Related
Is there any difference between HL7 USA and UK standards ? If its there then what are those ?
I'm not aware of any country-specific HL7 features neither did Google query site:hl7.org country specific reveal something eye striking. But it does not mean there are no differences
I guess your best bet would be to narrow your question down to a particular set of messages, register as member at hl7.org and ask this question through their internal mailing list (Even better best bet might be to talk to some friendly competitor and ask for the lessons learned)
In our country-specific HL7 community the membership is also paid, but the benefits of becoming a member are close to 0 from the developer's perspective. It's prestigious to be a member and it looks good on the business card. But all you get is access to downloadable specifications (but most of them are free for about a year anyway)
In the software I was working with we were exchanging only very small set of hl7 messages, namely: ADT^A04, ADT^A05, ADT^A08, ADT^A18, ADT^A23, ADT^A34, ORM^O01 and ACK in 2 different countries, considering adding 3rd country, without any country-specific features needed, except the convention used for identifying patient with his/her security number. The number format was country-specific but it was handled by upper software layers. The topmost customization was the number input mask and user input validation business rules at GUI level
What we did need, was an installation-specific or 3rd-party-system-specific message customization. For this customization you'll need rather the list of vendors of hardware and software your system will talk to. Once you have it, check their hl7 conformance statements
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm starting a new project from scratch and have written User Stores to describe how a given user will interact with the system. But, I'm having trouble understanding how to break the first user story in to tasks without the first one becoming an epic.
For example, if I were building a car and the first user story said something like "As a driver, I would like to be able to change the direction of motion so that I don't hit things.", that would imply a user interface (steering wheel), but also motion (wheels) and everything necessary to link those together (axle, frame, linkage, etc...). In the end, that first user story always seems to represent about 40% of the project because it implies so much about the underlying architecture.
How do you break user stories down for a new project such that the first one doesn't become an epic representing your entire underlying architecture?
You might want to think of your story as a vertical slice of the system. A story may (and often will) touch components in all of the architectural layers of the system. You might therefore want to think of your tasks as the work needed to be done on each of the components that your story touches.
For example, Let's say you have a story like In order to easily be able to follow my friends' tweets, as a registered user, I want to automatically follow all of my gmail contacts that have twitter accounts.
In order to accomplish this, you will have to pass through the UI layer, service layer, persist some data in the data layer, and make an API call to twitter and gmail.
Your tasks might be:
Add an option to the menu
Add a new gmail authentication screen
Add a twitter authentication screen
Add a contact selection screen
Add a controller that calls into your service layer
Write a new service that does the work
Save contacts to the database
Modify your existing gmail API calling service to get contacts
Add a twitter API calling service to follow selected contacts
There: That's 9 possible tasks right there. Now, as a rule, you want your tasks to take roughly 1/2 a day to 2 days, with a bias towards one day (best practice, for sizing). Depending on the difficulty, you might break down these tasks further, or combine some if they are two easy (perhaps the two API calling services are so simple, you'd just have a modify external API services).
At any rate, this is a raw sketch of how to break the stories down.
EDIT:
In response to more question that I got on the subject of breaking stories into tasks, I wrote a blog post about it, and would like to share it here. I've elaborated on the steps needed to break the story. The link is here.
When we started projects under a Scrum management style, the first set of tasks was always broad, or as you describe it: epic. That's inevitable, the framework of any project is usually the most important, largest, and time-consuming portion, but it supports the rest of the project. In order to pare down the scale on overwhelming-ness of how much there is to do see if you can list the MOST essential parts. Then work on defining those tasks as the starting points. Therefore you have a few tasks as starting points for a broad beginning. Hope that makes sense!
A user story describe the what while a task is more about the how.
There is no perfect formula, just add any task that describe how the user story is going to be implemented, documented or tested.
Keep in mind that a task should be estimated in hours, so try to scale and detail the tasks accordingly.
If you feel that you have too many tasks for a story (even if you have 1-8 hours long tasks), then maybe you should consider rewriting your user story in the first place because it's probably too complex.
Good luck
The story that you implement at the beginning can be refined over time. You dont need to think that every story has to be the final version that the user is going to use.
