Choosing the Appropriate Software Development Process Framework

Hi folks,

Here is another published article of mine on IASA's web site. I hope can keep it up.
This is the direct link and this is a link through IASA's content repository.

I also figured out that you can not post any comment on the IASA's forum unless you are a member. So please do it here whatever it is.

Overcoming Requirement Challenges with IID

Recently I've allocated some of my time to writing articles for IASA's web site. Here is one: Overcoming Requirement Challenges with IID.

Considerations of creating a successful SDP

Hello

I’ve recently joined a BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) provider company which gives me an excellent opportunity to put my knowledge of SOA and SaaS in action. So I guess that’s what is going to shape my future posts here.
Well, here is one.
SDPs (Service Delivery Platforms) are playing almost the same role for delivering Software as a Service (SaaS) as Operating Systems do in desktop applications’ development and deployment. Rather than requiring each application to create the full stack of subsystems needed for it to run, an operating system provides an infrastructure through which general purpose services are reused. The following picture depicts the natural and ongoing process of extraction and generalization of functionality from application into frameworks and from there into the core platform components which leads to the improvement of economies of scale.

Figure 1: Borrowed from Microsoft's Architecture Journal

There would be the same concept in various levels offered by SDPs. There are different factors that can be used to specify the level of success of an SDP. What I mean by the Level of Success is SDP’s effectiveness and scalability, and the ability to provide highly reusable services – for example through an SDK - that will make the implementation and maintenance of SaaS-delivered applications less intensive.
Observation of existing SDP offerings seems to indicate that two most important factors are:

• Services breadth: the completeness of the platform; in other word, the support for different stage of SaaS-delivered application life cycle (following picture)
• Services depth: the degree of sophistication of the services it provides.
  

Figure 2: Borrowed from Microsoft's Architecture Journal

Hence there are two aspects that SDP implementers (mostly traditional hosters) and ISVs (Independent Software Vendors) who develop and deploy the service should take under consideration:

• Different Application Archetypes; Business applications can be classified in different archetypes based on their characteristics and requirements. Two examples of these archetypes are OLAP and OLTP. Each of these application families has its own constraints and characteristics. For example OLTP will optimize for low latency, whereas latency for OLAP systems is not as important. The infrastructure to implement and support each is significantly different.
  The point is that SDP’s effectiveness is pretty much dependent on the archetype served. The more knowledge of the application an SDP has, the greater its ability to increase the efficiency of running and operating it, and the greater the degree of sharing.
• Patterns and Frameworks used in design and development; no matter what archetype an application is bound to, it can follow a pattern in design or development or it can use a framework to implement some of its services. An example of common, standard and widely adopted application infrastructure framework is Microsoft’s Enterprise Library.
  I would say a valuable SDP provides an SDK including documentation, samples and even some basic tools for ISVs enabling them to develop their software using known patterns and frameworks. This way the SDP has a much increased ability to automate common procedures and offer more advanced operational management capabilities. Thus, finer-grain tuning, customization and troubleshooting will be available.
  Additionally, hosters can offer a higher range of differentiated services with different monetization schemes. For instance, the hoster knows that all applications will log run-time exceptions. So basic run-time exception logging can be offered in the basic hosting package, and advanced logging, notification and escalation could become a premium offering. Notice that with this approach the ISV application doesn’t change, because all the logic resides on the SDP side.
  

Figure 3: Borrowed from Microsoft's Architecture Journal

MSA

You might've heard of MSA (Master of Science in Analytics) by now.
It’s an intensive 10-month professional graduate degree program designed by Institute for Advanced Analytics at North Carolina State University that focuses exclusively on the tools, methods, and applications of analytics and is designed to educate professionals with sophisticated technical skills necessary to navigate and analyze the masses of data that organizations are collecting.
The objectives of the program are:

• provide students wit an understanding of basic concept and methodologies in the analysis of massive data sets
• Show how these methods are applied to a variety of complex problems facing organizations, using real-world problems
• Give students a sense of the broader context, such as security, privacy and ethical issues in the use of personal and confidential data

What makes this program unique is its emphasis on real-world, business-focused analytics. Comparing this program with other business related programs you'll realize that its aim is to provide the talent capable of leveraging world-class business intelligence systems. For example typical MBA degrees include limited instruction in statistics or advanced degrees in Data Mining don’t address critical and contextual issues such as data quality and integration, privacy, security and enterprise-wide decision making.
This endorses what the course designers believed that “Competing on analytics in corporations, government agencies and educational institutions is becoming a must”.

What has mostly caught my attention (and the reason I made this post) was that this program is about how to apply mathematic to get what you are looking for. Those who, like me, have studied applied mathematics and liked it and dealt with pure-math professors know what I mean.

If you like to participate and be one of the first graduates of this program, you better hurry. For more information you can take a look at the program’s website at NCSU.

What your project success is driven by?

