The Big Bang Delivery

Discussions

Blogs: The Big Bang Delivery

  1. The Big Bang Delivery (6 messages)

    In his blog, Andrew Wulf writes about the dangers of the Big Bang Delivery. In addition to providing a brief history of software projects gone wrong, it also contains his own experiences at Apple Computer. Andrew starts the blog entry by defining what the term Big Bang means in the software industry.
    The Big Bang is the mother of all software development disasters; in an attempt to fix or change everything, everywhere, all at once, an organization tries to revolutionize but almost always ends up as the Titanic did.
    He is quite right on pointing out that the larger projects that try to revolutionize have been the bug-a-boo of the software development industry since its inception. For his first example he cites the British national health care system. The project is suppose to do what the Brazilians have had success with, completely revolutionize health care by introducing technology. However unlike the Brazilians, the project appears to becoming unglued. What started out as a 2 billion pound sterling project is now expected to top 30. The massive project is becoming so complex that it is unlike that any single organization (small or large) will be able to manage to easily integrate their contributions into the bigger picture. Andrew’s prediction is that the project will fail to deliver on most of what has been promised. More antidotal proof is offered by in his rehash of the problems with Vista. Andrew comments that the complexity of the promised revolution has been watered down so that we know have "NT with fancy lipstick. With the series of recent blog entries that explained how difficult it is to communicate inside MicroSoft, is it really all that surprising that Longhorn was whittled down. And in that regard, is MicroSoft really any different from any other large company? Andrews personal experience with Apple Computer in the mid-90s would suggest that it isn’t and Apple is no where near the size of MicroSoft.
    I remember the day I realized it was a complete disaster. The Copland team had called a meeting of all the development groups and their representatives, and I volunteered to go as a Developer Support team representative, just to catch what was happening….. In talking later with some of the developers it was obvious that no one was really able to manage the development of the code, much less the design.
    While Apple may have struggled with Copland, they did manage to turn things around by opting for a simpler option. That option eventually became OS/X. Andrews answer to the Big Bang lies in this switch to OS/X from Copland, small teams that have good communication using dynamic languages (Objective-C was used at Apple) tend to do better. His conclusion is that large projects that are unable to be reduced to many simpler smaller projects will fail more often than not. The other lesson is that OS/X is evolutionary in that it is based on a solid proven core technology. In other words, when the foundation is solid, good things tend to happen.
  2. Thank you for mentioning my recent blog entry. However it is quite another thing to basically ripoff the entire article by changing the words (and misspelling them no less) in an attempt to generate content of your own. I have no problem with your legal right to use snippets of my articles but this violates both the spirit and the law of copyright. Is an organization that touts 500,000 members so desparate for content that they have to resort to plagerism to fill their pages? "MicroSoft" is spelled Microsoft; it's not like the word isn't all over the internet.
  3. Thank you for mentioning my recent blog entry. However it is quite another thing to basically ripoff the entire article by changing the words
    Wow, this is like the two old guys in the restaurant First guy: The food is so bad here Second guy: And the portions are so small A complete ripoff would be me copying your entry and erasing all references to you in it. What I think I've done is summerized your blog entry and given people links back to it so that they may get the *full* story should they be so interested to do so. Maybe the summary is a bit longer than usual but then maybe that is just a reflection of how compelling the entry was. However if it your wish not to have summaries of your blog entries here, I shall be happy to oblige. Kind regards, Kirk Pepperdine
  4. I guess I was a little strong there in my complaint (note: always have coffee first before writing blog comments!). It would have been OK if you had mentioned my blog title and the article's title instead of using my personal name for both (I have several more blogs in the works and none will use my name). The site name is the brand, from a marketing perspective. My name isn't any secret but it isn't the focus. Looking for your email to ask personally, the only mention I could find was on the TSS about page, and the email bounced, which made me wonder if you were real. I guess you are :-)
  5. I guess I was a little strong there in my complaint (note: always have coffee first before writing blog comments!).
    No problems on that. We don't (as a rule) edit comments on TSS unless someone says something really off.
    It would have been OK if you had mentioned my blog title and the article's title instead of using my personal name for both
    Tough call, people will want to know who you are but I guess that could be another reason to go visit your blog. ;)
  6. Hmnn.. your blog content put you on my "add to blog reader" list your first comment threw you off it... The following conversations are bringing you back on board... feeling a bit dizzy with the yes/no/yes thing... :-)
  7. In my opinion the mention was good enougth to make me a new reader of your blog (by the way, I never ever heard about you,) and go to your web site, "the codist", to read the entire article, and you lost a good chance to thank Kirk and TheServerSide for make more people know you, star codist. []'s Mael