For example, in a recent project we had to develop an application which involved indexing various websites, and matching them against filters created by users, and finally alerting the user of matches (thing of it as google alert on steroids).
If you look at it from one perspective, there is only one story - "As a user I want to get alerts from matching pages". But look at it from another perspective of "what are the risks we want to mitigate". The first risk was that users wouldn't get relevant or better hits compared to google alerts. The second risk was in learning the technology to build this.
So our first user story was simply "As a user I want relevant hits", then we built just the hit matching algorithm on a hardcoded set of pages and hardcoded filters for some early users and got their feedback.
There might actually be a bit of back and forth here with multiple smaller stories to capture learning like "As a user I want more priority to be given to matches in the URL" etc.. these stories comes from the feedback as we iterate over what the early users consider "relevant hits".
Next, we broadened it to "As a user I want hits from specific websites" and we built the indexing architecture to crawl user specified sites and do hit matching on that.
The third story was "As a user I want to define my own filters", and we built this part of the system.
In this way we were able to build up the architecture piece by piece. Through most of the initial part, only early users could use the system, and many pieces of data were hardcoded etc.
After a point, early users could use the system completely. Then we added stories for allowing new users to register and opened it up to the public.
To cut a long story short, the story you implement first could implement only a small part of the final story, hardcoding and scaffolding everything else. And then you can iterate on it over time till you get the story that you might actually release to the public.
I've come to a crossroads with this issue in the past. User stories are supposed to be isolated so you can do them without any other stories, in whatever order, etc. But I found making that happen just made everything more complicated. To me this fell under the "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools" part of the agile manifesto - or at least my interpretation of it.
The ultimate goal is ship. And to ship you have to build, and to build you have to stop futzing with scrum and just get stuff done and make sure you track it.
So what we did was break a cardinal rule of stories and we made some tech stories like "create a preliminary schema". We also declared that some stories were dependent on others, and noted that on the back of the story card.
In the end I felt this type of story was few and far between, and the difficulty of the alternative justified the exception.
A simple billing system (on top of ColdBox MVC) is ballooning into a semi-enterprisey inventory + provisioning + issue-tracking + profit tracking app. They seem to be doing their own thing yet they share many things including a common pool of Clients and Staff (login's), and other intermingled data & business logic.
How do you keep such system modular? from a maintenance, testability & re-usability stand point?
single monolithic app? (i.e. new package for the base app)
ColdBox module? not sure how to make it 'installable' and what benefits does it bring yet.
Java Portlet? no idea, just thinking outside the box
SOA architecture? through webservice API calls?
Any idea and/or experience you'd like to share?
I would recommend you break the app into modular pieces using ColdBox Modules. You can also investigate on separate business logic into a RESTful ColdBox layer also and joining the system that way also. Again, it all depends on your requirements and needs at the moment.
Modules are designed to break monolithic applications into more manageable parts that can be standalone or coupled together.
Stop thinking about technology (e.g. Java Portals, ColdBox modules, etc...) and focus on architecture. By this I mean imagining how you can explain your system to an observer. Start by drawing a set of boxes on a whiteboard that represent each piece - inventory, clients, issue tracking, etc... - and then use lines to show interactions between those systems. This focuses you on a separation of concerns, that is grouping together like functionality. To start don't worry about the UI, instead focus on algorithms and data.
If you we're talking about MVC, that step is focusing on the model. With that activity complete comes the hard part, modifying code to conform to that diagram (i.e the model). To really understand what this model should look like I suggest reading Domain Driven Design by Eric Evans. The goal is arriving at a model whose relationships are manageable via dependency injection. Presumably this leaves you with a set of high level CFCs - services if you will - with underlying business entities and persistence management. Their relationships are best managed by some sort of bean container / service locator, of which I believe ColdBox has its own, another example is ColdSpring.
The upshot of this effort is a model that's unit testable. Independent of of the user interface. If all of this is confusing I'd suggest taking a look at Working Effectively with Legacy Code for some ideas on how to make this transition.
