下载文档原格式
Project Plan/Project CharterProject NumberASSIGN A NUMBER.Project Or Sub-Project NameApplications Delivery MethodologyBackgroundNAME OF CLIENT must dramatically improve its ability to delivery business applications in a timely, cost-effective, flexible and quality manner. Specific program goals include achievement of at least an order of magnitude productivity improvement.ScopeTwelve functional objectives have been identified for project completion:1. Provide identifiable and measurable improvements to the applicationsdelivery process. Specific measures of improvement will be identified as partof concept validation.2. Central repository of delivery routes customized to capture CLIENT’S bestpractices implemented.3. Processes in place to support project managers in the use of the uniform andproven best practices to generate project plans.4. Support of the enterprise CMM/SEI objectives.5. Time, cost and quality metrics and effort estimation models implemented.6. Consistent use of the methodology for applications delivery.7. Continuous process improvement infrastructure defined and implemented.8. Risk driven project management implemented.9. Process library delivery routes controlled from the process librarianworkstation.10. Project management automated and controlled from the project manager’sworkstation.11. Knowledge transfer to CLIENT completed.12. Sustaining organization defined and implemented.Concept DefinitionThe concept is that a methodology will dramatically improve CLIENT’s ability to deliver business applications in a timely, cost-effective, flexible, and quality manner. This concept will be achieved through:• A proactively managed applications delivery environment;•Process, technology, organization, people, and leadership factors all planned and integrated;• A very high degree of reuse through employment and enforcement of NAME OF METHODOLOGY TOOL, standards, specifications, and reusable frameworks and components designed for flexibility; and•An ongoing preventive maintenance program.Areas of ImpactThe IS project manager and teams will be the primary areas impacted by this project. During the deployment (concept validation, full-scale development, and implementation) phases, the methodology project will fund for activities relating to deployment.•Pathfinder projects will provide resources for training, to support customization of the process tool product, participate in project meetings, and support assessments.Specific resource requirements for each project will be determined at project start-up.•Limited workstation services support will be required to support tool implementation.RisksRisk Area Assessment Impact Mitigation Leadership,Support and Buy-In HighProject requires support byIS Department Heads for anenterprise infrastructuresolution.Dedicated changemanagement effort.Staffing Medium Success of project dependson ability to staff withcredible experience in thetechnical areas.Use of 3rd party vendors tobuild internal expertise;staffing assessment at eachproject review.Cost Medium We developed an earlyestimate of 98 and 99 costs.However, we do not yet havea full understanding ofsustained costs.Develop a total life cycle costestimate during conceptvalidation as part of themilestone decision.Schedule Medium Current industry practicesindicate 18-36 months wererequired to institute amethodology.Introduction of methodologyinto CLIENT based on “pull”from applications deliveryareas.Scope Low Successful completion ofconcept validation will resultin a client-wideimplementation.-Quality Unknown This risk factor will dependon the results of conceptvalidation.Continue to understand ISdepartmental requirements forrepeatable processes andrigor.Assumptions1. The methodology will be piloted using pathfinder projects that represent typicalCLIENT applications delivery efforts.2. Methodology project members will participate in the pathfinder projects to gainknowledge of the effectiveness of the methodology for enterprise use.3. The initial pathfinder projects will use NAME/DESCRIPTION of approach forimplementation and deployment.4. The deployment will run through the end of YEAR.5. LIST ANY OTHER ASSUMPTIONS HERE.Constraints1. Concept validation will run through MONTH, YEAR and is budgeted for $AMOUNT.2. YEAR budget is $AMOUNT.3. Late selection of concept validation pathfinder projects may constrain the amount ofquantitative information to support the full-scale development milestone decision.Implementation ApproachThe implementation will occur from WHEN through WHEN with the following phase points currently planned:1. Concept validation through MONTH/YEAR at a cost of $AMOUNT. During this phase,the methodology will be implemented on NUMBER OF projects WHERE. Overall implementation planning will also be completed during this phase.2. DESCRIBE FIRST FULL-SCALE DEPLOYMENT PHASE AND TIMEFRAME.3. DESCRIBE SECOND FULL-SCALE DEPLOYMENT PHASE AND TIMEFRAME.4. Implementation through the end of YEAR. Implementation on additional projects,completions of knowledge transfer to CLIENT, and activation of the sustaining organization.The project RoadMap will describe the overall project implementation plan, including work packages and deliverables for each year. The RoadMap also defines the overall project completion goals and the specific objectives set for each year of the implementation. Specific implementation project plans for each approved phase will be developed at the milestone decision points.Functional RequirementsThe following table reflects the requirements this project will solve by phase. A specific project plan will be developed at the start of each phase and will provide the specific work packages required to satisfy the requirements.Concept Validation - YEAR Full Scale Deployment - YEAR Implementation - YEAR1. CLIENT proof of conceptpathfinder projectsidentified and initiated. 