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
How do I go about explaining that I am a "Web Application Developer" and not a "Web Site Designer" to prospective clients - without talking myself out of the project?!
Often I am approached to "design a web site" for someone where it turns out to be more of a "brochureware" presentation site and less of a real web application.
While I am a highly skilled developer, I am not a graphic artist. That said, I would still like to be able to close deals with prospects without disqualifying myself. Simply stating, "I do backend work, not frontend" will quickly end the conversation, and along with it my opportunity for work.
Sure, I can just subcontract the project to a real designer and mark up his rate, but I would rather be up front with the client that I am not going to be the guy doing the actual work and they would be paying $120/hr for $60/hr work.
...and then they will ask price - is visual design often quoted hourly like app dev is, or will I get sucked into the oblivion that is fixed fees?
First thought: You sound like you're a good developer, which is a great foundation in this situation because people feel that we have a broad understanding of technology -- and they're right! You're correct in your insecurity though - a good developer is not exactly what they're after.
They want a solution, and if you can become the guy who knows how to navigate all the complexities involved in delivering that solution... Well, then you're the guy. And you're much more valuable.
And you don't have to stop coding, either. Which has always been my phobia.
So that's more or less how I present myself to my clients. I'm a developer, but I'm also a competent project manager. I know how to take your project from here to done even though it may involve designers, IT guys, additional developers, datacenters, etc.
Working with other professionals: You probably aren't in a position to hire folks. That's fine, but find good partners, and you can market your self as a shop or consulting group that is good at more than one thing. Believe me, people will appreciate that! For instance, we have a fantastic partner in Romania that we use for a lot of design, and we add value because we know how to get results from them and handle all the communication and so on. My customers don't want to talk to 3 to 6 people, they want a single point of contact who is accountable for all of it.
One thought here: try to find people who do this full time. Moonlighters and people doing side jobs have constantly let me down. I sympathize; I know what it's like to be spread too thin.
Fixed prices: You will probably have to deal with fixed prices, and you will need to hold your partners to fixed prices (or have some other mechanismf or controlling costs) if that's the case. Once the relationship becomes more comfortable, I usually try to give clients a range of what I think a job will take -- 5 to 8 hours, etc. And I let them know that fixed prices are a little bad for them because I have to assume some risk, which means they get charged more.
Most companies still want actual fixed prices for larger projects though and many large companies are shockingly comfortable with being overcharged in this situation. Fixed prices seems to be unfortunate fact of life in the contract development space.
First of all, I think you're exaggerating a bit - you don't really want to have a $30/hour designer working on a $150/hour website. If you do, and your client doesn't notice a difference, they deserve what they get.
And if we're talking about, say, $60 - $75/hour range vs $150/hour (which, IMO, is more realistic), you have to count in the time you spend working with said designer, so it's not like remaining $75-$90 goes directly into your pocked with you doing nothing.
If I am a client, I want a FINISHED PRODUCT and I'm paying YOU to deliver. Consider yourself a general contractor. I DON'T WANT to deal with designer / tester / technical writer / what have you myself - that's what I'm paying you for. My time may be a lot more valuable to me than $90 / hour difference. I may (will) get a second / third / fourth bid if I think you're too expensive.
That said, if you need to placate your conscience you can always bill couple hours less.
I tend to say something along the lines of "My job is to develop the stuff you don't see, but that make your site work"... And that is actually quite true.
... And you might add something that says that building a website is an activity that requires several very different abilities, like :
creating something that looks nice, and is usable ; that's a job on its own ; do your client have designed to logo of their company ?
integrating this nice looking thing into a dynamic application ; that one is your/my job ^^ Your clients send/receive e-mails every day, but do they know how it works ?
administration of the hardware / server : your clients use a computer every day to go in the Internet, use Word/Excel and the like, but do they know how to install those ? How to secure their network ? How to deal with security alerts the right way ?
You can use analogies with other processes ; designing / building / using / repairing a car, for instance ; some people understand better when we just don't speak about computers at all...
The way I always try and explained it, since I'm a Developer not a Designer is.
Developer -> Makes it work.
Designer -> Makes it pretty.
Of course there are vest generalizations, but for the most part they're true.
-> Developers creates the product
-> Designers create the package
Do you bill enough hours that you could consider hiring a program manager/product owner type person at least part time to do most of your customer interaction? Because if you do, you can abstract the "design/code" questions away from the customer; let the program manager really focus on figuring out what the customer wants built.
