Software Engineering User Groups

Posted on July 14, 2004
Filed Under Software Eng |

John Kopanas has proposed the formation of Software Engineering User Groups. The proposal includes a monthly meeting for a presentation and discussion on all things SE. He is looking to start of in Montreal, but due to the recent “glitches” at Royal Bank, and the Ontario Welfare System, I’d like to do the same here in the GTA since it looks like we need it.

I’m appealing to all for interest and possible locations. I’m sure I could get a room at McMaster, but that is a long way for some from Toronto. I would be nice to get corporate sponsorship by way of space to hold the meeting, say at IBM or Motorola etc. We could hold joint sessions with the Montreal group by webcasting the presentation and discussion.

John, regarding the name, I propose replacing User with Advancement, or Professional Advancement. Since one of the main goals is the recognition and “advancement” of proper SE methodology in industry, as well as a coming together of like minded people to “advance” those methodologies.

Comments

9 Responses to “Software Engineering User Groups”

  1. Ness on July 14th, 2004 11:33

    I’d be interested in attending but I reserve judgement as both of those examples you posted really are not “software engineering” related as much as simple development.

    P.S. I’m not a snob.

  2. mhp on July 14th, 2004 12:13

    From all reports it looks like if either issue had used proper SE methodologies they wouldn’t have found the problem so late in the cycle, that it in production. In the Welfare system case, it should have been a requirement that the rate could change, and if it was a requirement it should have been traced to the design, then tested against the implementation.

  3. Ness on July 14th, 2004 12:44

    I agree, it was the methodologies that were wrong for those systems.

    An excellent question that is raised is: Should every piece of software use a SE process/methodology? I think the answer is no. Of course not. Why whould a text editor use verification. It’s just a simple text editor. It is a cost vs. risk calculation that Engineers do every day in every dicipline. Why should software be any different?

    Should the examples above have used SE p/m. Probably. They are very important systems that handled many tansasctions and lots of money. Therefore they should have spent more money on the project to get a better product. You get what you pay for (unless it’s government, then you usually get less).

    Somewhere along the line, someone made the decision to build a boat with huge holes below the waterline. No matter what you do for processes or methodologies the thing isn’t going to float.
    There will always be bad systems because it’s cheaper to do something “The Wrong Way” for short term gains than to build a robust system that can handle many operating conditions and variables.

    How many engineers do you think were on those projects anyway. I bet you could count them all on one hand, if there even were that many.

    I’m not trying to excuse it but allow you to see why these happened, and will continue to happen. I think I have come to realize that all you can do is try to build the best products you personally can and surround yourself with people who are like minded on your teams. That is until you become the pointy haired boss (promotion or startup company, doesn’t matter).

    After that it’s a crap shoot out there. Too many coding cowboys.

    I’d be happy to set up a mailing list for this group on my server, I like to debate stuff even if I’m not always right.

    Hey Mark, can you edit your blog software to increase the number of lines in the text box on the comment page. Thanks, 5 just doesn’t cut it. CN

  4. mhp on July 14th, 2004 14:55

    Chris, small box means short comments… I see you didn’t get the hint ;] I have made it 10 lines, is this sufficient for you?

    As for when the case when you want a well trained professional over a self-trained code monkey, the above cases are definitely a couple.

    Regarding the name issue: Software Engineering Professional Advancement Collective (SEPAC) , pronounced see-PACK

  5. mhp on July 14th, 2004 15:13

    I requested a price from the owner of SEPAC.org. I don’t think we are will to spend much on it, especially without sponsorship, but it is worth a shot.

  6. Ness on July 15th, 2004 11:09

    As for when the case when you want a well trained professional over a self-trained code monkey, the above cases are definitely a couple.

    I’ve been learning this summer that you don’t always get what you want. You have a set amount of resources in an organization and you have to make due with them. The constraints are conflicting and you have to deal with a lot of legacy systems you do not really want to play with because the slightest change could bring the whole thing down.

    That being said there are projects out there that use professionals that fail all the time (remember Baber’s course for examples). Using a professional doesn’t make things bullet proof.

    As for the name, I kinda liked “SEGA” = Software Engineering Group for Advancement. You know, like the old console. ;)

  7. Baron on July 15th, 2004 13:40

    As for the name, I kinda liked “SEGA” = Software Engineering Group for Advancement. You know, like the old console.

    Mark, see how much the owner wants for sega.com ;)

  8. John Kopanas on July 16th, 2004 16:27

    LOL… you think we will have any problems getting SEGA LOL… hmmmm

  9. Ness on July 27th, 2004 8:25

    Mailing list started:
    https://mailman.nesser.org/mailman/listinfo/seug

Leave a Reply