2. Pathfinder project lessonslearned gathered andanalyzed.3. Initial CLIENT pathfinderproject staff trained inNAME OFMETHODOLOGY TOOLmethods.4. Training improvementsidentified for methods andtool.5. Initial technicalinfrastructure defined anddeployed.6. Pathfinder project teams 1. Forty percent of CLIENT ITSolutions Delivery stafftrained.2. Technical infrastructurerefined.3. Training programestablished.4. Project estimating &tracking improved.5. Interaction withimplementation of new toolset managed.6. Projects planned &managed jointly bybusiness & IT projectmanagers.7. CLIENT metrics definitions1. TBD percent of CLIENT ITSolutions Delivery stafftrained.2. One hundred percent oftraining responsibilityassumed by CLIENT.3. Integration with externalinitiatives completed.4. Technical infrastructurerefined.5. CLIENT best practices fromlessons learnedincorporated intomethodology.6. Repository of best practices-reusable templates,deliverables, and methodsestablished.Concept Validation - YEAR Full Scale Deployment - YEAR Implementation - YEARavailable to seed newprojects.7. Roadmap approachapproved by SteeringCommittee.8. Process librarymanagement andenhancementinfrastructure establishedfor pathfinder routes.9. Process improvementmetrics for time, cost, andquality established for CVand identified for FSD &Implementation.10. Policies, standards, andcompliance criteriaidentified for methodologyinstitutionalization.11. FSD phase defined andplanned.incorporated in NAME OFMETHODOLOGY TOOL8. Continuous processimprovement processestablished.9. Standardized processesand methods defined withlimited use.10. Sixty percent of classroomtraining responsibilityassumed by CLIENT.7. Application productivityincreased.8. System quality improved by(Percentage TBD)9. Application delivery cycletime reduced.Key People•Program Sponsor: NAME, TITLE•Methodology Project Sponsor: NAME•Program Manager: NAME•Methodology Project Lead: NAME ApprovedNAME, Program Manager Date。
项目运营方案英文1. IntroductionThe project operation plan outlines the strategies and activities required to successfully manage and operate a project. This plan focuses on the key areas of project operations, including project initiation, planning, execution, monitoring, and closure. The plan also includes the roles and responsibilities of each team member, as well as the tools and resources required for smooth project operations. The plan aims to ensure the project is completed within the allocated budget, schedule, and scope while meeting the desired objectives and deliverables.2. Project InitiationThe project initiation phase is the first step in project operations. During this phase, the project team is selected, and the project objectives, deliverables, and scope are defined. The project manager is responsible for creating a project charter that outlines these key details. The project charter serves as a roadmap and communication tool for the entire team, ensuring everyone is aligned with the project goals and objectives.3. Project PlanningThe project planning phase involves creating a detailed plan that outlines the specific tasks, timelines, and resources required to complete the project. The project manager works closely with the team to identify all the project activities, dependencies, and deliverables. This information is then organized into a project schedule, which includes start and end dates for each task, as well as milestone dates for key deliverables. The project budget is also developed during this phase, detailing the estimated costs for personnel, materials, and equipment.4. Project ExecutionThe project execution phase involves the actual implementation of the project plan. The project manager is responsible for monitoring the progress of the project, ensuring that tasks are being completed on time and within budget. Regular project meetings are held, where the team members report on their progress and discuss any issues or concerns. The project manager is also responsible for managing any changes to the project scope and ensuring that they are properly documented and communicated to the team.5. Project MonitoringThe project monitoring phase involves regularly reviewing the project progress and performance to ensure that it is on track. Key performance indicators (KPIs) are established, and regular progress reports are generated to track the project's performance against these KPIs. The project manager is responsible for analyzing these reports and identifying any areas where corrective action is required. Regular communication with the team andstakeholders is essential during this phase to ensure everyone is aware of the project's progress and any potential risks or issues.6. Project ClosureThe project closure phase involves finalizing and delivering the project deliverables to the stakeholders. This phase also includes conducting a project post-mortem or lessons learned session to evaluate the project's success and identify areas for improvement in future projects. The project manager is responsible for completing all necessary documentation, including project reports, financial statements, and final project evaluation. The project closure phase also involves celebrating the project's success and acknowledging the efforts of the project team.7. Roles and ResponsibilitiesThe success of a project largely depends on the clear definition of roles and responsibilities. The project manager is responsible for overall project coordination, including planning, execution, monitoring, and closure. The project team