It sounds like your average customer isn't that technically savvy. If that's the case, figure out a way to speak their language (which most experienced program managers can do). They really don't care about the difference between a designer, a developer, and a tooth fairy that shows up and delivers the site that they want.
It's also worth considering whether you really want to take on projects that are mostly web design. If not, you should work on improving your marketing materials to focus on what you do best (interactive line of business web applications, or whatever).
You can steer the conversation toward what business problem the customer wants to solve, and propose the statement of work that best matches their objective. I think this will do the most good, and then it's never a question of misleading them. It's about packaging up a solution that matches what they want.
"I do backend work, not frontend" will quickly end the conversation, and along with it my opportunity for work.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. It's generally a good idea to be honest with prospective clients, and if they do not understand exactly what your job entails up front, then they may end up expecting too much from you when the job is done, or for future projects.
If you do really want to push your services on them, you could always try to point out exactly what kinds of benefits you will be offering to them. Make a point in explaining how much value can be added to the end-product by using your expertise.
A car may look great on the store floor, but if its powered by a lawn mower engine held down with duct tape and chewing gum, the only thing it's going to be doing is looking pretty and collecting dust in your garage.
I'm working in a small development group. We are building and improving our product.
Half a year ago we couldn't think about higher characteristics, such as usability, because we had so many problems with our product. Many bugs, high technical debt, low performance and other problems kept us from being able to focus on usability.
With time we've improved our process substantially. What we've done:
Real Agile iterations
Continuous integration
Testing(unit-tests, functional Smoke tests, performance)
Code quality is 'good'
Painless deployment process
So we are now producing stable, reliable releases. The following quote (paraphrased) describes our current situation:
first - make it work; after that, make it reliable; after that, make it usable
We are geeks, so we can't 'make' a great UI by ourselves.
So what should we do? What direction can you recommend?
Maybe we should hire Usability experts part-time or full-time?
How can we explain the importance of Usability to our stakeholders?
How do we convince them that this is useful?
What do your Business people say will make you the most money? Do that. Maybe usability is the next thing to do, maybe more features, maybe a different product. It's not something a "geek" will necessarily be able to guess.
I'm in the same boat as you are - I basically live on the command line, and I'm completely out of touch with the modern UI (both web and desktop application).
The solution for me was using a real UI developer for all my GUIs, and I just live in the back-end as it were.
There are quite a few benefits of this arrangement:
You don't have to debug your own crappy UIs anymore :) that's their job, and they're better at it than you, so no worries.
Your code will naturally gravitate to a MVC or at least tiered API approach, which is easier to code against for all parties involved.
Good UI people know what questions to ask end users, and know when those users don't know what they're talking about. I certainly don't have that skill.
You can do what you do best, and they do what they do best, making a stronger team overall.
The cons are obvious - you need to not only find the money for a talented UI dev, but you need to find a talented UI dev!
Now, I can't speak for you and your company's position in your market etc etc (I also don't do buisnessspeak :) ) but if you can afford another hire, it will give back more to the team than the cost of the position. It did for me!
You ask, "How can we explain the importance of Usability to our stakeholders?" but I'm not sure that you yourselves get it!
Interaction design (iD) and usability aren't things that you can tack on to an existing products when the "important" things are done. They should be there from the very first start, preferably done in small iterations with small tests and studies. I'm talking about cheap and dirty iD/usability, stuff like lo-fi prototyping, user testing with just four people, having enough stats to be able to detect user errors and such.
If you don't to iD/usability from the start, you risk ending up with the same crappy product as your competitors and/or providing users with band aids when they need surgery.
What do your users want ? They're probably the people best placed to identify requirements.
You are the ones who know and understand the product, so don't assume that just because someone else has 'usability expert' in their title that hiring them will somehow make your product usable.
Also, don't undercut your own instincts for usability. As a programmer, you use software all the time, what products do find the most usable? Think about what you like about them and compare them to your product.
Think about what your product does, and imagine that you are the person having to use the product and imagine how you would want it to work. Think of what a user wants to accomplish using your product, and imagine the steps they would have to go through to do it. Does it seem easy to understand what to do? Can it be done in fewer steps?
Most importantly, talk to your customers. Find out what they found confusing or difficult to accomplish. See if they have come up with their own workarounds for using your product in ways you didn't initially picture.
If you put as much thought, planning and effort into usability as you did into improving the reliability and deployment, you will end up with a much better product.
When analyzing the next step it really all comes down to business requirements & goals.
