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
In my organization we have to handle multiple projects with different technologies,like flex, iphone, .net, php etc. The problem is I know only java.
So if a developer says me that an issue will take 2 days to solve I really cant judge whether he is right or wrong.
How to handle this situation?
One more problem is that because I don't know a particular technology so its very tough for me to say that whether a particular thing is possible or not in that technology?
I prepare project plan, documents, contact with clients these things but have almost no controls on developers because my insufficient knowledge of all those technologies
What can I do about this?
If an estimate strikes you as a bit over the top, surely the developers should be able to explain what it is that will cause the delay. Especially if you know java - they should be able to explain it to a non-tech project manager as well (after all, the project manager might be required to explain to the customer).
Other than that; trust your developers. They probably don't underestimate badly enough to get you into a tight spot, but you should always give yourself some margin as well, when communicating with the customer. If they constantly over-estimate, you should notice that after a while.
This is from Scrum but it is applicable even if you don't do Scrum. In Scrum, only the developer is allowed to give an estimate of how long it would take to do something. Managers are not allowed to give, recommend or in any way modify that estimate. So first of all trust that estimate.
But.. most programmers are inherently over-confident. If a programmer says 2 days then it may take him 3 days to complete a task. The estimate does not reflect reality (at first).
The solution to this is to keep a record of the estimate. I usually write the task and estimate down on a piece of card and post it on a big whiteboard. If the task takes longer than the estimate then tactfully remind the developer and make a mental note. Next time, before making a new estimate drop subtle (or not so subtle) hints about missed deadlines or early completion. This way the developers will slowly learn to improve their estimates.
Be cordial in all this. The aim is to get accurate, reliable estimates - not to put pressure on people. The whole point of this is to train people to make better estimates. Trust me, having an accurate estimate is more important than missing a deadline. It is relatively easy to tell a client that a project will be delayed by 1 week if by the end of that week you can actually deliver the project. On the other hand repeatedly telling the client that the project will be completed "tomorrow" will quickly make the client lose trust in you.
A few other notes:
When I started this process it took around one month for most people to actually be able to give me accurate estimates. It's not that they were intentionally lying about previous estimates. It's just that people, especially programmers, don't actually know how to make good estimates without training.
Whenever developers come up with an estimate of more than 3 days I automatically ask them to break the task to smaller subtasks such that each subtask takes only 1 or 2 days to complete. This also automatically generates milestones that you can actually track to see if the task is going well or is stuck.
Explain this process to your boss and get his support. It is very hard (but not totally impossible) to do this if your boss keeps pressuring you because you will end up pressuring your developers. Your boss must understand that time estimates can only be made by people actually spending time doing the job.
you should probably trust your developer's estimates, yet expect that they won't always be 100% accurate, remember they are estimates. It might also be a good idea to use a process that has the acceptance built in that estimates are only estimates, and either doesn't require them (e.g. Kanban), or has features built in to adapt to the nature of estimates (e.g. Scrum).
PMs shouldn't really need to know that much about the technology, as that is what the developers are for, but I understand that is not always the case, particularly where the PM also has technical responsibilities.
So judging whether or not something is possible shouldn't be your responsibility alone, this type of evaluation should be delegated practically completely to the developers, at least regarding the technical considerations. You can still provide your evaluation where business, economic, and customer considerations reflect on the possibility or otherwise of some endeavor.
In short, leverage the developer's technical knowledge where it is needed.
Befriend your development team. Explain that your job is not to boss them around or tell them how to do something and how long it should take, but to help them co-ordinate and shield them from direct interaction with the clients.
Once you are in a situation of mutual trust, describe the needs of the client and rely on the estimates provided by your developers. They're the ones who have the knowledge anyway.
Should a client ask you for an estimate on the spot, answer that it's impossible to give an exact figure without putting some thought and expertise into it. If they insist, answer a large-ish figure (at least what it would take you to do that same thing in a language you know) and tell them that you will provide the actual numbers shortly.