members are responsible for completing specific tasks as assigned by the project manager. Other key roles may include a project sponsor, who provides support and resources for the project, and stakeholders, who have an interest in the project outcomes and may be impacted by its results.8. Tools and ResourcesTo ensure the smooth operation of the project, appropriate tools and resources must be available. These may include project management software to track tasks and schedules, communication tools for team collaboration, and financial management tools for budget tracking. The project team must also have access to the necessary resources, such as personnel, technology, and equipment, to complete their assigned tasks.In conclusion, a well-defined project operation plan is crucial for the successful completion of a project. The plan outlines the strategies, activities, roles, and responsibilities required to manage and operate the project from initiation to closure. By following this plan, the project team can ensure that the project is completed within the allocated resources and meets the desired objectives and deliverables.。
项目案例英文Project Case Study: How to Improve Team Collaboration and Communication。
Introduction。
In today's fast-paced business environment, effective team collaboration and communication are essential for the success of any project. In this case study, we will explore a real-life project and analyze the strategies and tools that were used to improve team collaboration and communication. By understanding the challenges faced and the solutions implemented, we can gain valuable insights into how to enhance teamwork and communication within our own projects.Case Background。
The project in question was a marketing campaign for a new product launch. The team consisted of members from various departments, including marketing, sales, design, and product development. The project timeline was tight, and the team faced challenges in coordinating tasks, sharing information, and staying aligned on the project goals.Challenges Faced。
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECT IN THE ERONGO REGIONINTRODUCTION:The introduction of the ICZM project in the Erongo Region has been one of the Namibian Governments efforts to ensure wise utilization of natural resources of the coastal zone by Namibians and visitors. This was because the Government of Namibia realized the fragile conditions of the coastal zone and the need to preserve it from destruction.However, what the Government didn’t rea lize is, first the magnitude of the work involved in the actual implementation of the project, and the success thereof; secondly, the commitment by the Ministry of Regional Local Government and Housing to assign some of the staff at Regional level to participate in the project on adhoc basis, was a mere oversight on the Government site. For reason that, the newly established Regional Councils are still in the process to find their feet (i.e. shortage of staff), and therefore could hardly meet the required expectation.Despite the limitations encountered, the Erongo Regional Council welcomed the implementation of the project with open arms. Furthermore, the Central Namib is the most accessible portion of the Namibian coastline with established roads rail links and other infrastructure. The coastal portion of the Erongo region comprised the National West Coast Recreation Area and the Municipalities of Walvis Bay, Swakopmund, Henties Bay and the Peri-urban area of Wlotzkasbaken. Interspersed along the 250-kilometre stretch of beach are tourism camps run by Namibia Wildlife Resorts and the Cape Cross Seal Reserve managed as from June 2000 by the Directorate of Resource Management. An increase in tourism activities especially those with significant environmental impact together with mining, aquaculture and increase industrial and human population growth has led to a concern for the continued environmental integrity of the region. Attempts were made in the past to develop a plan that was called “Guidelines for the Development of the Central Namib”. All the relevant stakeholders were invited to give their input during the workshops and in the production of the final report in 1987.This was the first attempt at getting diverse disciplines together to think in an integrated fashion. However, the MET believe that it was a little premature as many line Ministries, local authorities and other stakeholders were not yet prepared to share. It however made the implementation of the ICZMP more acceptable when it was firstintroduced the years later. Indeed the first Logical Framework Analysis workshops held during the project preparation phase in Walvis Bay in 1995, the rift between the various stakeholders became obvious and the need for the project more apparent.This discussion will focus on the lessons learned from the two major stakeholders, the Erongo Regional Council and the Ministry of Environment and Tourism.Lessons Learned from the Erongo Regional Council:1.Environmental protection in Namibia mainly focussed onanimal protection and fishing of protected species, thus, coastalzone management was a new phenomenon by the majority ofNamibians since the coastal activities were mainly associatedwith tourist and the non-white Namibians. However, with theimplementation of the ICZM project in Erongo Region, it becameclear to Regional Council (predominantly black) that a needexist to protect and control activities on the coast frompermanent damage.2.That there is an urgent need to re-direct and council some sportactivities already in place between Walvis Bay andSwakopmund and between Swakopmund and Henties Bay.Also to carefully scrutinize