What is upper management like? Are they tech-savy? Are they open to new ideas? Do they think that the current product needs adjustment, improvement, etc? Is the product still in high demand? Is the marketplace changing such that the product/service will soon be obsolete? etc. etc. etc.
IF there are real business reasons for spending the $/time/resources then you can begin to explore product improvements. At that point consider the opinions of previous posters regarding user opinion.
I know so many geeks including myself who know usability, so one way would be learning it. Another way bringing someone in who can do UI design and usability.
To convince them that usability is important:
It's useless if you can't use it!
I don't know what sort of product you build but you always got clients, and clients always love usable applications. This will increase sales, happy client count and decrease tech support.
What does it do for your users? What do they think about the usability? Maybe it's not an ssue for them.
Make it more valueable to your users. Deliver more business value. Help your customers getter a better return on their investment. Do this by making it do more of what they need it to do, to do it better (more accurately, more quickly, more reliably more useably), or to do it at lower cost (less infrastructure needed to run it, reduced maintenance costs because you improved reliability), more flexibly (deals with their business changes)...
Lots of dimensions which do connect with the technical ones you refer to (usability reliabilty stability etc). But paying customers normally care about their business needs/features, not your technical ones that deliver them.
Go talk to your users (or potential users)
My one-liner about the importance of usability:
What use is a reliable system that is not usable?
If you have an existing product with existing users, then what makes you think that your current UI is not usable?
Do you suspect that there are some minor changes you can make that will greatly improve usability or is something more revolutionary required? If the latter, then what about the needs of your existing users, will they be willing to re-learn a whole new UI?
Edit
A user interface can be considered "poor" for a variety of reasons...
It is just plain ugly / old fashioned / does not "look like a Windows application"
It uses metaphors or workflows which do not relate to things that the user understands or wants to do
The first of these is relatively easy to fix, especially if you hire in a great designer. The fix would be the equivalent of redecorating your lounge and buying a new sofa and TV. Same room, different experience. Your existing users would still be able to use this application.
Fixing the second of these gets a lot more complex and involved, and might really impact your codebase. It's hard to comment further without knowing more about your application.
I think the answer is in the order of things, you say its:
"first - make it work; after that, make it reliable; after that, make it usable"
But the most important thing here is "make it work". Acceptance criteria for a functionality to "work" is that it is in fact - usable. If not, it will not be executed. Then it's just a block of dead code. And dead code should not be in the system in the first place.
Make a UI.
Then throw that away, and make another after you tried to use the first one. Then simplify as much as you can. Any time you can programmatically determine what the user wants from inputs, instead of multiple explicit choices, do so. Too many buttons induces paralysis.
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
One thing I struggle with is planning an application's architecture before writing any code.
I don't mean gathering requirements to narrow in on what the application needs to do, but rather effectively thinking about a good way to lay out the overall class, data and flow structures, and iterating those thoughts so that I have a credible plan of action in mind before even opening the IDE. At the moment it is all to easy to just open the IDE, create a blank project, start writing bits and bobs and let the design 'grow out' from there.
I gather UML is one way to do this but I have no experience with it so it seems kind of nebulous.
How do you plan an application's architecture before writing any code? If UML is the way to go, can you recommend a concise and practical introduction for a developer of smallish applications?
I appreciate your input.
I consider the following:
what the system is supposed to do, that is, what is the problem that the system is trying to solve
who is the customer and what are their wishes
what the system has to integrate with
are there any legacy aspects that need to be considered
what are the user interractions
etc...
Then I start looking at the system as a black box and:
what are the interactions that need to happen with that black box
what are the behaviours that need to happen inside the black box, i.e. what needs to happen to those interactions for the black box to exhibit the desired behaviour at a higher level, e.g. receive and process incoming messages from a reservation system, update a database etc.
Then this will start to give you a view of the system that consists of various internal black boxes, each of which can be broken down further in the same manner.
UML is very good to represent such behaviour. You can describe most systems just using two of the many components of UML, namely:
class diagrams, and
sequence diagrams.
You may need activity diagrams as well if there is any parallelism in the behaviour that needs to be described.
A good resource for learning UML is Martin Fowler's excellent book "UML Distilled" (Amazon link - sanitised for the script kiddie link nazis out there (-: ). This book gives you a quick look at the essential parts of each of the components of UML.
