Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there a tool or a formula for calculating man-hours required for a certain project? Either by specifying the details, either, even better, input the sources and have it calculate a measure of how many man-hours were put into the project.
Edit:
I often hear about big projects, with components built in parallel by numerous groups, that they took a couple of thousand man-hours to complete, but they were finished in just x days... probably an argument supporting the teams' efficiency... so I think it might be possible to at least estimate these measures. I am convinced that efforts were put into making these estimations automatic, and even though they might not reflect the actual time invested in the project, at least I'd like to know that the "state of the art" is in this kind of endeavour.
There is a whole science to this called Function Point Analysis.
Read through this introductory article.
Or try the Wikipedia article for more references and external links to follow up.
This technique is based on looking at the functions which are to be implemented in the software, and assigning a point count to them. Then you plan on how many points can be achieved per day to figure out a schedule.
There are also techniques that lean more on psychology which involve asking people to estimate the time of of individual tasks in a project with best, worst, most likely, cutting their estimates in half and padding out the end of the project with an unspecified buffer time which can be used for late running tasks, only if needed. This works by giving the developers a short timetable for results, but promising management/customers a longer timetable. It's called Critical Chain Project Management and has been used with success in defense projects.
Introduction to Critical Chain
Wikpedia article
Estimating the man-hours for a new project is more about experience than formulae. When I started programming there was this notional "10 lines per hour of debugged code" that was the yard stick but that figure varies hugely based on the type of code, the language and the experience/skill of the software engineer.
I suggest that you search the internet for articles on estimating software development projects, one example of such an article would be this How to estimate a software project in man-hours?. But it's by no means definitive but does demonstrate the complexities involved.
As for looking at some code and estimating, you might as well stick a wet finger in the air and guess. Only the programmers involved would know and even then I suspect the answer wouldn't be accurate. At the end of the day it's an estimate, not a quote or a fact, and as such often open to wild variations.
Unfortunately general the answer is no -- there is no, ready to use, formula to calculate man-hours for software project.
However, software project estimation, is a huge problem and there are a lot of ways to deal with it.
Many solutions are described in Steve McConnell's book Software Estimation: Demystifying the Black Art.
Steve's company offers also some resources and tools (some of them are free) which help to estimate software project.
Related
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'm in my first development job out of college and have been handed a (solo) project that is completely outside the range of my skills/experience both in terms of the technologies being used and the sheer scope of the thing.
I've spent the last 6 months or so basically completely retraining myself and then starting to do the thing, and although I did very well at college and I think that I'm on track for delivery, I've had zero feedback on what I've been doing and I'm suddenly starting to feel very much out of my depth.
My direct supervisor, while a nice guy and I think a competent coder, doesn't have the best communication skills and basically told me to "read a book" when I asked him for a bit of guidance, which is not really what I was hoping for!
Am I just being unrealistic about the amount of support I can expect as a junior developer? It seems to me that ignoring the issue and ploughing ahead runs the risk of a failed project which is to no-ones benefit. I could take my request for guidance a step higher to the head of development, but I don't want to sound like I'm saying I can't do the job nor do I want to make my supervisor look bad.
Can anyone suggest a good approach for saying "help!" without making myself or my supervisor look bad?
This is a great question, and I think a fairly common situation. Basically, I think what you're asking for is guidance on how to communicate with your boss, and the other people in your organization.
This might be a good time to look into the scrum framework, and take from it what seems applicable to your environment.
In particular, you mention that you might be in over your head. Or, there is an (implicit) expectation that you'll need to finish this project "tomorrow," when you really don't know how long it will take.
I suggest starting with a list. Write down everything you need to do. Include non-coding activities, like "research technology X for doing Y," and give each task a basic time estimate like "1" for short, "2" for medium, "3" for long. Then put the things in an order that you think makes sense.
Then meet with your boss, once a week, for like 20 minutes, to discuss what you did, and what you're going to do next week. Out of this discussion, you'll both see what's going on, and adjust expectations (and the list) accordingly. When conflicts of expectation come up, talk it out.
Regarding the amount of support to expect as a junior developer, this really depends on your organization, and your supervisor's opinion. As software engineering is still a relatively young profession, there isn't much in the way of industry-standard mentoring programs.