What would be your answer to the above question? Use-Case driven, Test-Driven, Scenario-Driven, or perhaps Feature-Driven.
People often talk about these drivers as the only forces steering projects and shaping project plans. But in fact these mechanisms are used for defining and managing projects’ scopes. I believe without Iterative and Incremental Development (IID) approach you won’t have the means to implement a practical solution that users and stakeholders can take advantage of. My main reason is latent in the definition of Stakeholder and Stakeholders’ role in the success of a project.Stakeholder in “Use Case Modeling” book of Kurt Bittner and Ian Spence is defined as an individual who is materially affected by the outcome of the system or project(s) producing the system. Hence, one could draw the conclusion that the best impetus for developing a system is its stakeholders’ feedback and their acceptance of the solution.They are the primary source of requirements, constraints, and risks for the project. They supply the funding and audience for the project and will make the decision whether the project is worthwhile.In my opinion, IID is the right approach to get stakeholders involved. You need to get their approval at the end of each iteration to be able to move to the next one. That empowers you to revise your plan and improve your development process.You can also embrace change requests – which the risks they impose increase as you get closer to the end of the project - from the outset of the project.
Utilizing IID you can suppress “Change Prevention Process” anti-pattern the goal of which is to prevent new requirement being added to the project or existing requirement expanded upon. Another word, sticking to the original plan and requirements and using it as an excuse to stop users from changing them. I would say that's a common issue in all projects avoiding IID. Of course, in order to avoid falling into "Never Ending Change Requests" pitfall all fundamental changes need to be detected and addressed before architecture is solidified.

To summarize, your project has to be Stakeholder Driven.

The lawyers who say NO!

A while ago I was reading an article at Dr.Dobb’s Journal from Scott Ambler (see his profile at IBM) here. I suggest you guys to read it as well if you haven’t yet.

It actually points out a hidden impediment which is an obstacle to many of software development teams that try to exercise IID (Iterative and Incremental Development); the lawyers who say NO!
Before I continue I must remind you that what you read here is my personal opinion and you might find it incorrect or disagree with. Well, that’s what the comments are for. I believe as a reader, it’s your obligation to share your opinion with the writer and other fellow readers.

“Lawyers who say NO!” is a metaphor for those people who approve the project’s funding which can be the customer itself, those who audit project’s compliance with what is planed business-wise, and those real lawyers who make the contract with customers. The message this article is trying to send is no matter how much you, as a software specialist, try to fix your process and development methods in order to mitigate the risks and achieve the goals, there will be non-technical obstacles that can make your efforts worthless. Unless everybody involved in the project has the same understanding of what has to be done and how (of course with their own point of view and different levels of details).

Customers and project investors need to understand the fact that that a close cooperation with the development team is the key role they can play in the success of a project and eventually getting a better ROI from the product.
Moreover, having a right governance process with which development methodology can be aligned and can resolve the potential clashes between technical and business views is crucial. Because business success partially rests on successful delivery of software products, business executives need to understand how their investments in information technology and software development are paying off. They demand visibility and accountability. That's where the governance shows up. I say partially because user experience is more than a good looking and bug-free software application.

So as you can see delivering a successful project requires a right collaboration process in place. Note that this is in addition to having a suitable Development Methodology and Governance Process.

Tightly coupling .NET and Java components utilizing IIOP.NET

Loosely coupled sort of integrations such as SOA are common since business processes are becoming more dynamic and object-based development platforms are expanding. But I don’t think the era of tightly coupled systems is over yet for reasons such as lower integration cost or having stateful distributed objects (rare but valid requirement).

The objective of this post isn't to debate the pros and cons of such integration methods, but to introduce a .NET library using which .NET components can expose interfaces compliant with CORBA's IDL and thus, simply put, be integrated with any other component that understands IDL (e.g.: Java components via RMI-IIOP).
I'm assuming you're not familiar with CORBA and hence I'll start with a brief introduction to ORB and CORBA.

The following picture depicts the basic concept behind an ORB. The general purpose of an ORB is to provide communication means between different components of a software application. The component providing a service is represented by an object which encapsulates the code.
A client can request service from an object by sending a request through an ORB.

CORBA is OMG’s vendor-independent architecture that defines true interoperability by specifying how ORBs from different vendors can communicate.
Following figure shows some of the finer grained details from the CORBA model.
The shaded section between the application and the ORB infrastructure is the only part that is standardized by CORBA; semantics. CORBA doesn't standardize the underlying mechanisms though. Consequently the selected underlying mechanisms may not be compatible across different vendors.
To resolve this issue an additional standard called Internet Inter ORB Protocol (IIOP) has been defined to specify how different ORB mechanisms can interoperate transparently.

IIOP .NET is a .NET Remoting channel based on IIOP's conventions. IIOP .NET acts as an ORB and converts .NET’s CTS to CORBA’s types and vice versa making .NET objects accessible to Java components that deliver CORBA capabilities via RMI-IIOP (RMI over IIOP).

There have been other projects around this idea. But this one (IIOP.NET) seems to be the most stable one.
To see a complete example, please refer to the following URL:
http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/dist_object_system.asp

I'm really keen to know if there is anyone who has hands-on experience with IIOP .NET. What issues did you face and how did you resolve them?