Maybe your process could do with some help.. from your comments above i saw:
Step 1 -the PM has to communicate with client to build the project
plan...
Step 2- build the mock ups---
Step 3--get approval of those two documents from client and management
....
Step 4-- project starts
Where do the developers come in and estimate? If you're asking them at Step 4, it's too late as you've committed to some sort of schedule with your client and management.
To ensure everyone's expectations are correct, take along a trusted developer to Step 1. Before you present a plan just ask the dev; "how long could we build this with a team made up of n of our developers?"
This has a few advantages:
Better estimates
Sets more accurate expectations with both client and dev team
Increase commitment to those estimates from the dev team
1 and 2 should be obvious, but item 3 is important as people rarely like working to estimates set by someone else. While you may not be able to use the whole dev team in your estimating, use a trusted advisor.
I also do manage some small projects, some COBOL, some MS, mostly java.
I only really know java, and my skills need updating too.
We use a scope estimating tool, really just an excel sheet with fields the dev fills in to assess the impact. This helps the developers break down the problem into smaller pieces, it forces them to really think through the steps that need to get done and this gives us a more accurate estimate. Whatever helps the developer, helps you. :)
And then when we are done we compare the estimate vs actual and baseline it for future references. We define good estimates as having a variance of 10% or less.
Don't just blindly trust the developer's estimates - you don't know where he's basing that from, no one could ever know 100% of the technology/framework or data model or business rules or such. Know what he has factored in the estimates.
I believe trust is earned. If a developer has given bad estimates before, would you trust the estimates he'll be submitting next is adequate? I definitely won't, unless I see an improvement.
I've been a developer, and I have made quite a few bad estimates too. (Hhmm maybe that's why I'm less of a developer now and more of a manager.. )
The only way to get an accurate estimate is to break the task down into small units of work. The smaller and more focused the units of work, the more accurate the task estimate.
Getting the team together to discuss exactly what each task will involve is a great way to peer-review the proposed technical solution. Often a better technical solution is hatched by the team through detailed discussion of the task. This is a great use of time, and you'll easily recover the design-peer-review time once development starts.
If you sit in on these team discussions then you will start to understand the technology a bit better, and you will start to trust your programmers more as you understand the estimating challenges from their perspective. It is also a great way to cross-train the team, as you'll often hear the phrase "I didn't know you could do that" as developers share their knowledge. Make sure the team reviews are ego-free and friendly.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I work on a software project and would like to estimate the percentage out of the total contribution that I have put in the development of the software. Is there some tool doing this? Such a tool can be useful for appraisals or negotiations, for example. After all, we work for money (yes, not only money, put the point remains). I think there is enough hand-waving for the most important things.
The estimation is very subjective (at least to me now) but I do not know of any tool that provides even a subjective estimate. I know of Sloccount that spells out the total effort using the lines of code but not on per-developer basis.
My idea of an ideal tool for this purpose would:
measure the complexity of the code (more complex is more effort, but more effort is not necessarily more contribution)
measure the decomposibility/flexibility of the software (more decomposable is better)
how much library code is used -- using library code speeds up the development process, increases the associated risk and requires the developer to know from before or learn about the library.
be intelligent enough to differentiate between "who wrote the code", "who copied the code" and "who indented the code".
It is difficult to differentiate between the complexity in the implementation and the intrinsic complexity of the problem. Perhaps a comparison can be made with an equivalent open source counterpart if there is, or for each submodule separately.
If there is no such tool, is there no merit in having such a tool? Or do you believe in "I do work, I do not measure"? It takes time after all. Perhaps the project manager should do this estimation continuously, say, weekly. Are there any standards? Yes, standardization is difficult because every project has different goals, but perhaps that should mean there should be multiple standards, not no standards at all. This looks similar to the how a company is valued in the market.
