I have to add to this, having married an architect about 11 years ago, and having learned much from her about her work and how it very often parallels what I (try to) do. In fact, although I can't recall the name (not of my wife, but the guy I'm about to mention), there is an architect who's written 1-or-more books about I/T ; the point is that, if you remove the industry-specific jargon from a good architecture project and replace it w/I/T jargon, you'll find they are the same. Unfortunately, many of us in I/T usually have a condescending attitude about "construction" work.
Anyway, there is also a rule-of-thumb in I/T having to do w/software budgets. If 50% or more of the budget is consumed by maintenance, rather than A&D, R&D, new development, etc, then there may well be a problem w/how the systems are "constructed". Now, apply the architectural metaphor to this scenario. Imagine a building that required 50% of any part of an organization's budget, other than building/facilities maintenance for assets consisting of 2 like-size buildings, and you see that the way we all too often build systems is ludicrous. If the buildings aren't a goo-enough example, because they're too low-tech, then consider aircraft. What if an airline company had to spend 50% of its fleet budget on maintenance? Well, they'd be out of business. Can you say re-useability, documentation, analysis, design, and I guess we're back to an "architectural" approch. Now, on the flip-side, (and I'm facing this now) business wants you to "make magic" w/o "flexing" your budget. Let's say we can manage our work well enough that maintenance doesn't eat us alive. Management still won't let you increase your headcount during the constuction phase. If the (good) architecture (or Boeing manufacturing, etc) metaphor is valid, then management should be given tours of such physical sites, where they will see dozens and even hundreds of human assets working to construct, then taught the same holds true f/I/T projects. Well, I'm runnin' out of "gas", so, later, Steve in Memphis > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Richard S. Croy > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 6:40 PM > To: R:Base List > Subject: Off List But Interesting > > > I ran into this "law" the other day in a collection of "Murphy's > Laws" and similar things: > > "If a builder built homes like a programmer writes programs, > a single woodpecker could bring down civilization in about > one minute." > > That DOES NOT apply to Razzak and the RBTI "Dream Team." > They do it right!!!!! And keep up the great work!!!!! > > -- > Richard S. Croy > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ================================================ > TO SEE MESSAGE POSTING GUIDELINES: > Send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the message body, put just two words: INTRO rbase-l > ================================================ > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the message body, put just two words: UNSUBSCRIBE rbase-l > ================================================ > TO SEARCH ARCHIVES: > http://www.mail-archive.com/rbase-l%40sonetmail.com/ > ================================================ TO SEE MESSAGE POSTING GUIDELINES: Send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: INTRO rbase-l ================================================ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: UNSUBSCRIBE rbase-l ================================================ TO SEARCH ARCHIVES: http://www.mail-archive.com/rbase-l%40sonetmail.com/