Oh. What I've described is pretty much Ivar Jacobson's approach. Jacobson is one of the Three Amigos of OO. In fact UML was initially developed by the other two persons that form the Three Amigos, Grady Booch and Jim Rumbaugh
I really find that a first-off of writing on paper or whiteboard is really crucial. Then move to UML if you want, but nothing beats the flexibility of just drawing it by hand at first.
You should definitely take a look at Steve McConnell's Code Complete-
and especially at his giveaway chapter on "Design in Construction"
You can download it from his website:
http://cc2e.com/File.ashx?cid=336
If you're developing for .NET, Microsoft have just published (as a free e-book!) the Application Architecture Guide 2.0b1. It provides loads of really good information about planning your architecture before writing any code.
If you were desperate I expect you could use large chunks of it for non-.NET-based architectures.
I'll preface this by saying that I do mostly web development where much of the architecture is already decided in advance (WebForms, now MVC) and most of my projects are reasonably small, one-person efforts that take less than a year. I also know going in that I'll have an ORM and DAL to handle my business object and data interaction, respectively. Recently, I've switched to using LINQ for this, so much of the "design" becomes database design and mapping via the DBML designer.
Typically, I work in a TDD (test driven development) manner. I don't spend a lot of time up front working on architectural or design details. I do gather the overall interaction of the user with the application via stories. I use the stories to work out the interaction design and discover the major components of the application. I do a lot of whiteboarding during this process with the customer -- sometimes capturing details with a digital camera if they seem important enough to keep in diagram form. Mainly my stories get captured in story form in a wiki. Eventually, the stories get organized into releases and iterations.
By this time I usually have a pretty good idea of the architecture. If it's complicated or there are unusual bits -- things that differ from my normal practices -- or I'm working with someone else (not typical), I'll diagram things (again on a whiteboard). The same is true of complicated interactions -- I may design the page layout and flow on a whiteboard, keeping it (or capturing via camera) until I'm done with that section. Once I have a general idea of where I'm going and what needs to be done first, I'll start writing tests for the first stories. Usually, this goes like: "Okay, to do that I'll need these classes. I'll start with this one and it needs to do this." Then I start merrily TDDing along and the architecture/design grows from the needs of the application.
Periodically, I'll find myself wanting to write some bits of code over again or think "this really smells" and I'll refactor my design to remove duplication or replace the smelly bits with something more elegant. Mostly, I'm concerned with getting the functionality down while following good design principles. I find that using known patterns and paying attention to good principles as you go along works out pretty well.
http://dn.codegear.com/article/31863
I use UML, and find that guide pretty useful and easy to read. Let me know if you need something different.
UML is a notation. It is a way of recording your design, but not (in my opinion) of doing a design. If you need to write things down, I would recommend UML, though, not because it's the "best" but because it is a standard which others probably already know how to read, and it beats inventing your own "standard".
I think the best introduction to UML is still UML Distilled, by Martin Fowler, because it's concise, gives pratical guidance on where to use it, and makes it clear you don't have to buy into the whole UML/RUP story for it to be useful
Doing design is hard.It can't really be captured in one StackOverflow answer. Unfortunately, my design skills, such as they are, have evolved over the years and so I don't have one source I can refer you to.
However, one model I have found useful is robustness analysis (google for it, but there's an intro here). If you have your use-cases for what the system should do, a domain model of what things are involved, then I've found robustness analysis a useful tool in connecting the two and working out what the key components of the system need to be.
But the best advice is read widely, think hard, and practice. It's not a purely teachable skill, you've got to actually do it.
I'm not smart enough to plan ahead more than a little. When I do plan ahead, my plans always come out wrong, but now I've spend n days on bad plans. My limit seems to be about 15 minutes on the whiteboard.
Basically, I do as little work as I can to find out whether I'm headed in the right direction.
I look at my design for critical questions: when A does B to C, will it be fast enough for D? If not, we need a different design. Each of these questions can be answer with a spike. If the spikes look good, then we have the design and it's time to expand on it.
I code in the direction of getting some real customer value as soon as possible, so a customer can tell me where I should be going.
Because I always get things wrong, I rely on refactoring to help me get them right. Refactoring is risky, so I have to write unit tests as I go. Writing unit tests after the fact is hard because of coupling, so I write my tests first. Staying disciplined about this stuff is hard, and a different brain sees things differently, so I like to have a buddy coding with me. My coding buddy has a nose, so I shower regularly.
Let's call it "Extreme Programming".