Update: after seeing a few initial answers: It does not make sense to imagine a tool that just outputs the percentages. Are there tools that can help humans (particularly managers) in making better decisions? Or what is the sufficient statistic for making better decisions? Are these statistics available?
I really doubt there is any reliable trustworthy way of measuring individual's contribution to the solution. Sometimes rewriting some complicated legacy code that results in less lines of code, less complicated solution (smaller cyclomatic complexity etc.) can be seen as a quite significant contribution, while in other cases deleting valuable code covering edge cases that results in the same statistics (less lines of code, smaller CC etc.) is definitely something bad. It all comes down to people, trust and cooperation, individualism in the team is almost always wrong and I would rather avoid it and especially not use it as a motivation factor.
This is a research topic on its own. There are several tools that have tried to define metrics like code ownership. There are other approaches which tackle other aspect of collaborative development, for instance the trustability we can have in the code.
There has been also several studies that tried to use the information from bug trackers. For instance, to identify the developer that is the more likely to introduce bugs. But it's hard to be objective (A brilliant developer that is assigned the most critical part of the system, will still be more likely to introduce critical bugs).
It's actually hard to monetize the development tasks. What is the cost of a bug? What is the gain of refactoring? That would be however one way to estimate the contribution of a developer.
The last cool tool I saw of this kind was the Game Plugin for Hudson continuous integration system. A score is assigned to each developer according their actions
-10 if they break the build
-1 for breaking a test
+1 for fixing a test
etc.
That's again a way to somehow assess the contribution of the developer.
All in all, I do feel like what you are asking for exist, but is still very immature.
I don't think you can get a tool to evaluate your share of the project. Measuring lines of source is all very well, but what of the quality of that source? You wouldn't want someone taking the credit for 200 lines of source if the job could have been easiy done in 20...
Also, thinking of my employer for a moment, a lot of people contribute to the project in ways other than code. Immediate examples I can think of would be Project Managers and Testers - both of whom are essential, both of whom rightly deserve some credit.
Martin
The only thing that I could imagine would be a voting system. I have absolutely no idea, if that would work in your team or anywhere - but I'm sure, that you will need humans for any realistic estimation of code quality.
In Stroustrup's Book on C++ I've read once "Don't try to solve social problems with technical means".
Thinking progmatically, the attitude and the ability of a programmer could be very quickly estimated by making a code-review together and having a talk on relevant topics.
Thinking as an IT-enthusiast and as a control-freak, this shouldn't be very hard, to implement a teachable machine-learning software, which uses version-cotrol, bug-database, etc and greates real-time performanced data for each contributor. E.g. R, KNIME or WEKA could be used for this.
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
What should be the main point to keep in mind when estimating the time for Research and Development task. Suppose I have to estimate "ABC" task using "WPF" technology and I have no experience for it, I need to some R&D for it.
Don't give an estimate until you have had time to play with the technology. Allocate a certain time (2 days, 1 week, whatever you can get from management) to understand the concepts and write some code yourself with it, to get a sense for what the development process takes and how steep the learning curve is. Then, estimate.
Pure Research Projects
Set a time or resource cap in addition to a number of interim milestones / reviews, to re-evaluate whether you can afford to continue. Ideally before embarking on the research you will have a good idea of potential benefits of succeeding. You might also want to define different grades of success and a contigency plan in case the effort will not come to fruition, before you start.
Spiral model of development will come handy.
Applying Existing Technology to a Problem
For current mainstream technologies such as WPF you might try to find out how long would it take for someone with comparable experience to learn the technology. Evidence might be collected from other people experience and available training courses.
For non-current or niche technologies you might be better off hiring a consultant or sub-contracting the job (bear in mind the difference between consultant and contractor).
Grade the project on
Keeping Status Quo - Bug Fixing - Enhancement - New Functionality - New Product - Revolutionary
scale. Each position on the scale will usually mean a factor of 2..5 of risk and effort increase. Having a reference point which is to say if it normally takes 2 days in your organisation end-to-end to fix a bug, you can gauge that an enhancement will take two to five times longer, anything between 4 to 10 days, of course coding will only be a small proportion of the this effort.