applications for sport relatedactivities on the coast.3.It is important that he present measures to control themovement of tourist vehicles along the coast especially betweenWalvis Bay and Swakopmund be kept in check from destruction.Also monitoring must be increased so that the offenders can bebrought to book.4.Research has shown that the law is not on the side of thoseinstitutions set up by Government to protect environment – as aresult, officials assigned to carry out protection cannotapprehend culprits. Thus, Government’s commitment does notend at the signing of agreements, but also to commit itself to bespeedy implementation of decentralization process to theregions. This process will certainly enable regions to embarkupon introducing laws /by laws to punish the culprits.5.Research has also shown, the injustice done by the colonialGovernment in data collection in Namibia –thus, the need isthere for the Government of the day to update statistics on theneed of housing, population, etc for proper record keeping. Alsoenvironmental studies need to be included in school curriculumto stress the importance of the subject awareness at a veryyoung age.6.Tourism being one of the major earners of foreign exchange, itshigh times that environmental protection and control is realized.The creation of a Environmental Protection Unit composed of 2 –4 specialized persons will certainly be needed to keep the environmental matter in check at the West Coast of Erongo Region.Lessons Learned from the Ministry of Environment and Tourism:Publication and Preparation of Coastal Profile:This was one of the most beneficial outcomes of the project as it forced all stakeholders to update the position of activities in the region. Meetings were held and technical committees formed to put the chapters of the profile together. The workshops held in this regard led to the creation of an integrated approach to management of resources. The document itself has and is becoming a very useful tool for decision-makers both in central government and locally. In some respects it also doubles as a state of the environment report.Inter-Sectoral Information Sources Linked:The installation of computers and Internet connections in the two main offices and the creation of a “homepage” have done much to fast track key stakeholders into the information age. With the improvement of communicat ion skills through the project’s capacity building module links between various stakeholders has been much improved.Email in particular has proved to be an excellent, economically affordable tool to communicate over long distances. What is needed is tra ining in updating the information on the “homepage”. All organizations are dynamic and information can become outdated very quickly.Co-ordination related to CZM improved:Without co-ordination fragmentation occurs. Co-ordination existed with an outside project leader who the stakeholders could trust. As soon as the project leader leaves the system only partially works with those who have established a working relationship. I can say that good co-operation exists with the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources however the same does not fit easily with all Ministries. The situation is still vastly improved from before the project started. Government is still perceived to be a top down institution with little or no feed from our head offices in Windhoek on may issues. Local lines Ministries are often not consulted on decisions made in Windhoek, which normally involves hidden agendas and the realm of bio politics.The Governor of our region tries to bring government stakeholders andpolitical councillors together monthly to discuss issues pertaining to the region. Political issues once again over-rule environmentalconsiderations often.A lot more work is needed in this area to ensure ongoing teamwork among all stakeholders. The people working on the ground all seem willing enough however they become distrustful if any one institution take the lead. It is becoming more acceptable for the Government to call on people to gather for a meeting on any subject, however then people fear a political decision.Overall co-ordination related to CZM has been improved, as thedecentralization process gradually becomes acceptable.Policy and Legislation reviewed and EIA produced:This part of the project was very useful and has set forth many changes for the better. Unfortunately those people responsible for assisting in environmental protection (the magistrates in courts) did not attend and seemed to show little interest or they had no time.The Environmental Management Plan produced for the dune area between Swakopmund and Walvis Bay was an excellent baseline study on which to build future plans on. Most of the guidelines produced are being followed, and decisions are being made on a consultative basis generally, although on some occasions people fail to get all the authorities to approve their ventures and events emerge which do not have the blessing of all the stakeholders. This often turns out to be a hidden agenda issue, which involves the possibility of corruption in some areas.Enforcement System Reviewed and Enhanced:This output together with the awareness output is supposed to improve environmental behaviour in the region. It is a debatable matter and I would like to say that things have improved. The types of transgressions we are dealing with on the coast have also changed and our enforcement capabilities need to be dynamic. What is really needed is the support of the prosecutors, magistrates and the justice system. The legislation needs to be updated and the fines increased, it is being worked on.Overall this output was