{"title":"对硬件开发过程的一些观察","authors":"T. Allen","doi":"10.1109/SPCON.1994.344429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To begin our study of hardware development, we were faced with a dilemma. We could study the process or processes and learn something about individual development projects, but since each development was unique, how could we generalize? Furthermore, since we wanted to go beyond being merely descriptive in our analyses and develop normative conclusions, we were faced with the problem of evaluation. Since there are no universal criteria, how can you produce relative evaluations of unique activities? We solved both of these problems by seeking out instances in which the development activity was not unique. We took advantage of such formally sanctioned competitions by studying the National Aeronautics and Space Administration commissioned two or more contractors to develop prototypes of products, that N.A.S.A. would later procure. This enabled us then to obtain performance evaluations from the customer at a subsystem level. This is the level at which one or a very small group of engineers would be working, and thereby enabled us to relate observations of individual engineers to their performance outcome. We discuss some of the results and consider how this work may have some relevance to software development.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":163642,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Software Process. Applying the Software Process","volume":"23 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Some observations on the hardware development process\",\"authors\":\"T. Allen\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SPCON.1994.344429\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To begin our study of hardware development, we were faced with a dilemma. We could study the process or processes and learn something about individual development projects, but since each development was unique, how could we generalize? Furthermore, since we wanted to go beyond being merely descriptive in our analyses and develop normative conclusions, we were faced with the problem of evaluation. Since there are no universal criteria, how can you produce relative evaluations of unique activities? We solved both of these problems by seeking out instances in which the development activity was not unique. We took advantage of such formally sanctioned competitions by studying the National Aeronautics and Space Administration commissioned two or more contractors to develop prototypes of products, that N.A.S.A. would later procure. This enabled us then to obtain performance evaluations from the customer at a subsystem level. This is the level at which one or a very small group of engineers would be working, and thereby enabled us to relate observations of individual engineers to their performance outcome. We discuss some of the results and consider how this work may have some relevance to software development.<<ETX>>\",\"PeriodicalId\":163642,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Software Process. Applying the Software Process\",\"volume\":\"23 1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1994-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Software Process. Applying the Software Process\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SPCON.1994.344429\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Software Process. Applying the Software Process","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SPCON.1994.344429","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在开始研究硬件开发时,我们面临着一个困境。我们可以研究过程或过程,并了解个别开发项目,但由于每个开发都是独特的,我们如何进行概括?此外,由于我们希望在我们的分析中超越仅仅是描述性的,并发展规范性的结论,我们面临着评估的问题。既然没有普遍的标准,你如何对独特的活动进行相对的评估?我们通过寻找开发活动不是唯一的实例来解决这两个问题。我们利用这种正式批准的竞争,研究美国国家航空航天局(National Aeronautics and Space Administration,简称nasa)委托两家或更多的承包商开发产品原型,这些产品后来由nasa采购。这使我们能够在子系统级别上从客户那里获得性能评估。这是一个或一个非常小的工程师团队工作的水平,从而使我们能够将单个工程师的观察与他们的绩效结果联系起来。我们讨论一些结果,并考虑这项工作如何与软件开发相关。
Some observations on the hardware development process
To begin our study of hardware development, we were faced with a dilemma. We could study the process or processes and learn something about individual development projects, but since each development was unique, how could we generalize? Furthermore, since we wanted to go beyond being merely descriptive in our analyses and develop normative conclusions, we were faced with the problem of evaluation. Since there are no universal criteria, how can you produce relative evaluations of unique activities? We solved both of these problems by seeking out instances in which the development activity was not unique. We took advantage of such formally sanctioned competitions by studying the National Aeronautics and Space Administration commissioned two or more contractors to develop prototypes of products, that N.A.S.A. would later procure. This enabled us then to obtain performance evaluations from the customer at a subsystem level. This is the level at which one or a very small group of engineers would be working, and thereby enabled us to relate observations of individual engineers to their performance outcome. We discuss some of the results and consider how this work may have some relevance to software development.<>