Ideally, one should not give an estimate without solid evidence. After all, an estimate is a probability, and probabilities are mathematically significant figures, not gut feelings pulled off thin air. (See "Software Estimation" by Steve McConnell for more on this.)
Unfortunately, too often we are required to provide estimates on tasks for which we have a great deal of uncertainty about the technologies that will be involved. This is the case, for example, of government grants and other non-technical scenarios. In these cases, and being pragmatic, it is good to provide an estimate even when we are not familiar with the technologies.
Techniques that I often use include uncertainty cones and timeboxed development.
Hope this helps.
The best way to approach it is consult with someone who has been there already.
His experience plus general idea of of good he is compare to your staff should give you a fair estimation.
The older the technology is - the more experienced people there will be around and more places on the web to find answer to question.
If you're researching something brand new... the data sources should be limited and I will take any estimation, and double it....
You could take a guess as to how long you think it'll take you to research the new technology and then how long it'll take for you to do the development and multiply that by two. Of course that's pretty fluffy, but usually anything involving estimating a task is pretty fluffy (well, at least I don't like to). There are so many factors involved when estimating: whether it be dealing with new technologies that could be take longer than you think, usually it involves dealing with code written by other people which could add an 'x' factor of complexity to what should be a simple task.
Usually when estimating time, it's always best to at least have a general 'spike' where you sit (whether it be by yourself, or even better with some other team member) and have a play for an hour or two (or however long you choose). This at least gives you a bit of time to have better context with what you're dealing with. When looking at the new technology, perhaps read a bit of the doco, read and play with a 'getting started' guide etc. Then when you go back to the estimation table, you will have a better idea with what you're dealing with.
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 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I am looking after some ways to measure the performance of a software development team. Is it a good idea to use the build tool? We use Hudson as an automatic build tool. I wonder if I can take the information from Hudson reports and obtain from it the progress of each of the programmers.
The main problem with performance metrics like this, is that humans are VERY good at gaming any system that measures their own performance to maximize that exact performance metric - usually at the expense of something else that is valuable.
Lets say we do use the hudson build to gather stats on programmer output. What could you look for, and what would be the unintended side effects of measuring that once programmers are clued onto it?
Lines of code (developers just churn out mountains of boilerplate code, and other needless overengineering, or simply just inline every damn method)
Unit test failures (don't write any unit tests, then they won't fail)
Unit test coverage (write weak tests that exercise the code, but don't really test it properly)
Number of bugs found in their code (don't do any coding, then you won't get bugs)
Number of bugs fixed (choose the easy/trivial bugs to work on)
Actual time to finish a task based against their own estimate (estimate higher to give more room)
And it goes on.
The point is, no matter what you measure, humans (not just programmers) get very good at optimizing to meet exactly that thing.
So how should you look at the performance of your developers? Well, that's hard. And it involves human managers, who are good at understanding people (and the BS they pull), and can look at each person subjectively in the context of who/where/what they are to figure out if they are doing a good job or not.
What you do once you've figured out who is/isn't performing is a whole different question though.
(I can't take credit for this line of thinking. It's originally from Joel Spolsky. Here and here)
Do NOT measure the performance of each individual programmer simply using the build tool. You can measure the team as a whole, sure, or you can certainly measure the progress of each programmer, but you cannot measure their performance with such a tool. Some modules are more complicated than others, some programmers are tasked with other projects, etc. It's not a recommended way of doing this, and it will encourage programmers to write sloppy code so that it looks like they did the most work.
No.
Metrics like that are doomed to failure. Different people work on different parts of the code, on different classes of problem, and absolute measurements are misleading at best.
The way to measure developer performance is to have excellent managers that do their job well, have good specs that accurately reflect requirements, and track everyone's progress carefully against those specs.