valuable and having a Danish counterpart to compare notes was very productive.Existing W aste Disposal Evaluated:The existing systems are not acceptable and Walvis Bay is in the process of upgrading their system. An improvement is also necessary at our waste disposal sites. The recommendations in the report need to be followed.Public Awareness on CZM improved:Certainly this has been a successful exercise. The public has become more aware of the activities related to the protection of sensitive areas and the environmental aspects of their activities.This output is still in the process of being completed. The problem with this output is that no consultation regarding who should do the information signs was done with local counterparts. The result was that an incompetent person was chosen to do the work and it was paid for before we could see the results. The signs took two years to have put up because they had to be sent back for mistakes that any word processor should have picked up. The mistakes did not end here as the same company also got posters printed with mistakes.Stakeholders trained in areas related to CZM:The capacity of the people in our office has most certainly been improved as a result of the training sponsored by the project. The computer literacy is still being taught (MS Word and MS Excel).One of our staff members of the MET was sent on a study tour to Cape Town and Denmark to broaden the outlook on environmental management. Generally the staff have obtained a broader environmental outlook through the training received.Possibilities for sustainable financing:Levies were suggested however because of the lack of decentralization nothing has been achieved. Walvis Bay may be able, through the Municipality and the A21 Project to introduce a “By-law” to obtain revenue from the quad bikes that are busy churning up the environment.Possible future DANCED support suggested:Due to slow pace of decentralisation the project has come to an unfortunate end and future DANCED money will be channelled into Walvis Bay and the A21 project.Fortunately with the extension of the project time other coastal regions have been brought in thus strengthening the political resolve.CONCLUSION:It is time that when the project was first introduced, the terminology was new to us, but as time went on, the need for the project became much clearer. Research has also shown that different departments were operating separately on environmental protection, which is not a bad idea, but there is a need for co-ordination.The inclusion of the three regions namely, the Kunene, Hardap and Karas and the subsequent birth of the National Coastal Zone Management Committee is one of the achievement by the ICZM aimed at the protection of environmental destruction i.e. protection of:▪Bird breeding areas especially the Damara Turn and Flamingo’s▪Legium fields especially between Swakopmund and Henties Bay▪Sand dunes especially the damage caused by quake bikes▪Off track driving on the beach with the 4x4 vehicles. EtcThe staff of the two main stakeholder institutions could not be relieved of their normal duties, which created a serious time constraint to the project. In future this aspect must be resolved from the start. Another weakness was the poor people involvement.Generally it was a good time to implement the project and people are now more willing than ever to accept an integrated approach to CZM. People involvement in the processes has improved and the willingness and enthusiasm has been exceptional.。
Lessons Learned from Tool Adoption1Karl E. WiegersProcess ImpactSoftware engineers talk a lot about using tools to help them perform development, project management, and quality tasks. They evaluate quite a few tools and buy a fair number, but they seem to use few tools in their daily work. Selecting and installing a software tool is the easy part. It is much harder to make effective tool usage an integral part of your group’s software engineering practices.Tool adoption initiatives often stumble because people don’t fully appreciate the technical, managerial, and cultural factors that influence success. Here are eight lessons I’ve learned from groups attempting to use a variety of software development tools. Some of the lessons apply to any kind of tool adoption; others are most pertinent to computer-aided software engineering (CASE) tools for systems analysis and design. Keep these lessons in mind to increase the chance that your next tool investment will yield the desired payback.General Lessons for Tool AdoptionMost tools that are available to the contemporary software developer or project manager belong to one of these categories:•Project management tools: These help your team estimate, plan, and track schedules, resources, effort, and costs.•Analysis and design tools: These help you document, analyze, and manage requirements or create design models.•Coding tools: These include code generators and reformatters and code analysis and reverse engineering tools.•Quality improvement tools: These include test planning and execution tools, and static and run-time code analyzers.