Search Results

Search found 1493 results on 60 pages for 'cycle'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 14/60 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • Can review changes in Acrobat Reader (Pro, or not) be 'applied' to a PDF?

    - by Danjah
    Hi there, As part of an enhancement to my workplace processes, we're trying to streamline review of various documents. Yeah, there's way better alternatives to what I'm about to suggest, but the reality is that I have no time allocated to investigate things like DAV, repo setups and such. What I do have time allocated for is improving workflow around tools we already use. So I tried to work through the Adobe PDF collaborative review cycle. I have to say it was pretty amazing, from the notify toolbar icon to doc merging, to user access control. They offer it all, EXCEPT the ability to actually apply review changes to a PDF!?! To clarify, after sending a PDF through the collab review cycle (involving a bunch for external editors and internal staff) the end result was a PDF full of rich feedback - but I can see no way to finalised and apply those 'accepted' review points to the PDF in question. I hope this is clear enough, feel free to ask questions to clarify - perhaps I'm just missing something obvious, but perhaps applying changes to an already existing PDF is not possible? -d

    Read the article

  • Weakly connected balanced digraph

    - by user1074557
    How can I prove that if a balanced digraph is weakly connected, then it is also strongly connected? (balanced digraph means that for every node, it's indegree and outdegree is the same and weakly connected means the non-directed version of this graph is connected). What I can think of so far is: if the graph is balanced, it means it is a union of directed cycles. So if I remove any cycle, it will stay balanced. Also each vertex in the cycle has one edge coming into it and one edge leading out of it.. Then I guess I need to use some contradiction or induction to prove that the graph is strongly connected.. That's where I confused.

    Read the article

  • Software Architecture: Quality Attributes

    Quality is what all software engineers should strive for when building a new system or adding new functionality. Dictonary.com ambiguously defines quality as a grade of excellence. Unfortunately, quality must be defined within the context of a situation in that each engineer must extract quality attributes from a project’s requirements. Because quality is defined by project requirements the meaning of quality is constantly changing base on the project. Software architecture factors that indicate the relevance and effectiveness The relevance and effectiveness of architecture can vary based on the context in which it was conceived and the quality attributes that are required to meet. Typically when evaluating architecture for a specific system regarding relevance and effectiveness the following questions should be asked.   Architectural relevance and effectiveness questions: Does the architectural concept meet the needs of the system for which it was designed? Out of the competing architectures for a system, which one is the most suitable? If we look at the first question regarding meeting the needs of a system for which it was designed. A system that answers yes to this question must meet all of its quality goals. This means that it consistently meets or exceeds performance goals for the system. In addition, the system meets all the other required system attributers based on the systems requirements. The suitability of a system is based on several factors. In order for a project to be suitable the necessary resources must be available to complete the task. Standard Project Resources: Money Trained Staff Time Life cycle factors that affect the system and design The development life cycle used on a project can drastically affect how a system’s architecture is created as well as influence its design. In the case of using the software development life cycle (SDLC) each phase must be completed before the next can begin.  This waterfall approach does not allow for changes in a system’s architecture after that phase is completed. This can lead to major system issues when the architecture for the system is not as optimal because of missed quality attributes. This can occur when a project has poor requirements and makes misguided architectural decisions to name a few examples. Once the architectural phase is complete the concepts established in this phase must move on to the design phase that is bound to use the concepts and guidelines defined in the previous phase regardless of any missing quality attributes needed for the project. If any issues arise during this phase regarding the selected architectural concepts they cannot be corrected during the current project. This directly has an effect on the design of a system because the proper qualities required for the project where not used when the architectural concepts were approved. When this is identified nothing can be done to fix the architectural issues and system design must use the existing architectural concepts regardless of its missing quality properties because the architectural concepts for the project cannot be altered. The decisions made in the design phase then preceded to fall down to the implementation phase where the actual system is coded based on the approved architectural concepts established in the architecture phase regardless of its architectural quality. Conversely projects using more of an iterative or agile methodology to implement a system has more flexibility to correct architectural decisions based on missing quality attributes. This is due to each phase of the SDLC is executed more than once so any issues identified in architecture of a system can be corrected in the next architectural phase. Subsequently the corresponding changes will then be adjusted in the following design phase so that when the project is completed the optimal architectural and design decision are applied to the solution. Architecture factors that indicate functional suitability Systems that have function shortcomings do not have the proper functionality based on the project’s driving quality attributes. What this means in English is that the system does not live up to what is required of it by the stakeholders as identified by the missing quality attributes and requirements. One way to prevent functional shortcomings is to test the project’s architecture, design, and implementation against the project’s driving quality attributes to ensure that none of the attributes were missed in any of the phases. Another way to ensure a system has functional suitability is to certify that all its requirements are fully articulated so that there is no chance for misconceptions or misinterpretations by all stakeholders. This will help prevent any issues regarding interpreting the system requirements during the initial architectural concept phase, design phase and implementation phase. Consider the applicability of other architectural models When considering an architectural model for a project is also important to consider other alternative architectural models to ensure that the model that is selected will meet the systems required functionality and high quality attributes. Recently I can remember talking about a project that I was working on and a coworker suggested a different architectural approach that I had never considered. This new model will allow for the same functionally that is offered by the existing model but will allow for a higher quality project because it fulfills more quality attributes. It is always important to seek alternatives prior to committing to an architectural model. Factors used to identify high-risk components A high risk component can be defined as a component that fulfills 2 or more quality attributes for a system. An example of this can be seen in a web application that utilizes a remote database. One high-risk component in this system is the TCIP component because it allows for HTTP connections to handle by a web server and as well as allows for the server to also connect to a remote database server so that it can import data into the system. This component allows for the assurance of data quality attribute and the accessibility quality attribute because the system is available on the network. If for some reason the TCIP component was to fail the web application would fail on two quality attributes accessibility and data assurance in that the web site is not accessible and data cannot be update as needed. Summary As stated previously, quality is what all software engineers should strive for when building a new system or adding new functionality. The quality of a system can be directly determined by how closely it is implemented when compared to its desired quality attributes. One way to insure a higher quality system is to enforce that all project requirements are fully articulated so that no assumptions or misunderstandings can be made by any of the stakeholders. By doing this a system has a better chance of becoming a high quality system based on its quality attributes

