Real-Time Technology Solutions (RTTS) Blogs and News Updates

The Financial Services Mess

2008-09-23T17:09:10.032-04:00

What a mess. Mortgages were sold to people who couldn''t afford them by companies who sold them to other comapnies who resold them to firms who repackaged them to others who created new instruments and resold them and now no one can pay anyone and the entire US economy is about to come crashing down. Does that about cover it?

Some of Lehman''s assets, including 10,000 employees are being acquired by Barclay''s, which means 14,000 people will be on the streets. Bear Stearns is already a memory, with the employees scattered around other brokerages, hedge funds and smaller players. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are becoming banks to survive.

About once every 8 years Wall Street comes up with a new gimmick to make money and ends up shooting itself (and everyone else) in the foot. The junk bond scandal, the savings and loans, the dot com "new new economy" and now the sub-prime stuff.

Which means the brokerage industry that I grew up working in and with is no longer. A self-inflicted gun shot wound to the head - this time a kill shot. RIP Wall Street. You''ll never be the same. And you did it to yourself. Again....

Posted by Bill Hayduk on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:08 PM EDT
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

Why is Software Quality Still the Poor Stepchild of Software Development?

2008-09-23T16:34:19.328-04:00

In the recent past, our organization reviewed the software quality planning for a very large, complex software implementation for a large organization. The implementation was being performed by a well-known consultancy, one which had successfully completed multiple such implementations in the past. The initial overarching project planning document was approximately 300 pages long; not more than 5 pages were devoted to testing and software quality.

Now, in all fairness, the document did refer to future planning tasks for testing cycles that were scheduled to be written. And some of them were, eventually.

The main point here, though, is one of emphasis. If, at the current stage in the maturity of the industry, software quality attracts so little attention at the beginning of a large project, and one implemented by a respected and successful organization, then it is clear that the case for investing in software quality has not been made to the industry.

Now, you might look at the recent history of the field, and conclude that all the companies that have been building their own software and have deployed with what, on paper, looks like insufficient testing, have “gotten away with it.” The economy has not faltered (at least, not because of software defects), and there haven’t been an overwhelming number of reports in the press about companies stumbling due to major glitches in their software. NIST, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, recently pegged the cost of inadequate software testing at $59 billion. Not chump change, but, you might argue, an acceptable cost in a trillion-dollar economy.

This is looking at it in the wrong way. Software quality investments should be looked at in the same way we look at insurance policies, because that is essentially what they are – mechanisms for reducing risk to the enterprise. Just as no individual can afford to drive without insurance because the personal risk is too high (even though society may be able to absorb the costs of the uninsured), no organization can afford to short on software testing – because the risk is too high. Anyone who views this from the perspective of organizational risk will “get” it – and the argument that the status quo has worked in the past falls flat from a risk perspective, because statistically, the longer one goes without a major failure, the likelier a failure becomes, not the opposite.

Posted by Jeff Bocarsly on Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:41 PM EDT
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

Tools that make consulting a pleasure

2008-08-29T12:49:57.668-04:00

Over the years I have had many different laptop computers that I used on client sites. One of the nicer ones was a Dell Inspiron with a 15-inch screen and a 1600x1200 screen resolution. The drawback was it weighed over 10 pounds. In recent years I downsized my machines to a 12-inch screen with a 1280x800 resolution. I did this for a few reasons. First was that they only weighed about five pounds and second is that on my numerous plane trips I could actually open it up without having it pressed against my stomach; especially when the person in front of me reclined their seat.

Well, over the past year and a half I flew enough to attain platinum level status in the frequent flyer program for US Airways. I am getting upgraded to first class ahead of the hordes of gold level people. So I upgraded my laptop from a Dell XPS1210 to an Inspiron 1720. This baby rocks. It has a 17-inch screen with a 1900x1200 resolution. Here is the kicker; it has a full keyboard with a numeric keypad. It is a pleasure to use on client sites. I outfitted it with VMware so that I can create a virtual machine and load whatever tools I need in a matter of minutes, and when I'm done I just blow it away.

For added toys of convenience I found a USB powered network hub with four ports. I can't tell you how many times I was in a room with other consultants and there was only a single network cable. I also purchased a USB mobile battery to power USB devices (and my cell phone) and a USB fan and light. To round it all off I got a 320 GB mini drive. With all of this cool stuff I bought a rolling laptop case that also fits nicely on top of my suitcase for the airport (until I check my luggage). Now I have my sights on a mobile printer. I'm looking at a Cannon BJC85.

Does anyone have a BJC85 that can share their opinions of it? What about any cool gadgets or software?