•Configuration management tools: These let you track changes and defects, control access to files, and build your product from its components.Most tools save time and reduce errors by automating a part of your development or management process. Tools that let you iterate on designs or accurately repeat tests can lead to higher quality and projects that are more successful. Defect-tracking tools ensure that problem reports do not get lost, and source control tools prevent one programmer’s changes from obliterating another’s. However, the first lesson to keep in mind is:1 This paper was originally published in Software Development, October 1999. It is reprinted (with modifications) with permission from Software Development magazine.A tool is not a process.For example, development groups sometimes believe that because they are using a tool to track defect reports, they have a defect-tracking process. In reality, a tool merely supports a process. The process defines the steps that you must perform to carry out some activity correctly. Team members must share a common understanding the steps and the roles and responsibilities of the process participants.I once implemented a new change control system in a web development group. First, I wrote a change control process, which the team members reviewed and accepted. We then beta-tested the new process using paper forms for a few weeks while I selected a commercial issue-tracking tool. Feedback from the beta helped us improve the process, and then I configured the tool to support the new process.Introducing tools into a group can be disruptive. New ways of working demand new ways of thinking, and most people aren’t eager to be forced out of their comfort zones. To succeed, the team members must agree on some conventions for using new methods and tools. This transformation requires both culture and technical changes. This brings me to lesson two: Expect the group to pass through a sequence of forming, storming,norming, and performing when it adopts new tools.Forming, storming, norming, and performing describe the stages through which a new team progresses. These terms also characterize a software group trying to apply new approaches. During forming, the team selects a tool. During storming, team members debate how to use the tool, whether or not it is a good investment, and how to interpret the rules embodied in the tool or in its underlying methods. If you stop at storming, your team will not evolve to an improved future state that includes the tool. Storming is part of the learning curve, the cost of investing in new approaches that promise to yield long-term benefits.Guide your team through the storming stage, relying on the team members’professionalism and willingness to compromise. It should then enter a norming stage, where the team agrees on how to apply the tool. Some individuals won’t always get their way but everyone must be a bit flexible to support the common good of improved team performance. The ultimate goal is performing, at which point the team achieves better results with the new tool than without it.Any time someone is asked to change the way he or she works, you can expect to hear the question, “What’s in it for me?” This is a normal human reaction; no one wants to go through an idle change exercise just because someone else had a cool idea. Sometimes, though, the change doesn’t offer an immediate, obvious benefit for everyone. The lesson here is:Ask “What’s in it for us?” not “What’s in it for me?”Anyone attempting to introduce new software development methods or tools should be able to articulate the overall expected benefits to the project team, the organization, and the customers. For example, developers might not see the need to use code analyzer tools. After all, it might take them longer to complete their work if they have to run the code through a tool and fix any bugs it finds. However, explaining that it costs several times more to fix defects when the system testers find them than to use the tools during coding is a compelling argument. Quality practices that take one individual more time than his or her current work methods usually have a high return on investment downstream. This benefit might not be obvious to those who feel someone is making their jobs harder.Tools are sometimes hyped as silver bullets for increasing productivity. Some tools do provide a substantial productivity benefit, as with automated testing tools that can run regression tests far faster and more accurately than a human tester can. However, the benefits from most tools come from improving the quality of the delivered product. Productivity gains come over the long term, as tools help you prevent defects and find existing bugs early and efficiently. Improved initial quality reduces late-stage, defect-repair costs. Any action that reduces rework frees up developer time to create new products, rather than rehabilitating flawed ones. Keep lesson four in mind as you explore increased software development automation:Tools affect quality directly, productivity indirectly.I have heard development managers balk at acquiring development tools because they are expensive. “I can’t afford a copy of Tool X for every team member at $2,000 per license,” they protest. However, remember lesson five:Weigh the price of the tool against the costs of not using it.A good example here comes from requirements management tools. Licensing a powerful requirements management tool for a team of 10 software and quality engineers might cost $15,000. However, you don’t have to go very far wrong on the project’s requirements to waste $15,000 implementing unnecessary functionality or re-implementing poorly understood and ill-communicated requirements. You cannot predict exactly how many errors such tools can help you avoid. Nonetheless, your tool acquisition decisions should consider the potential costs of not using a tool, in addition to the size of the check you’ll have to write for it.Lessons from CASE Tool AdoptionI worked with several small software development groups that used a number of CASE tools over several years (see Creating a Software Engineering Culture, Dorset House, 1996). CASE tools let you draw models of requirements and designs according to a variety of standard