    Read the article

  • New Visual Studio 2012 Project Templates for DotNetNuke

    - by Chris Hammond
    Earlier this month Microsoft put the bits up for Visual Studio 2012 RTM out on MSDN Subscriber downloads, and during the first two weeks of September they will officially be releasing Visual Studio 2012. I started working with VS2012 late in the release candidate cycle, doing some DNN module development using my templates at http://christoctemplate.codeplex.com . These templates work fine in Visual Studio 2012 from my testing, but they still face the same problem that they had in Visual Studio 2008...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2012 Release Candidate disponible, avec .NET Framework 4.5 et Team Foundation Server 2012

    Visual Studio 2012 Release Candidate disponible avec .NET Framework 4.5 et Team Foundation Server 2012 Comme il est de coutume depuis la publication de la Developer Preview de Windows 8, l'OS s'accompagne toujours des outils de développement de Microsoft. La société ne déroge pas à cette règle et publie à la suite de la Release Preview de Windows 8, la Release Candidate de Visual Studio 11, avec pour nom officiel Visual Studio 2012, du Framework .NET 4.5 et de Team Foundation Server 2012. L'environnement de développement qui entre dans la dernière ligne droite de son cycle de développement, arbore pour c...

    Read the article

  • Congratulations 2010 Microsoft MVP, woo hoo 5th time now

    - by ssqa.net
    Well, its April 01st again and a big day for me 2 important events to note (daughter's birthday and MVP renewal notification). After a long travel from London to Hyderabad after speaking at UK AIC 2010 conference, I was able to make it by half day here for my daughter's birthday, phew. Then next one awaiting official confirmation about MVP renewal (April - Mar cycle), woo hooo here is one.... Dear Satya Jayanty, Congratulations! We are pleased to present you with the 2010 Microsoft® MVP Award...(read more)

    Read the article

  • The Incremental Architect&acute;s Napkin &ndash; #3 &ndash; Make Evolvability inevitable