I suggest trying the list + meeting thing for a couple months, and observe how your opinion of the support situation changes. Then, go to a large conference as soon as possible; spend the money if you need to. You'll see who is struggling with similar situations, and also who is not, and you'll create your own, more-informed model of "how the industry is supposed to work."
Regarding a good approach to communicating, I (seriously) suggest The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work by John Gottman, which has a lot of examples of what works and doesn't work when communicating with people.
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
In a big corp, they often ask developers to fill in a matrix of what skills they have at what level. It's generally seen as a bit of a pain but is it actually useful, or another way for bureaucrats to try and reduce developers to a bunch of numbers on a spreadsheet?
Skills matrix are only partially helpful, they are good at giving you a general picture of your current "experience".
However these skills matrix does not include the most important aspect, the ability to learn.
This is the most important skill in IT in my view. And everyone learns at different speeds.
Eg. Throwing guy A into a new technology stack, and how long before he/she is productive?
Since IT/software development is a very wide field I regard skill sheets as quite useful. I used to be a Linux expert and my skill sheet reflected that. Then I shifted into iOS/Mac development and my now-employer asked me to fill out a skill sheet tuned to Mac... and I immediately noticed that I was novice in this field back then ;-) Vice versa, they were able to see whether I can fit into the company and where (in which team).
So of course they can be harmful if you lack the skills, but I think they make choices for employers easier (and I regard a big skill sheet in my CV as the most important part of the CV, even more so than the list of projects done).
The usefulness is totally dependent on what is being assessed. I work in an insurance company and this was done for all staff here. There was no category that I fit into and all the criteria were irrelevant.
I can see the benefit of assessing relevant criteria, it can identify weaknesses and target training, but those criteria need to be defined by someone who knows what you might not know.
Most of all, don't berate the bureaucrat for simplifying a complex object into a manageable set of information. As a programmer that's what you should be doing every day.
I think it is appropiate on big corps, but for small and specialized consultancies I would make a personal interview.
In big corporations if you dont fit in one place you may fit in other... in small teams I rather do personal assessment .
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 am currently trying to make the transition from a technical PM to a Developer.
Obviously this depends very much on current level of knowledge / experience, but are there some key things that a PM (who also codes regularly) might have missed from not strictly working as a Developer.
Also would a course like this help in the right direction?
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/computing/teaching/postgraduate/msc-computing-science/description
Considering I want to work on Audio/Video/3D ideally, I feel this course could be a good leg up?
As a technical PM you have the advantage of knowing the terminology etc so that is at least a heads start. As to making the switch check out information on areas such as
computing fundamentals - low level concepts on computer hardware, network and protocols.
algorithms - for an understanding of sorting, graphs, networks, trees, etc.
architecture and design - web application architecture, messaging architecture, UML, use cases, documentation.
programming languages - OO, scripting and AI (at least to get a feel for the types and applications)
business end of programming - software estimation
This is a broad spectrum of areas that you would need to have at least some exposure to for the transition. In fact it might even be useful if your current employer allowed you to work as the developer on a small part of a project. You'd certainly gain respect from the developers on a project coming from the technical PM role and could even enlighten the developers.
If you have a passion for working in an area, seriously consider the amount of creative freedom, in your experience, developers have as compared to PMs. Make sure that's acceptable to you.
Nothing is worse than having passion in an area, but little or no influence.
As far as technical abilities go, the only thing to do is to code. Any classes primarily will act as ways to ensure that you do so, and do so in ways that will teach you. But at the end of the day, it's going to boil down to time spent writing software.
If you really want to become a great developer, learn at least one language radically different from the languages you know. If you're a Java/C++/C# kind of guy, learn something that will really torque your brain like Haskell, Erlang, or Scheme. To just learn really good OO techniques, learn, read, and write some Smalltalk.
The best thing to do is to spend ten years or so programming during every waking moment. That's what worked for me!
First of all get start practicing to type all day ! Then get ready to work on minute details which a developer works on everyday like... code shortcuts, coding styles, commenting etc.
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
When working on a project - I always estimate my tasks and calculate how long it will take me to finish. So in the end I get a time-span in which the project should be finished (it rarely is).
My question is - do you record your data and assumptions use in your estimates during a project and use them for later projects or refined estimates on the same project?
If so - how do you record such data and how do you store them?
I used an excel-sheet - but somehow (cannot imagine how that happened ;)) I tend to forget to fill in new assumptions or gained information. On the other hand it is not really readable or useful for evaluating my predictions after finishing the project - to learn from it for the next project.
Sounds like what Joel wrote FogBugz for.
I had a discussion with a friend recently about a pragmatic variation of this, more specifically, the feasiblity of using the coarse level evidence of when code is checked in.
Provided you work in a reasonably cohesive manner, your checkins can be related, at least through the files involved, to some work units and the elapsed time used to determine an average productivity.
This fits well with the Evidence-based Scheduling approach included in FogBugz. If you happen to have been spending time on other things to an unusual degree, then in future you will be more productive than the checkin rate suggests. Any error is on the safe side of over-allocating time.
The main flaw, for me, in an approach like this is that I typically interweave at least two projects, often more, in different repositories and languages. I would need to pull the details together and make a rough allocation of relative time between them to achieve the same thing. In a more focused team, I think repository date stamps may be good enough.
Isn't that what project managers are for? ;)
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Are there systems or is there software out there that is developed with a proof of correctness to back it up? Or are all critical systems developed merely with an aggressive code review and test cycle?
Coding for high integrity applications, in the real world, generally involves jumping through a bunch of QA hoops. Sometimes these hoops actually have something to do with getting the software right.
The medical device industry in the USA is regulated by the FDA. They publish a bunch of regulations covering "design", which includes all the software development. These regulations are basically ISO 9000 on steroids. You have to have a bunch of documents which are written, marked up by reviewers, updated with the review comments and signed off by a senior manager. Because the regulations are backed by law the FDA want to see evidence that these records have not been tampered with, for instance by writing the "expected result" of a test after you saw what result the test gave. So you either have to have a locked down totally secure CM system, or it all has to be signed and dated on paper (including the source code). The FDA inspectors have real law enforcement powers; if they see fit they can inspect your source code with an armed federal marshal. However they are not software specialists: their job is not to judge the quality of your code, just to make sure you have complied with all the regulations.
The aviation industry has to follow DO-178B, which is also ISO-9000 on steroids. You have to produce lots of documents and demonstrate traceability between them. I don't know if the FAA has the same approach to QA as the FDA though.
The problem is that nobody really knows how to produce software that does what it is supposed to. So instead we have a kind of cargo cult approach where we produce lots of documentation in the hope that this will imbue our software with quality. Its true that quality software generally has clear requirements and a simple logical architecture, but that doesn't mean that writing a "Requirements Document" or an "Architecture Document" will improve matters.
The evidence suggests that factor with the biggest impact on code correctness is the team that created it. However you can't write a legal constraint on a team. So instead the people with the job of mandating quality have to write constraints on process instead, in the vague hope that this will have a similar effect.
See They Write The Right Stuff for an interesting look at how they develop software for the Space Shuttle.
Excerpt:
But how much work the software does is
not what makes it remarkable. What
makes it remarkable is how well the
software works. This software never
crashes. It never needs to be
re-booted. This software is bug-free.
It is perfect, as perfect as human
beings have achieved. Consider these
stats : the last three versions of the
program -- each 420,000 lines long-had
just one error each. The last 11
versions of this software had a total
of 17 errors. Commercial programs of
equivalent complexity would have 5,000
errors.
Yes, there are systems out there developed with proof of correctness. Praxis have been doing this for years using SPARK Ada, and now we're doing it with C and Escher C Verifier. It's not a panacea, because even though we prove that the code satisfies the specification, it's usually difficult to be certain that the specification is appropriate for the application concerned.
One of the barriers to more widespread adoption of formal proof is that the existing aviation software standard DO-178B is not friendly to formal techniques. The DO-178C rewrite currently in progress is supposed to fix that.
Check out this column by Walter Bright, basically arguing that it's virtually impossible to write perfect software, so the best thing to do is fail fast and build in redundancy.