Virgil Bierschwale wrote: > And that is why the business side says we are not doing our job. > > Let me show you an example and I haven't looked at this since 2002 so bear > with me. > > 1. Design = Math (excel spreadsheets) + artwork (apples and jpgs) > 2. Engineering = Hardware (autocade) + Electrical (autocad) + Software (C) > 3. SQA (testing of all steps) > 4. Compliance (making sure the I's are dotted and the t's are crossed) > > These 4 steps are the natural progression for building slot machines in > vegas, at least for the R&D portion and then you need to factor in > manufacturing and support > > Each step is followed by the next step, in other words, math and artwork > have to be done before moving on to engineering and so forth. > > Any one of these steps that are circumvented will destroy years worth of > work. > > Its like the old saying of plan your work and work your plan and the lack of > that is why the software business has such a bad name in the areas that > matter, which are the business. > > Yeah I know, you guys are the keepers of the gate which means you tell the > business what they can and cannot do. > > For myself, as the business side begins to realize that they can actually > develop the process (not the software), more and more software guys will be > put out of work because they are not willing to do the essentials which is > to make the business process flow seamlessly from stage to stage. > > Yep, I know I'm in the minority right now, but those that are wise and have > worked at the enterprise level (not the dept level) will agree with me > because they too have seen what is happening. >
That's a waterfall development scheme. It's ok for slot machines and probably for many software projects. But I think you should accept there may be other ways of doing it, and maybe those ways are better when the field of application is not so well defined and static. It is pointless for me to explain it in a post, but you could check the waterfall model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model and system development models http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Development_Methodology in wikipedia for starters and see where you go from there. I'm not saying waterfall model is *wrong*, just that there are other equally valid models that may be better in certain kinds of projects. _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