Once you have this in place it's now possible to think about a controller (e.g. ColdBox) and linking the model to views through it. However, study whatever controller carefully and choose it because of some capability it brings to the table that your application needs (caching is an example that comes to mind). Your views will likely need to be reimagined as well to interact with this new design, but what you should have is a system where the algorithms are now divorced from the UI, making the views' job easy.
Realistically, the way you tackle this problem is iteratively. Find one system that can easily be teased out in the fashion I describe, get it under unit tests, validate with people as well, and continue to the next system. While a tedious process, I can assure it's much less work than trying to rewrite everything, which invites disaster unless you have a very good set of automated validation ahead of time.
Update
To reiterate, the tech is not going to solve your problem. Continued iteration toward more cohesive objects will.
Now as far as coupled data, with an ORM you've made a tradeoff, and monolithic systems do have their benefits. Another approach would be giving one stateful entity a reference to another's service object via DI, such that you retrieve it through that. This would enable you to mock it for the purpose of unit testing and replace it with a similar service object and corresponding entity to facilitate reuse in other contexts.
In terms of solving business problems (e.g. accounting) reuse is an emergent property where you write multiple systems that do roughly the same thing and then figure out how to generalize. Rarely if ever in my experience do you start out writing something to solve some business problem that becomes a reusable component.
I'd suggest you invest some time in looking at Modules. It will help with partitioning your code into logical features whilst retaining the integration with the Model.
Being ColdBox there is loads of doc's and examples...
http://wiki.coldbox.org/wiki/Modules.cfm
http://experts.adobeconnect.com/p21086674/
You need to get rid of the MVC and replace it with an SOA architecture that way the only thing joining the two halves are the service requests.
So on the server side you have the DAO and FACADE layers. And the client side can be an MVC or what ever architecture you want to use sitting somewhere else. You can even have an individual client for each distinct business.
Even for the server side you can break the project down into multiple servers: what's common between all businesses and then what's distinct between all of them.
The problem we're facing here luckily isn't unique.
The issue here seems not to be the code itself, or how to break it apart, but rather to understand that you're now into ERP design and development.
Knowing how best to develop and grow an ERP which manages the details of this organization in a logical manner is the deeper question I think you're trying to get at. The design and architecture itself of how to code from this flows from an understanding of the core functional areas you need.
Luckily we can study some existing ERP systems you can get a hold of to see how they tackled some of the problems. There's a few good open source ERP's, and what brought this tip to my mind is a full cycle install of SAP Business One I oversaw (a small-mid size ERP that bypasses the challenges of the big SAP).
What you're looking for is seeing how others are solving the same ERP architecture you're facing. At the very least you'll get an idea of the tradeoffs between modularization, where to draw the line between modules and why.
Typically an ERP system handles everything from the quote, to production (if required), to billing, shipping, and the resulting accounting work all the way through out.
ERPS handle two main worlds:
Production of goods
Delivery of service
Some businesses are widget factories, others are service businesses. A full featured out of the box ERP will have one continuous chain/lifecycle of an "order" which gets serviced by a number of steps.
If we read a rough list of the steps an ERP can cover, you'll see the ones that apply to you. Those are probably the modules you have or should be breaking your app into. Imagine the following steps where each is a different document, all connected to the previous one in the chain.
Lead Generation --> Sales Opportunities
Sales Opportunities --> Quote/Estimate
Quote Estimate --> Sales Order
Sales Order --> Production Order (Build it, or schedule someone to do the work)
Production order --> Purchase orders (Order required materials or specialists to arrive when needed)
Production Order --> Production Scheduling (What will be built, when, or Who will get this done, when?)
Production Schedule --> Produce! (Do the work)
Produced Service/Good --> Inventory Adjustments - Convert any raw inventory to finished goods if needed, or get it ready to ship
Finished Good/Service --> Packing Slip
Packing Slip items --> Invoice
Where system integrators come in is using the steps required, and skipping over the ones that aren't used. This leads to one thing for your growing app:
Get a solid data security strategy in place. Make sure you're confortable that everyone can only see what they should. Assuming that is in place, it's a good idea to break apart the app into it's major sections. Modules are our friends. The order to break them up in, however, will likely have a larger effect on what you do than anything.
