MIT Studies Software Development Processes

IsoQuantic writes "A new MIT study (pdf) looked at SW development processes around the world. One striking difference that the researchers found for U.S. developers is the relatively small use of specifications before development begins. I can already hear my EP-zealot colleague chuckling in the cube next to me. (sigh)"

Comments

No problemo

[nizo]

Outsourcing these jobs should fix all these problems.

They needed an MIT study to determine this?

[Hepkat]

MIT used to be so creative... what happened...

Re:They needed an MIT study to determine this?

[falzer]

Being creative isn't in the requirements.

Just one?

[signingis]

"... I can already hear my EP-zealot colleague chuckling in the cube next to me. (sigh)"

Shouldn't that be colleagues? :)

Re:Just one?

[brandonY]

Zealots don't have to actually DO the things they're zealous about. Work is for boring people.

Specifications?

[Rorschach1]

Hah! I'm halfway through my current project, as indicated by the constantly shrinking schedule, and I haven't even had to have ANY specifications or requirements to get to this point!

However, they HAVE managed to change the name of the project on me at least three times, and our last two-hour meeting was consumed by a lively debate on what to call a particular form, so it's not like these critical planning issues are being neglected.

Comment with a twist

[rylin]

1) Developers (developers, developers)
2) No specs
3) ???
4) Product!

and now that I've read the conclusion

[Steve_Jobs_HNIC]

well now that I've read the conclusion, the author seems to agree that Bender is from India. :)

page 20 conclusion
"It is important to remember, as well, that no Indian or Japanese company has yet to make any real global mark in widely-recognized software innovation, which has long been the province of U.S. and a few European software firms."

Re:Not for me. But we learned

[Allen Zadr]

That's why I was always fond of the pseudo-code spec. The lead, or they guy with the idea would check-out the appropriate pieces of code from the development stream, and fill in the pseudo-code with what they wanted done.

/** Expansion of Commentary to get point across:
* Use .. int funcSpec(char *example)
* -- NOTE: funcSpec() will have to be expanded to
* allow for me getting this point across.
*/

... This really worked well, until a bunch of new people merely thought they knew what the pseudo-code meant - it was obvious to us long timers.

EP?...EP?!!

[RicochetRita]

It's everyone knows it's XP for eXtreme Programming, as in snowboarding, Mt Dew, ESPN2... (but Not that Windows recent release).
So, crack open a cold one and check out my double nested for-loop ollie nose-grind, dude!!

And who says we're zealots?! ;-) RRR

Re:EP?...EP?!!

[curunir]

That's why I've never understood XP...when I'm pulling a nollie varial 360, I have problems even holding a laptop, let alone trying to write code. Granted, it's substantially easier whilst street luging, but the laptop introduces a a lot of wind resistance...and if you're not event going to hit 60, there really isn't much point to street luge.

Cute babes program?

[maroberts]

Damn, where have they been hiding after school then?

"New study from MIT" ?

[oneiros27]

Anyone else find it odd that the first page of this supposed 'new' study was marked June 2003? And the second page said it's version 3.1.

Which goes to show -- even if we had specifications for these things, we're just going to gloss over the details, and do whatever the hell we want, anyway. People don't read what's sitting in front of them, unless it's on some blog, it seems. If it were really important, they'd have made a TV show out of it.

[and those of you with moderator points get to vote if you think sarcasm is funny -- you can select 'troll' to vote no, 'funny' to vote yes. 'overrated' if you'd like to abstain, and 'insightful' if you read the first line, and are just trying to burn your moderator points]

Re:Worthless Study

[krumms]

The rule of 3 is (quick,cheap,quality) - pick any 2.

Maybe I just suck, but that sounds awfully like some fantastic brothel deal!

Quick, cheap quality! Pick any two! *waves arm over sea of girls*

Re:Not for me. But we learned

[stray]

What the customer wants and what he needs are different things too.. as illustrated here (no idea where it came originally from, if you have the proper credits, please post them)

The true professional plan:

[Mr. Piddle]

7. Add 20% (I'm almost there...)

8. Add 20% (Just another two weeks...)

9. Add 20% (Darn these last minute bugs...)

10. Add 20% (Testing takes time, you know...)

11. Add 20% (They want "web based" now...)

12....

Re:The true professional plan:

[Fizzog]

Well, as they say:

20% of the system takes 80% of the time.

The other 80% percent of the system takes the other 80% of the time...

Re:How Ironic

[Kevin Stevens]

The IS Guys then pick up these vague specs, do their best, but usually get caught in a cycle of rework as the users complain "you gave me what I asked for, but not what I need..."

Sounds alot like the discussions me and the compiler often have, though I tend to use more expletives....

Developer Veal Pens

[JamesOfTheDesert]

I looked through the report somewhat quickly, but I did not see any mention of the peculiar practice of sticking developers into small, noisy cubicles, with cheap, eye-straining fluorescent lighting, and then expecting them to foucs and produce top-quailty software.

I was walking around where I'm currently consulting, and I noticed that everybody had a set of headphones, and it just struck me as odd that software development should require specialized head gear.