modeling notations and languages. Commonly used models include data flow, entity-relationship, state-transition, class, sequence, and interaction diagrams. When they first came onto the scene in the 1980s, vendors claimed fabulous benefits from CASE tools. But some of the groups I have seen use CASE tools were simply documenting completed systems. This is useful, but it doesn’t help you improve the software you build, only to understand software you’ve already built. Lesson six is:Use CASE tools to design, not just to document.Use the tool’s built-in methodology rules to validate diagrams and detect errors that are difficult for people to find. Your team should use the tools to iterate on design models before they start cutting code, because developers will never conceive the best design on their first attempt. Iterating on requirements and designs, rather than on code, is one way to improve quality and reduce product cycle times.Our team had some energetic meetings in which we haggled over exactly what rules we should follow for various design models. Resolving these issues was critical to successfully implementing CASE in our group. We finally agreed on some conventions we could all live with. Lesson seven from our experience is:Align the team on the spirit of the method and the tool, not on “TheRules.”Even if the developers do a great job on design, programs rarely match their designs exactly. You need to decide how to reconcile inconsistencies between design models and delivered software. If you want the CASE models to provide long-term benefits to the project, heed lesson eight:Keep the information in the tool alive.Ideally, you will update the models to match the reality of the system as it was built, and you’ll keep the models current as you modify the system. This approach demands considerable effort and discipline. If the system evolves while the models remain static, inconsistencies between code and designs can cause confusion, wasted time, and errors during maintenance. If you decide not to update the design models, either discard them once they have served their purpose, or clearly identify them as representing the initial design, not the current software implementation.Some CASE tools permit round-trip engineering—generating code from a design and regenerating design models automatically from source code. This approach guarantees the correctness of the as-built design documentation. You can repeat the model generation any time code changes are made to create a new set of accurate models.Fitting Tools into Your CultureA cultural transformation takes place as a team moves from manual methods to the discipline of using structured processes and tools. Facilitate this change by:•Articulating why you selected the tools•Acquiring management commitment•Selecting appropriate tools for your organization’s culture and objectives•Training your team•Setting realistic expectations of the new technology’s future benefits.Some developers will balk at using new tools, maintaining that they can do better work with their current approach. For example, programmers who use interactive debuggers to perform unit testing (an inefficient process) may resist using test coverage tools. Some skeptics can be swayed when they see their teammates getting better results with the new tools, while others will never accept that there’s a better way. Be alert for recalcitrant team members who sabotage the improvement effort by “proving” that the tools are worthless. Look for allies among the developer ranks, early adopters who are willing to adjust their current approaches to try new tools. Merge the tools into the way your team works, rather than reshaping the culture to fit the tool vendor’s software development paradigm.Educate your managers about the value of investing in tools, so they understand the tools aren’t just toys to amuse those technology-drunk software geeks. Obtain their commitment to spend the money you need to license the tools, train the team, and accept the short-term productivity hit from the learning curve. Ask management to set realistic and sensible expectations about how the team will incorporate tools into routine project activities.The best chance for successful tool adoption comes if the tool capabilities will attack some source of pain your team is experiencing. For example, if developers spend countless hours ontedious searches for memory leaks or pointer problems, they might be willing to try run-time analyzers such as Rational’s Purify or Compuware NuMega’s BoundsChecker. Begin by identifying the areas where improvements are needed, then go to and search for tools that might fill the bill.Incorporating tools into a software organization requires more than dropping a user manual on every engineer’s desk. Support the new tools with training in the underlying approaches, such as testing concepts or project estimation principles. Don’t rely on tools to teach your developers the fundamental methods, any more than you can learn arithmetic by using a calculator. The individuals who I’ve seen use tools most effectively had a solid understanding of the methods and principles implemented in their tools.As you pursue the effective use of new software development and management tools, respect the learning curve, which will likely make your first attempts to use new tools actually take longer than your previous methods did. Share your successes and failures with the team, so everyone can learn from the experiences of others. Work toward a long-term objective of providing each of your developers with a robust, integrated automation suite that will increase their productivity and the quality of the software they deliver.。