See which sections are general, (reporting, etc) that could be re-used between multiple apps, and which are more specialized to the application itself. The features that are tied to the application itself will likely be more tightly coupled already and you may have to work around that.
For an ERP, I have always preferred a transactional "core" module, which all the other transaction providers (billing pushing the process along once it is defined).
When I converted a Lotus Notes ERP from the 90's to the SAP ERP, the Lotus Notes app was excellent, it handled everything as it should. THere were some mini-apps built on the side that weren't integrated as modules which was the main reason to get rid of it.
If you re-wrote the app today, with today's requirements, how would you have done it differently? See if there's any major differences from what you have. Let the app fight for your attention to decide what needs overhauling / modularization first. ColdBox is wonderful for modularization, whether you're using plugin type modules or just using well separated code you won't go wrong with it, it's just a function of developer time and money available to get it done.
The first modules I'd build / automate unit testing on are the most complex programatically. Chances are if you're a decent dev, you don't need end to end unit testing as of yesterday. Start with the most complex, move onto the core parts of the app, and then spread into any other areas that may keep you up at night.
Hope that helped! Share what you end up doing if you don't mind, if anything I mentioned needs further explanation hit me up on here or twitter :)
#JasPanesar
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I currently work in a small business (15-20 employees, 5 programmers) where most projects are custom built CMS and a few web applications products.
Since I started working there, I have worked on many projects, but specifications for each project vary a lot. Sometimes we get a little detail, a Word document telling what the client wants, and what we are suggesting (suggested form fields, a short description of display, etc.). Sometimes almost nothing except "do what you think is the best approach for this project/module/request".
My question to you guys, who might work in different kind of businesses, is: How (huge pile of paper? Word docs? Visios?) and what kind of information do you get from your superiors, managers, teamates when starting a project (plenty of analysis, drawings, etc.)? How much detail do you get on this?
Hope my question is clear enough, thank you.
Specs..that's kind of funny...how about never :(.
Seriously a lot of companies assume specs aren't needed, its absolutely unacceptable but this is how it is in a LOT of companies. They assume a one liner and the programmer knows what the program should do, the inputs / outputs and so on.
Unfortunately in my case I have to actually help write the specs..and Im the programmer :(.
I mostly get a lot of verbal direction and I use a voice recorder to record the conversation and transcribe it when I am done. I write my own specs from my customers' words.
Then, as a good consultant should, I take the writeup back to the customer and verify it, and get a signature and build it, and they live happily every after! (no they dont, they change their mind a 100 times)
It can vary depending on what group the work falls under:
Support request - If the change will take a short period of time and is fixing something broken, there is this group. This could be as simple as, "Add Bob to the list of authorized users for that ancient form" where the form is something written years ago and aside from adding and removing users, it isn't touched for fear of breaking things.
Service Advisory Committee request - Items that are up to a few days are in this group as these are kind of like mini-projects as the request may be to create a new form or portal for a group. This could be upgrading some 3rd party software where we have some customizations that make the upgrade not necessarily a simple thing for Operations to do.
Project - In this case there are usually a few Word documents and/or e-mail threads that help nail down requirements in terms of scope, budget, and time. These can take months though there is something to be said for having a prototype to change rather than creating the initial prototype to tell if requirements are really met or not. Course my current project is over a year old, still has a few more months to the timeline and already has a successor coming after it is done,i.e. there is a Phase II to go after Phase I.
Uber project - These merit their own group of documentation and are the million dollar, multiple company projects that usually try to document everything up front rarely works out well here. Thus, there is some adoptioon of agile for these but there are still some growing pains to go through as how we use agile matures. Think installing a dozen modules of some off-the-shelf software that requires both internal and external developers to customize the suite for our specific needs as the software is supposed to be very robust, flexible and help save lots of time and money on how people otherwise do their jobs generally. Think ERP or CRM for a couple of examples here.
We are a 16-person company that creates and supports customized software for small retail shop owners.
The projects we get fall into three general categories (as related to specs):
"Here, automate this form." A sales person explains that our customer only wants this form to appear where they can fill it out and print it to make it look professional to their customer. Our specs is a single piece of paper that looks something like an order form or report. This is always false; they want pop-up lookups, automatic updating from other sources, and "while you're at it" add-ons that more than double the time. These, we've learned to just live in the moment and let the project take its course. By the time we're done, the program doesn't look anything like their original form.
