usefulness" of the project, determine the success of an open source project?
Examples:
Cleanliness of code
Availability of source code comments
Fully or partially documented APIs
Choice of license (GPL vs. LGPL vs. BSD, etc...)
Choice of public repository
Investment in a public website
There are a several things which dominate the successfulness of code. All of these must be achieved for the slightest chance of adoption.
Market - There must be a market for your open source project. If your project is a orange juicer in space, I doubt that you'll be very successful. You must make sure your project gets a large adoption amongst users and developers. It is twice as likely to succeed if you can get other corporations to adopt it as well.
Documentation - As you touched on earlier documentation is key. Amongst this documentation is commented code, architectural decisions, and API notes. Even if your documentation contains bugs, or bugs about your software it is ok. Remember, transparency is key.
Freedom - You must allow your code to be "free" - by this I mean free as in speech, not as in beer. If you have a feeling your market is being a library for other corporations a BSD license is optimal. If your piece of software is going to run on desktops then GPL is your choice.
Transparency - You must write software in a transparent environment. Once you go open source there is no hidden secrets. You must explain everything you do, and what you are doing. This will piss off developers like no other
Developer Community - A strong developer community is required. This must be existing. Only about 5% of users contribute back to the project. If someone notices there haven't been any releases for a year they wont think "Wow, this piece of software is done," they will think "developers must of dumped it." Keep your developers working on it, even if it means they are costing you money.
Communications - You must make sure you community is able to communicate. They must be able to file bugs, discuss workarounds, and publish patches. Without feedback, it is pointless to opensource the project
Availability - Making your code easy to get is necessary, even if it means pissing off lawyers. You have to make sure your project is easy to download, and utilize. You don't want the user to have to jump through 18 nag screens and sign a contract in order to do this. You have to make things simple, and clean
I think that the single most important factor is the number of users that are using your project.
Otherwise its just a really well written, usefull and well documented bunch of stuff that sits on a server not doing very much...
To acquire contributors, you first need users, then you need some incompleteness. You need to trigger the "This is cool, but I really wish it had this or was different in this way." If you are missing an obvious feature, it's extremely likely a user will become a contributor to add it.
The most important thing is that the program be good. If its not good, nobody will use it. You cannot hope that the chicken-and-egg will reverse and that people will take it for granted until it becomes good.
Of course, "good" merely means "better than any other practical option for a significant number of people," it doesn't mean that its strictly the best, only that it has some features that make it, for many people, better than other options. Sometimes the program has no equivalent anywhere else, in which case there's almost no requirement in this regard.
When a program is good, people will use it. Obviously, it has to have a market among users--a good program that does something nobody wants isn't really good no matter how well its designed. One could make a point about marketing, but truly good products, up to a point, have a tendency to market themselves. Its much harder to promote something that isn't good, so clearly one's first priority should be the product itself, not promoting the product.
The real question then is--how do you make it good? And the answer to that is a dedicated, skilled development team. One person can rarely create a good product on their own; even if they're far better than the other developers, multiple perspectives has an incredibly useful effect on the project. This is why having corporate sponsors is so useful--it puts other developers' (from the corporation) minds on the problem to give their own opinion. This is especially useful in the case that developing the program requires significant expertise that isn't commonly available in the community.
Of course, I'm saying this all from experience. I'm one of the main developers on x264 (currently the most active one), one of the most popular video encoders. We have two main developers, various minor developers in the community that contribute patches, and corporate sponsorship from Joost (Gabriel Bouvigne, who maintains ratecontrol algorithms), from Avail Media (who I work for sometimes on contract and who are currently hiring coders on contract to add MBAFF interlacing support), and from a few others that pop up from time to time.
One good developer doesn't make a project--many good developers do. And the end result of this is a program that encodes video faster and at a far better quality than most commercial competitors, hardware or software, even those with utterly enormous development budgets.
In looking at these issues you might be interested in checking out the online version of a course on open source at UC Berkeley, called Open Source Development and Distribution of Digital Information: Technical, Economic, Social, and Legal Perspectives. It’s co-taught by Mitch Kapur (Lotus founder) and Paula Samuelson, a law school professor. I have a long commute and put the audio of the course on my iPod last year – they talk a lot about what works, what doesn’t and why, from a very broad (though obviously academic) perspective.
Books have been written on the subject. In fact, you can find a free book here: producing open source software
Really, I think the answer is 'how you run the project'.
All of your examples matter, yes, but the key things are how the interaction between developers is managed, how patches etc are handled/accepted, who's 'in charge' and how they handle that responsibility, and so on and so forth.
Compare and contrast (the history isn't hard to track down!) the management of the development of Class::DBI and DBIx::Class in Perl.
I was just reading tonight an excellent post on the usability aspect of successful vs unsuccessful open source projects.
Excerpt:
A lot of bandwidth has been wasted arguing over the lack of usability in open-source software/free software (henceforth “OSS”). The debate continues at this moment on blogs, forums, and Slashdot comment threads. Some people say that bad usability is endemic to the entire OSS world, while others say that OSS usability is great but that the real problem is the closed-minded users who expect every program to clone Microsoft. Some people contend that UI problems are temporary growing pains, while others say that the OSS development model systematically produces bad UI. Some people even argue that the GPL indirectly rewards software that’s difficult to use! (For the record, I disagree.)
http://humanized.com/weblog/2007/10/05/make_oss_humane/
Just open-source it. Most probably, nobody will start contributing yet. But at least you can write on the press-releases that your product is GPL or whatever.
The first step is that people start using it...
And maybe then, after users get comfortable, they will start contributing.
Everyone's answers have been good so far, but there's one thing missing and that's good oversight. Nothing kills an open source project faster than not having some sort of project management. Not to tell people what to do so much as to just add some structure and tasking for the developers you are hoping to attract.
Disorganized projects fall apart fast. It's not a bird you just let go and watch it fly away.