On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 01:25, Matt Evans wrote: > Thank you to all for your helpful suggestions. I shall start to go through > them all and see what we can do. No doubt I'll be seeking further advice in > due course. > > The basic problem for us is that changes to code are controlled by the > software house HQ. Sometimes changes take months (on one occasion 18 months > I am told) to be introduced. For this particular problem they have given the > official response that they do not intend to change the functionality. I > don't see how we can continue to develop documentation until they do.
How come you have to develop the documentation? Doing the documentation, both system documentation AND end-user documentation, should be an integral part of the software development job - it is when the documentation is written that all those horrible, overlooked design flaws really come to light. The software firm might need to hire domain experts such as yourself to help them prepare such documentation, not to mention technical writers, but it should be part of their contract to supply it, and the documentation, like the actual code, needs to be part of the UAT (user acceptance testing) which Thomas mentioned. > There is a theory in psychology about learned helplessness. If you keep > giving a rat an electric shock even when it attempts to do things to avoid > the shock, it eventually gives up and just sits there being shocked. In > psychiatry we talk about the locus of control. If we perceive control over > our destiny not to be internal we become depressed. It is no wonder that our > project has an air of depression about it. Going back to my original email > what concerns me is that it seems to be taken on trust that multi million > pound software is up to the job and that the negotiations occur around how > quickly and how cheaply it can be implemented. Who is actually checking the > software meets the needs of the users technically and clinically before > handing over the cheque? Apologies for sounding unduly pessimistic here but > I think it's a debate that needs to occur. If you are having a house built for you, then typically you make regular, detailed inspections of the construction works, and/or you ask your architect or an independent building inspector or site manager to check that the builders are doing everything they should be doing to the standard required. Hired inspectors typically carry clipboards with long lists of things to check on them. What you don't do is engage the builders, then wait for their phone call telling you the house is finished, at which stage you take a quick walk-through, say, "looks fine" and sign the cheque. -- Tim C PGP/GnuPG Key 1024D/EAF993D0 available from keyservers everywhere or at http://members.optushome.com.au/tchur/pubkey.asc Key fingerprint = 8C22 BF76 33BA B3B5 1D5B EB37 7891 46A9 EAF9 93D0 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20040307/d35dadb1/attachment.asc>