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/theArchitectsNapkin/archive/2014/06/04/the-incremental-architectacutes-napkin-ndash-3-ndash-make-evolvability-inevitable.aspxThe easier something to measure the more likely it will be produced. Deviations between what is and what should be can be readily detected. That´s what automated acceptance tests are for. That´s what sprint reviews in Scrum are for. It´s no small wonder our software looks like it looks. It has all the traits whose conformance with requirements can easily be measured. And it´s lacking traits which cannot easily be measured. Evolvability (or Changeability) is such a trait. If an operation is correct, if an operation if fast enough, that can be checked very easily. But whether Evolvability is high or low, that cannot be checked by taking a measure or two. Evolvability might correlate with certain traits, e.g. number of lines of code (LOC) per function or Cyclomatic Complexity or test coverage. But there is no threshold value signalling “evolvability too low”; also Evolvability is hardly tangible for the customer. Nevertheless Evolvability is of great importance - at least in the long run. You can get away without much of it for a short time. Eventually, though, it´s needed like any other requirement. Or even more. Because without Evolvability no other requirement can be implemented. Evolvability is the foundation on which all else is build. Such fundamental importance is in stark contrast with its immeasurability. To compensate this, Evolvability must be put at the very center of software development. It must become the hub around everything else revolves. Since we cannot measure Evolvability, though, we cannot start watching it more. Instead we need to establish practices to keep it high (enough) at all times. Chefs have known that for long. That´s why everybody in a restaurant kitchen is constantly seeing after cleanliness. Hygiene is important as is to have clean tools at standardized locations. Only then the health of the patrons can be guaranteed and production efficiency is constantly high. Still a kitchen´s level of cleanliness is easier to measure than software Evolvability. That´s why important practices like reviews, pair programming, or TDD are not enough, I guess. What we need to keep Evolvability in focus and high is… to continually evolve. Change must not be something to avoid but too embrace. To me that means the whole change cycle from requirement analysis to delivery needs to be gone through more often. Scrum´s sprints of 4, 2 even 1 week are too long. Kanban´s flow of user stories across is too unreliable; it takes as long as it takes. Instead we should fix the cycle time at 2 days max. I call that Spinning. No increment must take longer than from this morning until tomorrow evening to finish. Then it should be acceptance checked by the customer (or his/her representative, e.g. a Product Owner). For me there are several resasons for such a fixed and short cycle time for each increment: Clear expectations Absolute estimates (“This will take X days to complete.”) are near impossible in software development as explained previously. Too much unplanned research and engineering work lurk in every feature. And then pervasive interruptions of work by peers and management. However, the smaller the scope the better our absolute estimates become. That´s because we understand better what really are the requirements and what the solution should look like. But maybe more importantly the shorter the timespan the more we can control how we use our time. So much can happen over the course of a week and longer timespans. But if push comes to shove I can block out all distractions and interruptions for a day or possibly two. That´s why I believe we can give rough absolute estimates on 3 levels: Noon Tonight Tomorrow Think of a meeting with a Product Owner at 8:30 in the morning. If she asks you, how long it will take you to implement a user story or bug fix, you can say, “It´ll be fixed by noon.”, or you can say, “I can manage to implement it until tonight before I leave.”, or you can say, “You´ll get it by tomorrow night at latest.” Yes, I believe all else would be naive. If you´re not confident to get something done by tomorrow night (some 34h from now) you just cannot reliably commit to any timeframe. That means you should not promise anything, you should not even start working on the issue. So when estimating use these four categories: Noon, Tonight, Tomorrow, NoClue - with NoClue meaning the requirement needs to be broken down further so each aspect can be assigned to one of the first three categories. If you like absolute estimates, here you go. But don´t do deep estimates. Don´t estimate dozens of issues; don´t think ahead (“Issue A is a Tonight, then B will be a Tomorrow, after that it´s C as a Noon, finally D is a Tonight - that´s what I´ll do this week.”). Just estimate so Work-in-Progress (WIP) is 1 for everybody - plus a small number of buffer issues. To be blunt: Yes, this makes promises impossible as to what a team will deliver in terms of scope at a certain date in the future. But it will give a Product