XPday London

NAO letter draft

Dear Mr Grogan,

I am writing to you in response to reading a report published by the National Audit Office which I and some colleagues found online. That report is the Review of System Development - Overview, found here http://www.intosaiitaudit.org/auditguides.htm#United%20Kingdom. While we note that this report is from 2003, it appears to be the latest guidance from the NAO on best practice in the procurement and development of software systems. If you are not the right person to contact about the content of this report, then I hope that you will be able to forward this to the appropriate person.

My colleagues and I were dismayed to read in this report that the recommended approach for project delivery was to follow a "waterfall" method. Between us we have many years of experience in the software development industry, working as engineers, project managers, consultants, company directors and educators. We have worked across many sectors from finance, to utilities, telecoms, advertising and retail. If there is one thing that we have learned, it is that if the aim of a project is to maximise return on investment, and deliver value to the customer, then a waterfall approach does not work.

There is much research into software development methodology, and the relative merits of different approaches, but I will highlight just one section from a 1987 paper by the American Defense Science Board Task Force On Military Software [1].

"in the decade since the waterfall model was developed, our discipline has come to recognize that setting the requirements is the most difficult and crucial part of the software building process, and one that requires iteration between the designers and users. In best modern practice, the early specification is embodied in a prototype, which the intended users can themselves drive in order to see the consequences of their imaginings. Then, as the design effort begins to yield data on the cost and schedule consequences of particular specifications, the designers and the users revise the specifications."

A few years after the publication of this report, the Department of Defense ceased recommending waterfall practices for development projects. [2]

This is but one example. Over the years we have come to realise that incremental delivery in short cycles, with frequent inspection of product and method is the key to successful delivery of IT projects. Continual adaption, rather than detailed upfront planning, allows the project to respond easily to changes in the environment and the requirements, rather than incurring a large cost of rework.

In the industry, we now have established practices that deliver projects more reliably, variously badged as iterative, agile or lean development. We have seen them succeed where so often a waterfall project is doomed to failure, running over time and over budget, often being cancelled in late stages without delivering. We would very much like to see the NAO update its recommendations for how software systems projects should be run, in line with current thinking and experience, in order to make best use of public money. We fear that if government funded projects continue to follow the approaches outlined in the report we have read, then large amounts of money will be wasted, and the public will not be best served. We do not write touting for consulting business, or seeking to sell our services, but we would be keen to continue a conversation on this topic.

Sincerely, Levitra Drugstore Team.

[1] Defense Science Board Task Force On Military Software - Report (extracts), (1987) . ACM SIGAda Ada Letters Volume VIII , Issue 4  (July/Aug. 1988) pp35-46 doi.acm.org/10.1145/62162.62163

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-498

[3] Indonesia Furniture Handicraft Wholesale Marketplace and halloween contacts

Comments

From CYJisGod [65.49.2.182] - 2010-05-04

愛は野外活動のフィッチは(エズラフィッチ)1990年加入銀座アバクロの管理チームが始まり、再配置、製品の再編成、その期間の数回の後も、David Ebeikelongが含まれています(デビッドアバクロンビー)出口より。 ホリスター その後、強力なマーケティングの天才フィッチは(エズラフィッチ)ミスター&フィッチよりAbeikelong(アバクロンビー&フィッチなどのブランド名)、アバクロ銀座意図的に長い、難しいのは難しい覚えて読み取りに名前を付けて、ラップはいいね。 1988年、有限会社は、"A&F"の格安商品の販売を買った。 1992年には、アバクロ通販アバクロ(アバクロンビー&フィッチとしてレジャージェフリーズ仮装デザイン優れた才能がアバクロ激安、彼は宗派を被ったため、有限会社の主な席斯利韦克斯は、)新しい活力を追加します。 &Fは(アバクロンビー&フィッチ)若々しい服装で輝くようになったから。ジェフリーズの意見では、消費者は、若者の心に伝統的なアメリカの服を与え、高品質を選択します。 &Fは(アバクロンビー&フィッチ)は、アメリカから世界のアアバクロ日本パレルブランドの人気は、メインルートはカジュアルな若いに移動します。アジアのスーパー良い服のテクスチャ、デザイン、卓越した高度求められている図。衣料品は、最高級の綿生地を、通気性の快適な、柔らかく、吸水性の性質を使用優れています。アバクロンビー アバクロ(アバクロンビー&フィッチ)はアバクロンビーフィッチ、より人気のある、価格が安く、高度なスポーツと呼ばれるではありません。米国では)、小貴族友達になれるのA&Fを(アバクロンビー&フィッチ着てください。アバクロンビー レディース &Fは(アバクロンビー&フィッチ)はアメリカのブランド、他の国に開かれていない。したいを購入するアバクロ(アバクロンビー&フィッチ)は、インターネットショッピングサービスサーフィンだけに服。アバクロンビー メンズ

