Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Quality in the Resources - Quality - Time - Scope
On Nov 26, 2007 11:51 PM, James S. Fosdick, PMP, CSP <jsfosdickcsp@...> wrote:
With no disrespect intended, "Quality is not negotiable" is a
meaningless and counterproductive aphorism like "Fight to win" or
"Failure is not an option". First of all, the meaning of "quality"
MUST be negotiated as it means different things to different people.
Worse yet, "failure is not an option" isn't meaningless, it's a gutless statement that people typically use when they are unable to face the grim reality of impending and unavoidable failure and would rather throw good money after bad in a vein attempt to safe face on someone else's dime or over someone else's back. (Early) failure is in fact an excellent option in some circumstances, and one of the great things about Scrum is that it allows you to see much easier when those circumstances are met.
Sorry, pet peeve.
- I would imagine that it is very difficult to put a number on it. Do you think someone could really tell you how many dollars extra profit, or reduced cost, may arise from the ability to see a graphic of sales figures instead of a text report? (This assumes that the graphic has 'business value' greater than the text report.
Value cannot always be measured in arithmetic terms, even money arithmetic. What is valuable to one person is irrelevant to another. Even being able to say 'Oh, it saves me X hours a week when I use that feature' cannot reasonably be defined in dollars, or euros.
Value is so often an individual, subjective thing. Value is often measured in terms of helpfulness, convenience, even attractiveness.
I think this is another good reason why project cost-benefit analysis and things like ROI are fundamentally meaningless.
Of course, just because something is of value to someone, doesn't always mean that it is valuable. Receiving large, voluminous reports that indicate (somehow) status and importance may be of value to the recipient, but really isn't the least bit valuable in any objective sense.
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:52:07 +0530
Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Quality in the Resources - Quality - Time - ScopeThanks for your response, it helps a lot. References to Drucker and the relevance of a 'customer', even a non-paying one.About someone wanting features in eclipse, it is evident that there is some value, but 'business' value !?!Can we even come close to putiing a number to it? I don't mean so many Dollars or Euros, but even a relative value accross features, such that this set of values be resonably consistent.--- srinivas----- Original Message ----
From: Matt <maswaffer@gmail. com>
To: scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wednesday, 5 December, 2007 11:07:46 PM
Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Quality in the Resources - Quality - Time - Scope
--- In scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com, srinivas chillara <ceezone@...> wrote:
> OK, I have to accept this is a good argument. Still (now getting depressed) is every software down to business and money?
> How about eclipse IDE development?
"The purpose of business is to create and keep a customer." – Peter Drucker (also attributed to Theodore Levitt)
Business does not have to equal money. Drucker wrote extensively about non-profit management and was always careful to point out the importance of the customer. In the case of Eclipse (or any number of other open-source projects) it is about the end user whether they pay or not. Why do features get implemented in Eclipse? Because the "customer" asked for them (keeping in mind that the customer is just the end user which may simply be the developer who wrote the feature in the first place.)
That said, if you want to write software for fun that is fine but once you have a set of customers (i.e. someone besides you that wants to use your software) you now have "business value" that you are creating.
Hope this helps.
Get the freedom to save as many mails as you wish. Click here to know how.
Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com.au. It's simple!