Owner a clear picture of what to pull for acceptance feedback tonight and tomorrow. Trust through reliability Our trade is lacking trust. Customers don´t trust software companies/departments much. Managers don´t trust developers much. I find that perfectly understandable in the light of what we´re trying to accomplish: delivering software in the face of uncertainty by means of material good production. Customers as well as managers still expect software development to be close to production of houses or cars. But that´s a fundamental misunderstanding. Software development ist development. It´s basically research. As software developers we´re constantly executing experiments to find out what really provides value to users. We don´t know what they need, we just have mediated hypothesises. That´s why we cannot reliably deliver on preposterous demands. So trust is out of the window in no time. If we switch to delivering in short cycles, though, we can regain trust. Because estimates - explicit or implicit - up to 32 hours at most can be satisfied. I´d say: reliability over scope. It´s more important to reliably deliver what was promised then to cover a lot of requirement area. So when in doubt promise less - but deliver without delay. Deliver on scope (Functionality and Quality); but also deliver on Evolvability, i.e. on inner quality according to accepted principles. Always. Trust will be the reward. Less complexity of communication will follow. More goodwill buffer will follow. So don´t wait for some Kanban board to show you, that flow can be improved by scheduling smaller stories. You don´t need to learn that the hard way. Just start with small batch sizes of three different sizes. Fast feedback What has been finished can be checked for acceptance. Why wait for a sprint of several weeks to end? Why let the mental model of the issue and its solution dissipate? If you get final feedback after one or two weeks, you hardly remember what you did and why you did it. Resoning becomes hard. But more importantly youo probably are not in the mood anymore to go back to something you deemed done a long time ago. It´s boring, it´s frustrating to open up that mental box again. Learning is harder the longer it takes from event to feedback. Effort can be wasted between event (finishing an issue) and feedback, because other work might go in the wrong direction based on false premises. Checking finished issues for acceptance is the most important task of a Product Owner. It´s even more important than planning new issues. Because as long as work started is not released (accepted) it´s potential waste. So before starting new work better make sure work already done has value. By putting the emphasis on acceptance rather than planning true pull is established. As long as planning and starting work is more important, it´s a push process. Accept a Noon issue on the same day before leaving. Accept a Tonight issue before leaving today or first thing tomorrow morning. Accept a Tomorrow issue tomorrow night before leaving or early the day after tomorrow. After acceptance the developer(s) can start working on the next issue. Flexibility As if reliability/trust and fast feedback for less waste weren´t enough economic incentive, there is flexibility. After each issue the Product Owner can change course. If on Monday morning feature slices A, B, C, D, E were important and A, B, C were scheduled for acceptance by Monday evening and Tuesday evening, the Product Owner can change her mind at any time. Maybe after A got accepted she asks for continuation with D. But maybe, just maybe, she has gotten a completely different idea by then. Maybe she wants work to continue on F. And after B it´s neither D nor E, but G. And after G it´s D. With Spinning every 32 hours at latest priorities can be changed. And nothing is lost. Because what got accepted is of value. It provides an incremental value to the customer/user. Or it provides internal value to the Product Owner as increased knowledge/decreased uncertainty. I find such reactivity over commitment economically very benefical. Why commit a team to some workload for several weeks? It´s unnecessary at beast, and inflexible and wasteful at worst. If we cannot promise delivery of a certain scope on a certain date - which is what customers/management usually want -, we can at least provide them with unpredecented flexibility in the face of high uncertainty. Where the path is not clear, cannot be clear, make small steps so you´re able to change your course at any time. Premature completion Customers/management are used to premeditating budgets. They want to know exactly how much to pay for a certain amount of requirements. That´s understandable. But it does not match with the nature of software development. We should know that by now. Maybe there´s somewhere in the world some team who can consistently deliver on scope, quality, and time, and budget. Great! Congratulations! I, however, haven´t seen such a team yet. Which does not mean it´s impossible, but I think it´s nothing I can recommend to strive for. Rather I´d say: Don´t try this at home. It might hurt you one way or the