Small changes. Like a simple e-mail explaining that the background color is stale, or a request to sort a report by a different column. These, we just do as time allows.
Big company integrations, where we're tasked with making our software work with some big outfit like Intuit (QuickBook) or FedEx (shipping rates). These often have well thought out documentation and sample code. We get 100's of pages in word documents or pdfs. The problem with these is when their specs are wrong. We find out about inaccuracies when we try to test or certify our integration. In these instances, we usually take longer in certification than we did to originally develop the processes.
In all cases, the real trouble is when a sales person promises a solution to the customer before even asking a programmer what it would take. As recently as 2 weeks ago, a sales person got into real trouble and had to issue a refund (that person is no longer with the company).
None - at least not from management.
Instead, as a developer (and particularly one leading a software project right now), I'm expected to contact my users/customers/etc and work directly with them to come up with our specifications and requirements. The documentation I do request from my team is only what will be useful to the team. I am lucky in that management rarely requests a document that doesn't make sense or won't provide some use to our project.
I currently have a half-dozen or so specs each 60-80 pages. One of them is 80 pages with no table of contents. Good times.
Our Product Managers and senior engineers prepare three planning docs for our data management software projects.
High-level requirements: 1-to-3 sentence descriptions of hardware/software supported or specific feature for this project. (10-15 pages of Excel-like grids)
Technical details: Engineering implementation of each high-level requirements. Up to a page for each, depending on amount of detail. (30-40 pages of filled-in feature details)
Business agreement: Summary of 1 & 2 with engineering schedule and Product Mgmt's market analysis. Everyone signs off on this. (5 pages analysis, 20 technical)
I haven't seen work flows or other Visio-like details in our specs. The prioritized requirements and schedule prove critical, so we understand when to lop things off to save development and testing time.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I am attempting to manage my projects a little better so I am looking at attempting to apply some of (eventually all) the features of scrum.
Looking at user stories specifically the high level format seems to be:
As a User I can Feature Description
or
Artifact is Doing Something
How would I write "Upgrade the Database"?
Is it simply Upgrade the Database?
I think I am being thrown off as there is no specific actor/customer and that the customer is the IT department.
AS A [person/role]
I NEED TO [do something]
SO THAT [provides business value].
For your example a user story might look like this:
AS A user of the XYZ application
I NEED TO get reports of ABC faster
SO THAT we can increase our conversion rates.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA - The database reliably completes transactions on average in 2 seconds.
I've added an acceptance criteria because without this you will never know when the job is done. Now at this point, you have a business case for upgrading the database. This story would be decomposed into a story where the role is the IT department or DBA, like so:
AS AN administrator for the database server
I NEED TO upgrade to the latest version of FancyDB 11.7
SO THAT we can improve the average transaction time for XYZ users to 2 seconds.
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA - the new version starts successfully, the XYZ developers sign off on the test installation of 11.7, data migration is successful, we have cut over to the new db
When story decomposition is added to your box of tools, the story must start from where the user is a real part of the business, and the "so that" leads to a real business value. Then decompose the story into one or more stories in which internal users do things "so that" real users get the benefits in need.
Here are a couple of articles that talk about Story Decomposition:
http://jpattonassociates.com/the_shrinking_story/
http://old.cognitive-edge.com/wp-content/uploads/1999/11/56-1999-11-Paradox-of-Story.pdf
Scrum is not very prescriptive and there is nothing in Scrum that forces you to use User Stories for your Product Backlog Items (PBIs). You can definitely do Scrum without capturing requirements/features as user stories, user stories are just one way to do it. Actually, stories do work for many teams, especially web development teams, but this doesn't mean that they work in all cases and on every project (many projects are web development but not all, like in your case). There is no consensus about using stories.