It's hard to do right. A software solution won't work.
I think this needs a very careful approach when deciding the ways to measure developers performance as most the traditional methods such as line of codes, number of check ins, number of bugs fixed etc. are proven to be subjective with todays software engineering concepts. We need to value team performance approach rather measuring individual KPIs in a project. However working in commercial development environment its important to keep a track and a close look at following factors of individual developers;
Code review comments – Each project, we can decide the number of code reviews need to be conducted for a given period. Based on the code reviews individuals get remarks about their coding standard improvements. Recurring issues of code reviews of same individual’s code needs to be brought in to attention. You can use automated code reviews tools or manual code reviews.
Test coverage and completeness of tests. – The % covered needs to be decided upfront and if certain developer fails to attempt it often, it needs to be taken care of.
Willingness to sign in to complex tasks and deliver them without much struggle
Achieving what’s defined as “Done” in a user story
Mastery level of each technical area.
With agile approach in some of the projects, the measurements of the development team and the expected performance are decided based on the releases. At each release planning there are different ‘contracts’ negotiated with the team members for the expected performance. I find this approach is more successful as there is no reason of adhering to UI related measurements in a release where there is a complex algorithm to be released.
I would NOT recommend using build tool information as a way to measure the performance / progress of software developers. Some of the confounding problems: possibly one task is considerably harder than another; possibly one task is much more involved in "design space" than "implementation space"; possibly (probably) the more efficient solution is the better solution, but that better solution contributes less lines of code than a terribly inefficient one which provides many many more lines of code; etc.
Speaking of KPI in software developers. www.smartKPIs.com may be a good resource for you. It contains a user friendly library of well-documented performance measures. At the moment it lists over 3300 KPI examples, grouped in 73 functional areas, as well as 83 industries and sub-categories.
KPI examples for the software developers are available on this page www.smartKPIs.com - application development They include but not limited to:
Defects removal efficiency
Data redundancy
In addition to examples of performance measures, www.smartKPIs.com also contains a catalogue of performance reports that illustrate the use of KPIs in practice.
Examples of such reports for information technology are available on: www.smartKPIs.com - KPIs in practice - information technology
The website is updated daily with new content, so check it from time to time for additional content.
Please note that while examples of performance measures are useful to inform decisions, each performance measure needs to be selected and customized based on the objectives and priorities of each organisation.
You would probably do better measuring how well your team tracks to schedules. If a team member (or entire team) is consistantly late, you will need to work with them to improve performance.
Don't short-cut or look for quick and easy ways to measure performance/progress of developers. There are many many factors that affect the output of a developer. I've seen alot of people try various metrics ...
Lines of code produced - encourages developers to churn out inefficient garbage
Complexity measures - encourages over analysis and refactoring
Number of bugs produced - encourages people to seek out really simple tasks and to hate your testers
... the list goes on.
When reviewing a developer you really need to look at how good their work is and define "good" in the context of what the comany needs and what situations/positions the company has put that indivual in. Progress should be evaluated with equal consideration and thought.
There are many different ways of doing this. Entire books written on the subject. You could use reports from Hudson but I think that would lead to misinformation and provide crude results. Really you need to have task tracking methodology.
Check how many lines of the codes each has written.
Then fire the bottom 70%.. NO 90%!... EVERY DAY!
(for the folks that aren't sure, YES, I am joking. Serious answer here)
We get 360 feedback from everyone on the team. If all your team members think you are crap, then you probably are.
There is a common mistake that many businesses make when setting up their release management tool. The Salesforce release management toolkit is one of the best ones available in the market today, but if you do not follow the vital steps of setting it up, you will definitely have some very bad results. You will get to use it but not to its full capacity. Establishing release management processes in isolation from the business processes is one of the worst mistakes to make. Release management tools go hand in hand with the enterprise strategy, objectives, governance, change management plus some other aspects. The processes of release management need to be formed in such a way that everyone in the business is on the same page.