other. However, what we can do, is allow customers/management stop work on features at any moment. With spinning every 32 hours a feature can be declared as finished - even though it might not be completed according to initial definition. I think, progress over completion is an important offer software development can make. Why think in terms of completion beyond a promise for the next 32 hours? Isn´t it more important to constantly move forward? Step by step. We´re not running sprints, we´re not running marathons, not even ultra-marathons. We´re in the sport of running forever. That makes it futile to stare at the finishing line. The very concept of a burn-down chart is misleading (in most cases). Whoever can only think in terms of completed requirements shuts out the chance for saving money. The requirements for a features mostly are uncertain. So how does a Product Owner know in the first place, how much is needed. Maybe more than specified is needed - which gets uncovered step by step with each finished increment. Maybe less than specified is needed. After each 4–32 hour increment the Product Owner can do an experient (or invite users to an experiment) if a particular trait of the software system is already good enough. And if so, she can switch the attention to a different aspect. In the end, requirements A, B, C then could be finished just 70%, 80%, and 50%. What the heck? It´s good enough - for now. 33% money saved. Wouldn´t that be splendid? Isn´t that a stunning argument for any budget-sensitive customer? You can save money and still get what you need? Pull on practices So far, in addition to more trust, more flexibility, less money spent, Spinning led to “doing less” which also means less code which of course means higher Evolvability per se. Last but not least, though, I think Spinning´s short acceptance cycles have one more effect. They excert pull-power on all sorts of practices known for increasing Evolvability. If, for example, you believe high automated test coverage helps Evolvability by lowering the fear of inadverted damage to a code base, why isn´t 90% of the developer community practicing automated tests consistently? I think, the answer is simple: Because they can do without. Somehow they manage to do enough manual checks before their rare releases/acceptance checks to ensure good enough correctness - at least in the short term. The same goes for other practices like component orientation, continuous build/integration, code reviews etc. None of that is compelling, urgent, imperative. Something else always seems more important. So Evolvability principles and practices fall through the cracks most of the time - until a project hits a wall. Then everybody becomes desperate; but by then (re)gaining Evolvability has become as very, very difficult and tedious undertaking. Sometimes up to the point where the existence of a project/company is in danger. With Spinning that´s different. If you´re practicing Spinning you cannot avoid all those practices. With Spinning you very quickly realize you cannot deliver reliably even on your 32 hour promises. Spinning thus is pulling on developers to adopt principles and practices for Evolvability. They will start actively looking for ways to keep their delivery rate high. And if not, management will soon tell them to do that. Because first the Product Owner then management will notice an increasing difficulty to deliver value within 32 hours. There, finally there emerges a way to measure Evolvability: The more frequent developers tell the Product Owner there is no way to deliver anything worth of feedback until tomorrow night, the poorer Evolvability is. Don´t count the “WTF!”, count the “No way!” utterances. In closing For sustainable software development we need to put Evolvability first. Functionality and Quality must not rule software development but be implemented within a framework ensuring (enough) Evolvability. Since Evolvability cannot be measured easily, I think we need to put software development “under pressure”. Software needs to be changed more often, in smaller increments. Each increment being relevant to the customer/user in some way. That does not mean each increment is worthy of shipment. It´s sufficient to gain further insight from it. Increments primarily serve the reduction of uncertainty, not sales. Sales even needs to be decoupled from this incremental progress. No more promises to sales. No more delivery au point. Rather sales should look at a stream of accepted increments (or incremental releases) and scoup from that whatever they find valuable. Sales and marketing need to realize they should work on what´s there, not what might be possible in the future. But I digress… In my view a Spinning cycle - which is not easy to reach, which requires practice - is the core practice to compensate the immeasurability of Evolvability. From start to finish of each issue in 32 hours max - that´s the challenge we need to accept if we´re serious increasing Evolvability. Fortunately higher Evolvability is not the only outcome of Spinning. Customer/management will like the increased flexibility and “getting more bang for the buck”.

