New Software Engineering High School!!
Joel Spolsky just posted on a new high school being opened in NYC that will concentrate on creating software engineers! What a great concept and it’s totally awesome that it will become reality! If universities can’t change their CS curricula to keep up with the rapidly changing field of software development, then hopefully this high school will be the antidote! A very exciting development!
Where does the acronym ALM (Application Lifecycle Management) come from?
I became interested today in where this ALM term comes from. It is involved a lot with what Microsoft does on the Team Foundation Server (TFS) front and frankly, I’ve thought it to be just another marketing term for Software Engineering. BUT, I wanted to investigate and dig deeper….
The best I can tell, the acronym ALM comes from PLM or Product Lifecycle Management. The Wikipedia article on PLM has a good history of the term and how it came to be used at Chrysler in the mid 1980′s. They basically started centralizing all designs, documentation, etc. of the Jeep Cherokee into one database to manage its creation. Sounds a lot like ALM to me today.
It also makes sense that the term would come from manufacturing. This article from 2002 talks about the transition in the manufacturing industry from Computer-Aided Design (CAD) tools to a more holistic approach of PLM. There was also a boon of Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) tools in the 1980′s. CAD leads to PLM. CASE leads to ALM. We both went from individual tools that did design, requirements, etc. and integrated them into one tool or system. That seems to be the evolution.
The borrowing from manufacturing also makes sense as so much of Software Process comes from that industry. Kanban, Lean, CMMI, and on and on. Deming, one of the greats in manufacturing process, is cited often in software process literature.
So there it is, ALM comes from PLM which all originated in the auto industry with the Jeep Cherokee. Who would of thunk it? 
Great article on distinction between Software Engineering and Software Development
Even though this article is five years old, it is just as salient and relevant today as then. The author’s main argument is that software development is applied software engineering. What a great way to think about the two concepts!!! I think he’s exactly spot on, but it’s hard to get to this idea because of our experience of engineering is applied physics and physics is applied math. I’ve never thought about applied engineering! I always thought it should be applied computer science, but I was never comfortable with that idea. I rarely use concepts from CS. Maybe algorithms, but that’s about it. This really fits!! I encourage you to read this article if you’re interested in how our field is shaping up in this century!
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/dec05/pollice/index.html
An example UML class diagram
I made this in my graduate class for an airline ticketing system. Enjoy!!
CMMI version 1.3 and Agile
Well, the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) just published the newest version of the venerated CMMI and there are many side notes in the CMMI-DEV version that touch on using an Agile methodology with CMMI. I’ve always thought this was possible and I’m glad to see the SEI has taken the lead.
For example, here is the “Agile note” in the configuration management section:
In Agile environments, configuration management (CM) is important because of the need to support frequent change, frequent builds (typically daily), multiple baselines, and multiple CM supported workspaces (e.g., for individuals, teams, and even for pair-programming). Agile teams may get bogged down if the organization doesn’t: 1) automate CM (e.g., build scripts, status accounting, integrity checking) and 2) implement CM as a single set of standard services. At its start, an Agile team should identify the individual who will be responsible to ensure CM is implemented correctly. At the start of each iteration, CM support needs are re-confirmed. CM is carefully integrated into the rhythms of each team with a focus on minimizing team distraction to get the job done.
I especially like this one from the Requirements Development section:
In Agile environments, customer needs and ideas are iteratively elicited, elaborated, analyzed, and validated. Requirements are documented in forms such as user stories, scenarios, use cases, product backlogs, and the results of iterations (working code in the case of software). Which requirements will be addressed in a given iteration is driven by an assessment of risk and by the priorities associated with what is left on the product backlog. What details of requirements (and other artifacts) to document is driven by the need for coordination (among team members, teams, and later iterations) and the risk of losing what was learned. When the customer is on the team, there can still be a need for separate customer and product documentation to allow multiple solutions to be explored. As the solution emerges, responsibilities for derived requirements are allocated to the appropriate teams. (See ―Interpreting CMMI When Using Agile Approaches‖ in Part I.)
Download the latest CMMI-DEV and enjoy!
Software Engineering isn’t dead yet, BUT….
Tom DeMarco wrote an article a couple of years ago proclaiming that Software Engineering was dead that caused a real stir in the software field. I opposed his view then; but sadly I’m beginning to think he had seen a glimpse of the future.
Today I did my last search for SWEBOK (the Software Engineering Book of Knowledge) in hopes of actually finding something coming out of this incredibly slow and opaque group. My expectations were met, as they once again neglected to tell anyone where exactly they are in their unpublished process. If any democratic process was run like this, we’d see Wisconsin style protests. But alas, this is a dying beast that is finding its way to the bottom of irrelevance.
I think it started with the Agile Manifesto. Almost none of the signatories came from Academia and it has shown. They don’t publish in IEEE Software. They don’t need to. They get things done. Which, of course, is what many academics in Software Engineering can’t do (see Exihibit A – SWEBOK). I don’t want to paint too wide of a stroke. There are of course exceptions like Mary Shaw and Tao Xie. But many academics published articles are much like science fiction, somewhat entertaining, but not really useful.
This stems from the fact that most are tenured and have never worked a day in their life as a REAL software developer. Its like writing about sex while still a virgin. Exciting for the writer, but woefully invaluable for anyone else. Let us look at the present month’s edition of IEEE Software, their leading journal. Oh wait, that will be $20 an article (because we all know they are just that valuable). A requirements article, that looks potentially useful. Oh it’s about GORE and SORE. You don’t know about GORE and SORE !?! Oh you better get in the know; because that’s the new rage in software development. Yeah, Dr. Seuss invented the terms. Wait, an article on Architecture, now that should be promising. ”Unusable Software is…” wait for it….. “Useless”. Woah!!! What a find! 20 years from now we will definitely be talking about this one. And wait, you get more, it’s only Part I!!!!
We don’t even use the term Software Engineering any more in the field where we actually create software. We call it software development. We can’t even agree on the same term! IEEE Software went downhill after Steve McConnell (someone who HAS written real software) left and it may have been an omen that Software Engineering is going down too.
A new site on Software Engineering
Well, I love the field of Software Engineering so much, I’ve decided to create a whole site on it .
It’s at:
Please go visit and enjoy!
Code Reviews
Code reviews are a best practice developed back in the early 1970′s by Michael Fagan. He was a computer hardware engineer by training and knew from experience that reviews in his previous field found quite a few defects before a hardware spec was sent to the factory to be burned onto silicon. It was expensive to undo defects once the spec had been sent to the factory and reviews were a great tool in catching defects early. His original paper describes the “Fagan Inspection”.
As time has gone on, more papers and books have been published on the subject; most notably Handbook of Walkthroughs, Inspections, and Technical Reviews by Daniel Freedman and Gerald Weinberg in 1990. The best current source for how to do reviews is the IEEE Standard 1028 for Software Reviews and Audits. Regrettably, the IEEE does not make their standards free to access, which I think diminishes their use and ultimately their importance. In it they describe four types of reviews: a Management Review, Technical Review, Inspection, and Walkthrough. I have taken these four descriptions and amalgamated them into a review procedure that, I think, brings the four procedures together nicely. I post it here for your edification and use.
Watts Humphrey, Software Engineering pioneer and giant, dies today at the age of 83
I was saddened today to see this on the newswire today. Watts Humphrey is a luminary in the creation of the field of software engineering. I know many of his methods have been vilified by Agile enthusiasts; but we would not be where we are today without him. He has my respect, admiration, and gratitude.