"White boards, sketches and Post-it notes are excellent design
tools. Complicated modeling tools have a tendency to be more
distracting than illuminating." From Practices of an Agile Developer
by Venkat Subramaniam and Andy Hunt.
I'm not convinced anything can be planned in advance before implementation. I've got 10 years experience, but that's only been at 4 companies (including 2 sites at one company, that were almost polar opposites), and almost all of my experience has been in terms of watching colossal cluster********s occur. I'm starting to think that stuff like refactoring is really the best way to do things, but at the same time I realize that my experience is limited, and I might just be reacting to what I've seen. What I'd really like to know is how to gain the best experience so I'm able to arrive at proper conclusions, but it seems like there's no shortcut and it just involves a lot of time seeing people doing things wrong :(. I'd really like to give a go at working at a company where people do things right (as evidenced by successful product deployments), to know whether I'm a just a contrarian bastard, or if I'm really as smart as I think I am.
I beg to differ: UML can be used for application architecture, but is more often used for technical architecture (frameworks, class or sequence diagrams, ...), because this is where those diagrams can most easily been kept in sync with the development.
Application Architecture occurs when you take some functional specifications (which describe the nature and flows of operations without making any assumptions about a future implementation), and you transform them into technical specifications.
Those specifications represent the applications you need for implementing some business and functional needs.
So if you need to process several large financial portfolios (functional specification), you may determine that you need to divide that large specification into:
a dispatcher to assign those heavy calculations to different servers
a launcher to make sure all calculation servers are up and running before starting to process those portfolios.
a GUI to be able to show what is going on.
a "common" component to develop the specific portfolio algorithms, independently of the rest of the application architecture, in order to facilitate unit testing, but also some functional and regression testing.
So basically, to think about application architecture is to decide what "group of files" you need to develop in a coherent way (you can not develop in the same group of files a launcher, a GUI, a dispatcher, ...: they would not be able to evolve at the same pace)
When an application architecture is well defined, each of its components is usually a good candidate for a configuration component, that is a group of file which can be versionned as a all into a VCS (Version Control System), meaning all its files will be labeled together every time you need to record a snapshot of that application (again, it would be hard to label all your system, each of its application can not be in a stable state at the same time)
I have been doing architecture for a while. I use BPML to first refine the business process and then use UML to capture various details! Third step generally is ERD! By the time you are done with BPML and UML your ERD will be fairly stable! No plan is perfect and no abstraction is going to be 100%. Plan on refactoring, goal is to minimize refactoring as much as possible!
I try to break my thinking down into two areas: a representation of the things I'm trying to manipulate, and what I intend to do with them.
When I'm trying to model the stuff I'm trying to manipulate, I come up with a series of discrete item definitions- an ecommerce site will have a SKU, a product, a customer, and so forth. I'll also have some non-material things that I'm working with- an order, or a category. Once I have all of the "nouns" in the system, I'll make a domain model that shows how these objects are related to each other- an order has a customer and multiple SKUs, many skus are grouped into a product, and so on.
These domain models can be represented as UML domain models, class diagrams, and SQL ERD's.
Once I have the nouns of the system figured out, I move on to the verbs- for instance, the operations that each of these items go through to commit an order. These usually map pretty well to use cases from my functional requirements- the easiest way to express these that I've found is UML sequence, activity, or collaboration diagrams or swimlane diagrams.
It's important to think of this as an iterative process; I'll do a little corner of the domain, and then work on the actions, and then go back. Ideally I'll have time to write code to try stuff out as I'm going along- you never want the design to get too far ahead of the application. This process is usually terrible if you think that you are building the complete and final architecture for everything; really, all you're trying to do is establish the basic foundations that the team will be sharing in common as they move through development. You're mostly creating a shared vocabulary for team members to use as they describe the system, not laying down the law for how it's gotta be done.
I find myself having trouble fully thinking a system out before coding it. It's just too easy to only bring a cursory glance to some components which you only later realize are much more complicated than you thought they were.
One solution is to just try really hard. Write UML everywhere. Go through every class. Think how it will interact with your other classes. This is difficult to do.
What I like doing is to make a general overview at first. I don't like UML, but I do like drawing diagrams which get the point across. Then I begin to implement it. Even while I'm just writing out the class structure with empty methods, I often see things that I missed earlier, so then I update my design. As I'm coding, I'll realize I need to do something differently, so I'll update my design. It's an iterative process. The concept of "design everything first, and then implement it all" is known as the waterfall model, and I think others have shown it's a bad way of doing software.
Try Archimate.
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.