    Read the article

  • Working with Legacy code #4 : Remove the hard dependencies

    - by andrewstopford
    During your refactoring cycle you should be seeking out the hard dependencies that the code may have, examples of these can include. File System Database Network (HTTP) Application Server (Crystal) Classes that service these kind (or code that can be abstracted to a class) of these kind of dependencies should be wrapped in an interface for easier mocking. If you team starts refering to the interface version of these classes the hard dependency will over time work it's self free.

    Read the article

  • Bunny Inc. – Episode 2. Mr. CIO meets Mrs. Sales Manager

    - by kellsey.ruppel(at)oracle.com
    How can you take advantage of a modern customer experience in your sales cycle? What can Mr. CIO come up with to improve customer interaction and satisfaction? See how Enterprise 2.0 solutions can help Bunny Inc. improve business responsiveness to market requests, sell more and simplify post sales support! Bunny Inc. - Episode 2. Mr. CIO meets Mrs. Sales ManagerTechnorati Tags: UXP, collaboration, enterprise 2.0, modern user experience, oracle, portals, webcenter, e20bunnies

    Read the article

  • [Update] RedGate SQL Source Control and TFSPreview

    - by andyleonard
    31 Oct 2012 Update: SQL Source Control 3.1 is available! - Andy 12 Oct 2012 Update: The SQL Source Control 3.1 update is currently unavailable. I will provide additional updates when this version is re-released. - Andy I am excited that RedGate ’s SQL Source Control now supports connectivity to TFSPreview , Microsoft ’s cloud-based Application Life Cycle Management portal. Buck Woody ( Blog | @buckwoody ) and I have written about TFSPreview at SQLBlog already: Team Foundation Server (TFS) in the...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Various roles in an Organization and their respective tasks.

    - by balu
    In various organizations(Software Company) there would be various designations having different roles. I would like to know the Industry accepted & followed trend in the organization hierarchy(..Like DBA,System Architect,Project Manager,Senior Developer,Developer,QA,Design Team,Delivery Manager etc..).And the various roles played by each of them in the various stages of the Software Development Life Cycle.Who all could possibly be sharing the responsibility mutually?

    Read the article

  • White Paper: How the Security Development Lifecycle Helped Improve the Security of the 2007 Microsof

    The 2007 Office system was the first Microsoft Office release to include the standardized Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) process throughout the product development life cycle. Read this paper to understand how the SDL contributed to improving the security of the 2007 Microsoft Office System....Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Les entreprises ne sont pas la priorité de Mozilla, Microsoft saisit l'occasion pour promouvoir IE 9 face à la fin attendue du support de Firefox 3.6

    Les entreprises ne sont pas la priorité de Mozilla Microsoft saisit l'occasion pour promouvoir IE 9, annonce attendue de la fin de Firefox 3.6 Co-écrit avec Hinault Romarick Le nouveau cycle de développement de Firefox, axé sur la publication des nouvelles versions avec des périodicités d'environ six semaines, s'accompagne également chez la fondation Mozilla de mises à la retraite plus rapide des versions précédentes. La fondation a ainsi déjà mis un terme aux mises à jour de sécurité de Firefox 4, publié il y a tout juste 3 mois avec

    Read the article

  • The Birth of a Method - Where did OUM come from?