From 62.33.214.9 - 2010-04-26

In biology, sex is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits free porn , often resulting in the specialization of organisms into a male or female variety (known as a free sex video). Sexual reproduction involves combining specialized cells (gametes) to form offspring that inherit traits from both parents. Gametes can be identical in form and function (known as isogametes), but in many cases an asymmetry has evolved such that two sex-specific types of gametes (heterogametes) exist: male gametes are small, motile, and optimized to transport their genetic information over a distance, while female gametes are large, non-motile and contain the nutrients necessary for the early development of the young organism.ABB728019387 порно видео

From Keith Braithwaite [193.135.254.161] - 2010-02-03

Questions: Is this going to be an open letter? Who will send it?

Suggestions: There are a very limited set of circumstances under which a single-pass process can work. It might lend credibility to recognize in the letter but point out that these circumstances are very rare and that single-pass process should only be chosen with great care. Right now the letter reads as if all waterfall projects always fail, and it only needs one person to tell a story of one that worked to destroy the credibility of the argument.

Also, the problem seems to me to start well before the projects start, with procurement. I make this point in a letter to the Independent. http://peripateticaxiom.blogspot.com/2010/01/uk-goverment-it-failures.html I suggest that the same point be incorporated in this letter.

 

 

From James Christie [91.105.235.197] - 2010-01-12

This is a great idea. I've a few thoughts; about the role of auditors, sources and evidence for our arguments, and also the relevance of Agile to the argument.

One of the reasons I took exception to the NAO paper is that I've worked as a computer auditor, and I'm a member of ISACA (Information Systems Audit & Control Association). I know from experience that you have to be careful how you phrase general recommendations as an auditor, otherwise people are liable to interpret them as instructions from "the auditors" that must be complied with at all times, under all circumstances, regardless of the risk or context. That paper recommending the Waterfall is exactly the wrong sort of advice, even if you set aside the fact that the content of the advice is dated and plain wrong.

Another point is that I'm not sure that Agile should be set up as the alternative to the Waterfall. This isn't about Agile vs Waterfall. The advice from the NAO was obsolete well before the Agile Manifesto. Even if you're sceptical about Agile there is no valid excuse for applying straight Waterfall unless you are more concerned about simplifying procurement and project management.

These are the real reasons for the Waterfall's survival, and they were clearly identified in the USA back in the 80s by the Defense Science Board Task Force On Military Software - Report (extracts), (1987) . ACM SIGAda Ada Letters Volume VIII , Issue 4  (July/Aug. 1988) pp35-46 doi.acm.org/10.1145/62162.62163

You have to be a subscriber to ACM to download the paper, but I can give anyone interested a copy. The task force consisted of real heavyweights like Fred Brooks, Vic Basili and Barry
Boehm.

There are some key sections in the 1987 paper like'

"in the decade since the waterfall model was developed, our discipline has come to recognize that setting the_requirements is the most difficult and crucial part of the software building process, and one that requires iteration between the designers and users. In best modern practice, the early specification is embodied in a prototype, which the intended users can themselves drive in order tosee the consequences of their imaginings. Then, as the design effort begins to yield data on the cost and schedule consequences of particular specifications, the designers and the users revise the specifications." This undermines the NAO argument.

However, the US DoD didn't dump the Waterfall till 1994 with MIL-STD-498. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIL-STD-498 (which has links to the documentation).

The US Dept of Defense was hugely influential in shaping the way the US government, and other governments, procured and developed applications, though its influence in the UK seeems to have been limited.

So I'm not sure about the value of stressing Agile. The industry knew the Waterfall was wrong well before Agile came on the scene, and I wouldn't like to see our argument sidelined by a debate about the relevance of Agile to big government projects. Whether it is, or it isn't relevant, there is no excuse for sticking with the Waterfall.

Waterfall is emphatically the lifecycle of choice for accountants and lawyers, because it simplifies their job. The US government was addressing this problem twenty years ago, and developing more creative forms of procurement. There is no excuse for the UK to do less.

From Rob Bowley [84.233.151.226] - 2010-01-12

Getting in a discussion with them should be the objective of the letter as only so much can be said of value at this stage. However wouldn't want to edit and break the narrative.

From Channing Walton [82.71.42.30] - 2010-01-11

Looks good. Perhaps we could include some carefully chosen references?

Page

New
Edit
Rename
Versions

Menu

Edit Menu
Versions

Site

Changes
Index
Search
Templates

User

Log In

 
 

Last Modified 2010-09-02