That said, the recommended template for User Stories is actually As a <role>, I want to <action> so that <benefits>. I don't mean to be picky but, if you choose to use stories, I'd warmly suggest to use it as is, without removing any part. First, using a role do help (a same user/person can have several roles) to discover stories. Then specifying the benefits is really important to expose the business value of a story in order to prioritize them well. Regarding the value, you should think of it as end-user/customer ("put on customer glasses" --Mary Poppendieck). It is really not always that easy to express the benefits, but some tools might help and my preferred one is the 5 whys (which is used for root cause analysis).
In your case, this could lead to something like: As the IT department, I want the database to be upgraded so that users can benefits from the latest features of the application and [do a better job|have a better user experience] (not very satisfying though, use the 5 whys).
But personally I don't find that user stories are the best medium for technical tasks even if it is clearly possible to use them and if they have their strengths. Theoretically, stories capture the essence, not the details and should be a support for the discussion. I may be wrong but I don't find that technical tasks offer much room for discussion and creativity. So, depending on who will read them, what the should convey, I might use them or not. Another option could be to mix stories with another formalism for your PBIs. As I said, the point is not to use stories, the point is to have a list of prioritized and estimated items.
Upgrade the database may be one of the tasks involved in implementing another story that brings direct value to the user, for example I as a user can add a new foo to my bar.
If adding a foo to a bar requires a database upgrade behind the scenes, then you would include that work in implementing that user story.
User stories are worded this way to help ensure that any work directly benefits the end user in some way.
This gets to the forefront of why user stories are so great.
What benefit does upgrading your database give to the end user? None? Then don't spend the time and money doing it. Spend that time and money providing something that will give value to your end user.
If it does? Then think about it the other way. Maybe you can only implement a new feature when you have version x of your database software? In the dependency of the story, you could mention that database upgrade required to provide this feature.
tl;dr Don't just upgrade for the sake of it. Make sure upgrading adds tangible value to your customers.
Generally, technical tasks in the PB are frowned upon because they very rarely directly deliver business value to the customer. That's why User Stories are popular, because they force you to think about the business value of the story, and who it's being delivered to.
So, why are you upgrading the database? Can you identify business value in upgrading it, and why should the Product Owner agree to let you upgrade the database instead of building new features?
Is it because of a new feature that will make it possible or make it easier to do something in your application? In that case, that something should be the PB item, and the database upgrade should be a task within that story. If you already have stories on the PB that would benefit from the upgrade, then you should increase the estimates for one or more of those stories, and add the upgrade as a technical task to the story.
Is it because the vendor of the database is cutting off an old version from support? In that case you could have the upgrade as the story; something like, "As the department manager, I want to be sure that we have support for all of the software so that the continuity of the business isn't at risk if something goes wrong". Even that's pushing it, though. Generally, this kind of reason isn't really part of a project, unless the project has been going on so long the system software goes off support.
Is it for performance? Then the story should be about some aspect of the performance of the application that needs to be improved to deliver business value. Something like, "As a CSR I need to be able to retrieve customer information in a reasonable time so that customers on the phone are satisfied with our service". Then the upgrade becomes a task under that story.
Is it for some totally technical reason? If you can't identify how the upgrade is going to deliver business value, then why would you do it? Why would the Product Owner select it for a Sprint?
It's simply "Upgrade the Database" or maybe "When the new version is installed, there must be a way to migrate the existing database". If you already know more details about this step, then include them. But the story mostly exists to make sure something isn't forgotten; it's not to be detailed.
Later, when you get to implement this story, you can flesh it out (which tables, do we need one or more backups, is there a fall back scenario, etc).
OTOH, if the project is more complex, this can become a "tag", like a post-it notice which must be attached to many stories. That means you must include this as a "sub story" to all stories which change the database. As you can see, these "project-spanning stories" are a bit hard to track with agile methods.
Infrastructure stories do not need to follow the prescribed story template. Just write down what needs to be done and estimate accordingly
How about:
As the application support person I want to be on the latest version of database because it is more reliable / more secure / whatever.
You could even phrase refactoring like that:
As the application developer I want all the data classes in one module so that I can add new fields to the app very quickly.
Who benefits
What you want to do
What the benefit is
Ideally you don't want all the stories to have 1 be developers, but a few make sense (sharpening your ax instead of cutting down trees and all that).