    - by user702549
    It seemed fitting to start this blog entry with the OUM vision statement. The vision for the Oracle® Unified Method (OUM) is to support the entire Enterprise IT lifecycle, including support for the successful implementation of every Oracle product.  Well, it’s that time of year again; we just finished testing and packaging OUM 5.6.  It will be released for general availability to qualifying customers and partners this month.  Because of this, I’ve been reflecting back on how the birth of Oracle’s Unified method - OUM came about. As the Release Director of OUM, I’ve been honored to package every method release.  No, maybe you’d say it’s not so special.  Of course, anyone can use packaging software to create an .exe file.  But to me, it is pretty special, because so many people work together to make each release come about.  The rich content that results is what makes OUM’s history worth talking about.   To me, professionally speaking, working on OUM, well it’s been “a labor of love”.  My youngest child was just 8 years old when OUM was born, and she’s now in High School!  Watching her grow and change has been fascinating, if you ask her, she’s grown up hearing about OUM.  My son would often walk into my home office and ask “How is OUM today, Mom?”  I am one of many people that take care of OUM, and have watched the method “mature” over these last 6 years.  Maybe that makes me a "Method Mom" (someone in one of my classes last year actually said this outloud) but there are so many others who collaborate and care about OUM Development. I’ve thought about writing this blog entry for a long time just to reflect on how far the Method has come. Each release, as I prepare the OUM Contributors list, I see how many people’s experience and ideas it has taken to create this wealth of knowledge, process and task guidance as well as templates and examples.  If you’re wondering how many people, just go into OUM select the resources button on the top of most pages of the method, and on that resources page click the ABOUT link. So now back to my nostalgic moment as I finished release 5.6 packaging.  I reflected back, on all the things that happened that cause OUM to become not just a dream but to actually come to fruition.  Here are some key conditions that make it possible for each release of the method: A vision to have one method instead of many methods, thereby focusing on deeper, richer content People within Oracle’s consulting Organization  willing to contribute to OUM providing Subject Matter Experts who are willing to write down and share what they know. Oracle’s continued acquisition of software companies, the need to assimilate high quality existing materials from these companies The need to bring together people from very different backgrounds and provide a common language to support Oracle Product implementations that often involve multiple product families What came first, and then what was the strategy? Initially OUM 4.0 was based on Oracle’s J2EE Custom Development Method (JCDM), it was a good “backbone”  (work breakdown structure) it was Unified Process based, and had good content around UML as well as custom software development.  But it needed to be extended in order to achieve the OUM Vision. What happened after that was to take in the “best of the best”, the legacy and acquired methods were scheduled for assimilation into OUM, one release after another.  We incrementally built OUM.  We didn’t want to lose any of the expertise that was reflected in AIM (Oracle’s legacy Application Implementation Method), Compass (People Soft’s Application implementation method) and so many more. When was OUM born? OUM 4.1 published April 30, 2006.  This release allowed Oracles Advanced Technology groups to begin the very first implementations of Fusion Middleware.  In the early days of the Method we would prepare several releases a year.  Our iterative release development cycle began and continues to be refined with each Method release.  Now we typically see one major release each year. The OUM release development cycle is not unlike many Oracle Implementation projects in that we need to gather requirements, prioritize, prepare the content, test package and then go production.  Typically we develop an OUM release MoSCoW (must have, should have, could have, and won’t have) right after the prior release goes out.   These are the high level requirements.  We break the timeframe into increments, frequent checkpoints that help us assess the content and progress is measured through frequent checkpoints.  We work as a team to prioritize what should be done in each increment. Yes, the team provides the estimates for what can be done within a particular increment.  We sometimes have Method Development workshops (physically or virtually) to accelerate content development on a particular subject area, that is where the best content results. As the written content nears the final stages, it goes through edit and evaluation through peer reviews, and then moves into the release staging environment.  Then content freeze and testing of the method pack take place.  This iterative cycle is run using the OUM artifacts that make sense “fit for purpose”, project plans, MoSCoW lists, Test plans are just a few of the OUM work products we use on a Method Release project. In 2007 OUM 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 were published.  With the release of 4.5 our Custom BI Method (Data Warehouse Method FastTrack) was assimilated into OUM.  These early releases helped us align Oracle’s Unified method with other industry standards Then in 2008 we made significant changes to the OUM “Backbone” to support Applications Implementation projects with that went to the OUM 5.0 release.  Now things started to get really interesting.  Next we had some major developments in the Envision focus area in the area of Enterprise Architecture.  We acquired some really great content from the former BEA, Liquid Enterprise Method (LEM) along with some SMEs who were willing to work at bringing this content into OUM.  The Service Oriented Architecture content in OUM is extensive and can help support the successful implementation of Fusion Middleware, as well as Fusion Applications. Of course we’ve developed a wealth of OUM training materials that work also helps to improve the method content.  It is one thing to write “how to”, and quite another to be able to teach people how to use the materials to improve the success of their projects.  I’ve learned so much by teaching people how to use OUM. What's next? So here toward the end of 2012, what’s in store in OUM 5.6, well, I’m sure you won’t be surprised the answer is Cloud Computing.   More details to come in the next couple of weeks!  The best part of being involved in the development of OUM is to see how many people have “adopted” OUM over these six years, Clients, Partners, and Oracle Consultants.  The content just gets better with each release.   I’d love to hear your comments on how OUM has evolved, and ideas for new content you’d like to see in the upcoming releases.

