Archive for August, 2011

How Much Can Change Cost A Project

August 31st, 2011

We have recently published an IMF Report based on a Web Forum presentation given by Hans Eckman on Requirements Change Management. Hans is a Vice President and Enterprise Business Analyst for SunTrust. Below is a brief excerpt from the report on a couple of studies showing how much change can actually affect a project’s costs:

One study by Barry Boehm stated that letting a defect get into production will likely cost you 100x more than had you caught it in your initial requirements and design phases. However, in a new study he conducted along with a partner, they found that on really small trivial projects the cost increase is really only 5:1. If it costs you $200 in man hours and effort to change a requirement then that means for a small project you are looking at $1000 in production, or possibly even $10,000 on a larger project. Also, current software projects spend about 40-50% of their work effort on avoidable rework. That means almost half of everything you change in a project could have been avoided. There are two major sources they found in their research of avoidable rework. One was hastily specified requirements and the other was nominal-case design and development.

Figure 1 shows the distribution and cost increase of these changes over time. There are two studies, one by Tassey and the other by Boehm, which tried to figure out how much a defect costs for every unit of cost as you move further along the lifecycle. A defect could be an error, omission, basically anything that needs to be changed. In requirements and design, that is where you point out the base unit. In this case there is one cost unit. For example, if your cost to do something is a blended rate of $65/hour then that is your multiplier as well. Once you get into coding or unit testing Tassey found the cost was 5x as much. Boehm’s study showed the cost was 3x as much…”

Members can download the full IMF report, “On Lock-Down: Requirements Change Management,” HERE.

Does Size Really Matter

August 17th, 2011

Tom Kaneshige, who covers Apple for CIO.com, recently wrote a piece about the iPad. Basically he said with iPad dominating the tablet market, there’s probably not much they need to do to improve the product. Of course with Apple being Apple, they will try to improve the iPad in some way, shape, or form.  With that in mind, Kaneshige believes the next innovations you will see are various screen sizes. The iPad has a 10″ screen at the moment while the Samsung Galaxy tablet has a 7″ screen, which has seemed to find a nice niche market.

The tablet marketplace is exploding right now and consumers love options but the question is: should tablets get bigger or smaller? If Apple decides to go bigger, they could cut into the laptop and PC market even more than they already have, potentially expediting the slow death of PC’s. A larger tablet may also turn some people off though for being too cumbersome to carry. While the Galaxy may be smaller and more compact, thus more convenient in some people’s eyes, if it gets any smaller you’re encroaching upon the smartphone territory. Not to mention it will just be too much of a hassle for your eyes. I’m not sure which way they should go because everybody has their preferences. Some like compact, others want more screen room. For the tablet owners out there, and I know there are a lot of you, are you satisfied with your screen size? Is it too much or too little? Sound off!

Social Media Taking Heat For UK Riots

August 12th, 2011

In case you’ve been under a rock the past couple of weeks, mass riots are taking place across the pond in the UK. Why they’re rioting isn’t really important for this post so I won’t go into it. I think it has something to do with classism or something to that effect. Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron however is taking dead aim at social media, placing a lot of the blame for these riots onto the shoulders of Facebook, Twitter, and Blackberry makers Research in Motion (RIM). Cameron has even gone as far as considering a ban on social media for some individuals. Basically he says that a “free flow of information” can be used for “ill will.”

It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the protestors were using social media as a means to coordinate their activities. This same issue arose not too long ago with the revolution in Egypt. Many of there will tell you Facebook and Twitter didn’t start a revolution but it did help foster the cause. You can’t punish social media for that because people are simply using the tools at their disposal. Oh yea, then there’s that whole freedom of speech aspect that comes into play. That’s not exactly a minor detail. If you think people in the UK are rioting now, try taking away their Facebook and Twitter then witness that anarchy and chaos. That was a little tongue-in-cheek but you get the idea. Representatives of Facebook and Twitter said they’re happy to meet with the government, although both would presumably object to being censored or shut down in the UK.

Cameron is just looking for a scapegoat. It’s quite obvious people are upset but this violence we are witnessing is completely unacceptable on all levels. That being said, Facebook didn’t chunk a brick through a windshield and Twitter didn’t light a building on fire. You can’t censor people’s freedom of speech over the poor choices of a few. Come on Prime Minister, you’re better than that.