Goals of release management
The main goal of release management is to have a consistent set of reliable and repeatable processes that are resource independent. This enables the achievement of the most favorable business value while at the same time optimizing the utilization of resources available. Considering that most organizations focus on running short, high-yield business projects, it is essential for optimization of the delivery value chain of the application to make certain that there are no holdups in the delivery of the business value.
Take for instance the force.com migration toolkit, as this tool has proven to be great in governance. A release management tool should allow for optimal visibility and accountability in governance.
Processes and release cycles
The release management processes must be consistent for the whole business. It is necessary to have streamlined and standardized processes across the various tool users. This is because they will be using the same platform and resources that enable efficient completion of their tasks. Having different processes for different divisions of your business can lead to grievous failures in tool management. The different sets of users will need to have visibility into what the others are doing. As aforementioned, visibility is of great importance in any business process.
When it comes to the release cycles, it is also imperative to have one centralized system that will track all the requirements of the different sets of users. It is also necessary to have this system centralized so that software development teams get insight into the features and changes requested by the business. Requests have to become priorities to make sure that the business gets to enjoy maximum benefit. Having a steering team is important because it is involved in the reviewing of business requirements plus also prioritizing the most appropriate changes that the business needs to make.
The changes that should happen to the Salesforce system can be very tricky and therefore having a regular meet up between the business and IT is good. This will help to determine the best changes to make to the system that will benefit the business. By considering the cost and value of implementing a feature, the steering committee has the task of deciding on the most important feature changes to make.
Here also good research http://intersog.com/blog/tech-tips/how-to-manage-millennials-on-software-development-teams
This is an old question but still, something you can do is borrow Velocity from Agile Software Development, where you assign a weight to each task and then you calculate how much "weight" you solve in each sprint (or iteration or whatever DLC you use). Of course this comes in hand with the fact that, like a commenter mentioned before, you need to actively keep track yourself of whether your developers are working or chatting online.
If you know your developers are working responsively, then you can rely on that velocity to give you an estimate of how much work the team can do. If at any iteration this number drops (considerably), then either it was poorly estimated or the team worked less.
Ultimately, the use of KPIs together with velocity can give you per-developer (or per-team) insights on performance.
Typically, directly using metrics for performance measurement is considered a Bad Idea, and one of the easy ways to run a team into the ground.
Now, you can use metrics like % of projects completed on-time, % of churn as code goes toward completion, etc...it's a wide field.
Here's an example:
60% of mission-critical bugs were written by Joe. That's a simple, straightforward metric. Fire Joe, right?
But wait, there's more!
Joe is the Senior Developer. He's the only guy trusted to write ultra-reliable code, every time. He's written about 80% of the mission-critical software, because he's the best.
Metrics are a bad measurement of developers.
I would share my experience and how I learnt a very valuable process on measuring the team performance. I must admit, I have fallen on tracking KPI simply because most of the departments would do the same but not really for the insight until I had the responsibility to evaluate developers performance where after a number of reading I evolved with the following solution.
One every project, I would entertain the team in a discussion on the project requirements and involve them so everyone knows what is to be done. In the same discussion through collaboration we would break the projects in to tasks and weight those tasks. Now previously we would estimate the project completion as 100% where each task has a percentage contribution. Well this did work for a while but was not the best solution. Now we would based the task on weight or points to be exact and use relative measurements to compare the task and differentiate the weights for example. There is a requirement to develop a web form to gather user data.
Task would go about like
1. User Interface - 2 Points
2. Database CRUD - 5 Points
3. Validation - 4 Points
4. Design (css) - 3 Points
With this strategy We can pin point a weekly approximate on how much we have completed and what is pending on the task force. We can also be able to pin point who has performed best.
I must admit that I still face some challenges on this strategy such as not every developer is comfortable on every technology. Somehow some are excited to learn technologies simply because they find 2015 high % of points fall in that section some would do what they can.
Remember, do not track a KPI for their own sake, track it for it's insight.
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
The question might seem trivial, but it's an actual problem: when you're working on a project, do you do any kind of architecture design before actually starting coding? Do you spend much time working together with a customer to get a detailed specs/usecases/mockups?
During coding, do you alter those architectural decisions made before? Do you go back to the customer with new set of specs/usecases/mockups?
I'm wondering, what's a good balance between all those non-coding actions and coding itself, from your experience?
Update:
Ok, so from the anwsers so far it seems like there are 2 approaches:
design early, then sit and code to avoid late fixes
minimize the design alone part, instead do iterative development (agile methodologies seem to prefer it that way).
I guess which way to go depends on the project, team and customer... am I right?
That which minimises the total time spent ;-)
It heavily depends on the kind of project, but generally speaking it's better to "waste" time over-designing and specifying requisites than finding out later that something was wrong and come the whole way back to fix it.
I read something about quantitative measurements of the impact of poor design decisions in "The Mythical Man-Month" or maybe in a book called something like "Software Requirements Pro Practices" from Microsoft Press, I think the time wasted in a late fix (near product delivery) was about 10x than in early stages.
If you do agile, design and coding are the same thing. In my experience it is good to pair program during the very first stage of the project...
Have a look at scrum, agile and waterfall. This is related to project management not programming per se.
Architecture also becomes easier once you have built enough applications within a domain or a platform. In PHP, if you use Joomla, Symfony or codeigniter then your scaffolding and architecture is already in place. Same for ASP.NET MVC.
My personal experience tells me that you should consider different factors. There's no silver bullet. My personal list follows, grown mostly by experience.
If you are developing something that is well known in details, the development team is sparse and with difficulty to communicate efficiently all together, the team has strong or huge dependencies towards the work of other teams, and what you are developing has a fundamental long term importance that will be difficult to change in the future (eg. file formats), go for a very long design phase, akin to a waterfall model. Also, you should spend a lot of design if you plan to develop a rather complex application, and you have to deeply consider all the possible interactions between features before coding. Coding takes very little time compared to design. Also, you should consider this if it somehow important to keep efficient record of how the application behaves from a very high level point of view, and if your team tends to be highly unstable, so that your knowledge stays on paper, rather than in people's brain.
if you have to implement something brand new and to do research on, you want feature as soon as possible, growing the application from fast feedback, you have a pool of geeks that work in the same room, are very committed to your cause, love programming and they are passionate to share and build together, go for agile methods.
if you are in between to the previous two cases, go for an iterative approach. I normally choose a 3 months schedule. When I code alone, I work agile-like, mostly because I have to cope with frequent disruption, so I add feature by feature. However, I release iterative, namely I don't plan to do an official, stable release before the third iteration. I want space to learn the field, do mistakes, and correct them before committing to maintain some stupid choice.
if you code in academia, you are screwed, because you have some of the issues in 1 without the manpower to accommodate them, and some of the issues in 2 without the easy communication required by agile methods.
roughly 50/50. whenever ive analysed my project schedules, it turns out about 50% of the time goes into design, project management, quality control, and auxiliry tasks. the remaining 50% is coding. if i dont see that 50/50 ratio, i worry.
mind you, this is using traditional waterfall model (which is more suited to custom-app development). agile methods are better for shrink-wrapped software in my opinion.
I would say it's roughly 50/50, no matter the "methodology" or project type. It only varies in how those 50% design are distributed. And that may depend on the project, but most of all it depends on the people who do the work, and how they are "wired". It's more a matter of psychology than methodology.
Some people (I'd say the more cautious characters) need a more detailed mental map before they start coding. If they don't have that map out of prior experience, they will need more "investigation" time up front.
Others yet like to just "jump in" into coding with only a rough mental map, and work out the details as they go.