    Read the article

  • RedGate SQL Source Control and TFSPreview

    - by andyleonard
    I am excited that RedGate ’s SQL Source Control now supports connectivity to TFSPreview ,  Microsoft ’s cloud-based Application Life Cycle Management portal. Buck Woody ( Blog | @buckwoody ) and I have written about TFSPreview at SQLBlog already: Team Foundation Server (TFS) in the Cloud - My Experience So Far (Buck) Introducing TFSPreview: Application Lifecycle Management in the Cloud! Using TFSPreview: Step 1, Connecting Microsoft’s commitment to cloudtech is strong and producing very cool...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Question about SDLC. How to answer this?

    - by pirzada
    I have seen this asked many times in job interviews but I am still not sure how to answer this. I am a web developer for quite some time but I still have problem with explaining OOP and SDLC (Familiar with system development life cycle) . How to prepare for above 2 topics for an interview point of view. Still I use both all the time during development. I am not clear on OOP SDLC Is there any simplest answer to both of these? Thanks

    Read the article

  • What is Mozilla's new release management strategy ?

    - by RonK
    I saw today that FireFox released a new version (5). I tried reading about what was added and ran into this link: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/06/firefox-5-released-arrives-only-three-months-after-firefox-4.ars It states that: Mozilla has launched Firefox 5, a new version of the popular open source Web browser. This is the first update that Mozilla has issued since adopting a new release management strategy that has drastically shortened the Firefox development cycle. I find this very intriguing - any idea what this new strategy is?

    Read the article

  • WebCenter Customer Spotlight: Institute of Financing for Agriculture and Fisheries

    - by kellsey.ruppel
     Author: Peter Reiser - Social Business Evangelist, Oracle WebCenter  Solution SummaryThe Institute of Financing for Agriculture and Fisheries (IFAP) provides access, process payments, and oversee the application of EU and domestic funds distribution to individuals and companies. IFAP business objectives were to establish electronic processing of EU funds, improve relations between government agencies and public in compliance with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) requirements for information management and security They implemented a complete solution for managing the entire document content life cycle through the use of Oracle WebCenter Content and Oracle WebCenter Capture. IFAP improved relationships with the public by accelerating payments electronically to individuals and organizations engaged in agriculture and fisheries, which is much easier, faster, and more secure than paper-based payments and the solution complies with ISO information and security requirements.  Company OverviewAs part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development, and Fisheries, the mission of the Institute of Financing for Agriculture and Fisheries (IFAP) is to provide access, process payments, and oversee the application of European Union (EU) and domestic funds distribution to individuals and companies engaged in the agriculture, rural development, and fisheries industries. Business ChallengesIFAP main business objective was to establish electronic processing of EU funds invested in agriculture and fisheries, improve relations between government agencies and the public and  comply with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) requirements for information management and security systems regarding access to stored documents. Solution DeployedIFAP implemented a complete solution for managing the entire document content life cycle through the use of Oracle WebCenter Content and Oracle WebCenter Capture.  The use of paper was replaced with digital formats, accelerating internal processes and ensuring compliance with ISO requirements Business Results Scalability The number of documents included and managed in the document system, called iDOC, increased to a total of 490,847, of which 103,298 are internally generated, 113,824 are digitized correspondence, and 264,870 are forms that have been digitized or received via the institute’s Web site. Efficiency  IFAP improved relationships with the public by accelerating payments electronically to individuals and organizations engaged in agriculture and fisheries, which is much easier, faster, and more secure than paper-based payments. The overall productivity increased through the use of digital formats and citizens’ ID cards as digital signatures. Compliance The implemented solution complies with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) requirements for information management and security systems regarding access to stored documents. Oracle Products and Services IFAP Customer Snapshot Oracle WebCenter Content Oracle WebCenter Capture Oracle Application Server Oracle Forms Oracle Reports

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >