[trustable-software] We've got this all wrong !

[trustable at panic.fluff.org]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Duncan Hart wrote:
>
> We're ignoring the need for contextualised performance information to be
> used as an *input* to inform the development process, rather than just an
> output. It needs to be circular, rather than linear.
>

   So, I'm fairly sure what I'm saying is in fact the intent and the 
briefing that gives context for the intent are all that is required. We 
only know behaviour is as a result of the tests which we produce for 
verification of the behaviour as consumped by the customer of the system.

These rest is of NO value except to delay the delivery of the system. I 
think I'm coming around to the veiw of Kent Beck in the late 90's.

  * passes tests
  * expressed intent
  * avoids duplication
  * minimizes elements (both features and functions)

This concept that in fact requirements are collatable and deliverable is 
simply wrong.

In fact the great problem with t.software development is the period of 
training it takes to give the t.contributor knowledge of how the intents 
in fact function. The necessity for a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemba 
and how this impacts the ability to express intent and be validated by 
tests are the costs and people do not wish to do this.

Edmund

-- 
========================================================================
Edmund J. Sutcliffe                     Thoughtful Solutions; Creatively
<edmunds at panic.fluff.org>               Implemented and Communicated
<http://panic.fluff.org>                +44 (0) 7976 938841