Somewhere in between is to do the elaboration via spikes and prototypes, and develop the "big picture" on top of that running code. For me personally this tends to yield the best results, and the least waste. (After all, prototyping is, in a way, a test-first approach applied on solution ideas. You get an idea, test it out in a spike or prototype, then implement/integrate it with the main code base.)
My advice is: Find out the style that feels best to you personally, and stick to it. That's going to be pretty sure the style you are going to be most effective with.
Those two things are tightly coupled. Well at first stage, you are definitely will spend some time to make design decision. Then you will have to start coding and almost in all cases you will came up with some improvement decision for your previous design.
After all it will depend on delivery date and how much time you have at all and then to decide accordingly how you going to balance it. In general you make a startup design and then during coding you will update and change it. Also is a good practice to deeply involve your customer in design decision during development stage to force him be aware of it and how much of your time you will spend on each change.
The longer the period between when you write your specification and the time you start coding will increase the chance that requirements will change. So, to answer your question, as soon as possible....
If your suffering from too much requirement creep then I would suggest implementing smaller iterations of releases (if possible) and then creating new requirements/specifcation documents for each of these samller phases.
If you can't do this.... make sure you have a good change management process sin place.
My google-fu is failing drastically, but I recently read something to the effect of:
"Spend 6 months coding, 6 months designing and 6 months testing. The good news is, they're all the same 6 months."
It's important to design enough to have a map of what you are trying to code, and how it relates to the rest of the system. You can't just code most large projects - they're too big, and usually involve multiple components. I've done that when I was young, and you end up with a big ball of mud, or stay up all night for a week refactoring it.
What I tend to do now is design down to the package level, and assign roles to components. On large systems getting to the component selection stage can take several months, and involve some trail and prototyping coding.
Then the APIs and implementations of each package are evolved, based on what messages the functionality require, and how the clients of the packages evolve to cause the emergence of further requirements or constraints. I usually evolve an API by designing a pure interface (by writing the code for it) with unit tests for each known use case, then implement it. So there is some writing of code involved in designing - the best representation of the API is usually the code and inline documentation, and it's easiest to confirm that the client can perform the actions required to satisfy a use case ( and the code to do so is not excessively complex ) by writing code which exercises the API in that way, and that code trivially becomes a unit test for the implementation of the API when it arrives. But the code written during 'designing' isn't the code which supplies the implementation of the API. For APIs with low coupling ( so can be changed without breaking too many clients ), I'll switch between designing and implementing modes rapidly; for ones with higher coupling, I'll typically publish the API and use-case examples for peer review before committing too implementing them.
As aleemb said, this really is a project management question. I suggest you read up on several methodologies, find the useful and not-so-useful parts of each, and evaluate your own circumstances (team size/experience, customer engagement and commitment levels, what's done in your organization, schedule/budget, etc.) and come up with the best schedule you can. It really all just depends on your specific circumstances.
Think about how many people are going to be involved in writing the software.
If it's just a one-developer job, maybe take a smaller percentage for design. If you're going to have 30 people working on it, you probably want a lot bigger fraction for the design.
Getting teams of developers to write software is much like partitioning software up across multiple CPU's - you are going to get the best return for added CPU (read 'developer') when you can minimize the necessary communication between them. You sure don't want to get 10's of k-loc into your project before the developers start discussing architectural issues.
Now you could probably also make the case that, when you do a better job with the design phase, the coding will actually take less time and be less painful. Measure twice and cut once, and all that.
Also, you probably should think about the likelihood of the project being 'put on hold'; design artifacts have much better shelf life than immature code.
Depends on your chosen methodology.
Traditionally with Big Design Up Front or Waterfall you spend 90% of the time designing and 10 % of the time coding. You then spend another 90% of the time handling all the changes that the initial design missed. And another 90% of the time chasing bugs.
With modern Agile development you spend 10% of the time designing and 90% of the time coding. then another 90% handling all the changes that the customer representative forgot to mention and another 90% of the time chasing bugs.