Posted by Jonathan Harris on Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:46 PM EDT
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

Recruiting Blunders

2008-07-07T09:44:48.011-04:00

Someone recently sent me an interesting article on recruiting blunders. It talked about candidates sniffing their armpits when walking into the interview room; receiving phone calls during the interview and asking the interviewer to leave the room so they could have some privacy; and other ridiculous errors that some candidates commit.

This reminded me of some of our most unusual candidates. While most of the candidates I have interviewed are excellent, some of them boggle the mind. Some are not only unprepared but they seem to speak without thinking. Many of the things they did or answers they gave were so off the wall that they just cannot be made up.

One candidate pulled out a 2-quart bottle of water and slammed it on the table at the beginning of the interview. Then every time he was nervous he would take a huge gulp and finish with a big “Ahh.” Another candidate asked where she would sit if hired. We showed her the cubicle and she said that would never do. Then she saw an office to her liking and asked if she could have that. I told her no, it is the President’s office. We also had a candidate that had greased up his hair with so much oil or gel that it looked like he had just come out of the shower. After a 45 minute interview his hair was still soaking wet.

One of my all-time favorite candidates had an interesting answer to a “tell us a little bit about yourself” question. Near the end of a long-winded monologue the candidate proudly boasted about being a very friendly and cheerful person whom friends have nicknamed, “The Cheerful Idiot.” Definitely not the best way to describe yourself to a potential employer.

We also ask the candidates what their strengths are followed by their weaknesses. One candidate gave us the standard answer for the former, but when we asked for weaknesses we were flabbergasted by the answer. First the candidate said they tend to be late, then said they lose focus when under pressure, then added they had trouble meeting deadlines and finally said they like to goof off from time to time. That candidate still holds the all-time record for weaknesses at four.

There have been other colorful answers from a plethora of other candidates. Some of the best are listed below:

Why should we hire you?
“I don’t know?”

Tell us about an event that really challenged you?
“That’s a silly question.”

Rate your self on a scale from 1 to 10.
“A 10.”

When would you be able to start?
“In a couple of months, I need to rest.”

Would you accept the offer?
“Only if I do not get a better one.”

What do you know about RTTS?
“Not much. I had to travel to get here and did not have time to look at you web site. I was hoping you would tell me what you do.”

Why didn’t you wear a suit to the interview?
“It was hot outside.”

Why did you major in Computer Science?
“I didn’t know what I wanted to do and my brother told me to try it.”

What is your strongest programming language?
“English.”

While many of the answers are very truthful and honest, they did not put the candidates in the best of light. But at least I have never had anyone smell their armpits.
Posted by Ron Axelrod on Thursday, July 03, 2008 2:58 PM EDT
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

A View from the Road

2008-05-24T11:08:43.917-04:00

I recently went to 2 conferences: Software Test and Performance (in San Mateo, CA) and STAR East (in Orlando). I noticed an interesting trend at these shows.

There was the proliferation of new companies offering test-related tools that either competed with the big boys (HP, IBM, Microsoft, Borland, Compuware) or provided something in a different slant. Companies covering code analysis, security testing, application monitoring, test management, and traditional automated functional and load testing were everywhere. What this leads me to believe is that the software testing industry is still growing and thriving with new products that may be hitting the market under the noses of the primary players. It has always been the path of the big boys to see what the market needs, keep an eye on the new up-and-coming software firms and then swoop in and buy one to enter the marketplace (See HP's and IBM's acquisitions of SPI Dynamics and Watchfire last year in the application security testing space). The IPO is dead thanks to Sarbenes-Oxley, but the targeting of a takeover is the new way for these ISV's to get to the end game.

We are entering the age of relevance of the Tester. Since the adoption of the agile processes (XP, Scrum, etc.) and the slow death of the waterfall process, Testers are finally getting a seat at the table of IT. So, as application lifecycle management (ALM) adds the quality component, that means more focus on the Tester role and more tools to make that role successful.

All in all, the Tester and the tools for the Tester are at an all-time boom. Enjoy new-found respect, job stability and growth, you previously unappreciated toilers of software!

Posted by Bill Hayduk on Monday, May 19, 2008 1:21 PM EDT
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

A View from the Road

2008-05-24T10:59:44.120-04:00

I recently went to 2 conferences: Software Test and Performance (in San Mateo, CA) and STAR East (in Orlando). I noticed an interesting trend at these shows.

All in all, the Tester and the tools for the Tester are at an all-time boom. Enjoy new-found respect, job stability and growth, you previously unappreciated toilers of software!

Posted by Bill Hayduk on Monday, May 19, 2008 1:21 PM EDT
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

Not seeing the forest for the trees

2008-05-15T10:37:27.630-04:00

Seeing the bigger picture is an important skill in all aspects of business (and life). Many times I see someone performing a task a certain way over and over, while I’m thinking “Why not do it this way?” or, “If you do this part of the task this way once, the rest would be easier and repeating it would be more efficient.” What makes me smack my head and proclaim "Doh!" is when I'm the recipient of such advice. Sometimes when you are down in the thick of detail, you don't see the forest for the trees. In my last blog entry I talked about statements-of-work (SOWs). Because creating them is a significant component of my work, here is one head-smacker to add; and by the way it also falls under the heading of Evaluation and Improvement, both part of the RTTS methodology (Doh! times two).

Usually, after creating and submitting the SOW we have a follow-up call with the prospective client to discuss the document. We seem to always get into a conversation on process, needs, requirements and tools. Even though I enjoy talking about performance testing and tools, it would probably be a good idea to include an explanation of the previously mentioned topics within the SOW itself. For example, regarding process, describe the steps and artifacts; what is involved, setup and requirements, etc. Since there are a number of performance and scalability test tools available, the SOW could include a generalization of what the available tools are; how they work; and what they can and cannot tell you.

Fitting title for the subject. Have you had any head smacking Doh's lately?

Posted by Jonathan Harris on Monday, April 28, 2008 5:19 PM EDT
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

Following Directions and Asking the Right Questions

2008-04-23T12:20:42.595-04:00

I write quite a few Statements of Work (SOW); some call them proposals and I'm sure there are a number of other terms as well. The RTTS format I follow fits perfectly with its intended response; acceptance by the client or winning the project in a competitive situation. I take the client’s information and requirements, sift through them for relevance to the project at hand, and match the details against what can and cannot be done with automated performance and scalability testing. When communicating with potential clients and putting together the SOW, there are two aspects that must be covered even before getting to the “how long” and “how much” part. The first is that we understand their business motivations and have the methodologies in place to address them successfully. The second is that we understand their technical requirements and have the tools, skill sets, methodologies and a plan to successfully address them. However, I have found that not all companies maintain relevancy to the project at hand.

Recently, a prospective client issued a Request For Proposal (RFP) and supplied quite a bit of information regarding the testing environment, the application, business transaction volume requirements, expectations and instructions on what to include and exclude from the proposal and strategy presentation. Following the initial RFP was the opportunity for all responding vendors to ask questions. The unusual part, or at least out of the ordinary as I have not had this occur before, is that all of the questions and their answers were combined into a single response document and returned to all of the vendors. I believe this was in response to one of the questions asked by another vendor asking for access to all of the questions and answers (maybe to size up the competition, huh...).

After going through all of the questions and answers, I can surmise that there were maybe four or possibly five vendors involved. Some of the questions were duplicates that I had asked as well. Some of the questions, though valid, were coming out of left field from my perspective. One of the questions referred to additional services and tools when the RFP explicitly stated to include only tools and services needed to test the application. Another question asked for the procedure for reporting issues. As I can see it is an important point once the project starts, I cannot see its relevance in forming a testing strategy. One of the questions asked if the demonstration was against the client’s application. One of the requirements of the presentation was to do a demonstration of the tools selected for the testing with an overall length of the strategy presentation and demo not to exceed two hours. If you've ever performed a demo against a live application you have never seen before, it can take hours if not longer just set it up, not to mention the possibility of discovering the nuances of the script modifications needed to get it to play back correctly. There were a number of questions asked where the answers referred vendors back to information contained in the RFP. I can only guess whether the people asking the questions were testers or salesmen.

Anyway, from my perspective, it's all about decoding information, inferring, making educated hypotheses and putting together the best SOW possible. And, there are always good questions to ask, just make sure they are the right questions.

Posted by Jonathan Harris on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:04 PM EDT
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

Code Coverage? Why do it by Hand?

2008-03-12T12:54:36.182-04:00

Code coverage is one of those items that is better done by computer, yet people still insist on doing by hand.

When it comes to code coverage – estimating how much of your code is exercised by your testing regime – there are a number of top-notch tools. There are commercial tools for most technologies and open-source or bundled tools as well (just Google “open source code coverage”). You might think that, with all the effort and expense that is put toward software testing, development organizations would use these tools to accurately measure what their testing efforts actually buy them.

Not so.

Relatively few organizations do so, even when the tool is open-source and the only cost of ownership is the cost of installation, training and administration. The reasons are many: “Oh, our BA’s know the application so well, they can fully cover it,” or “The developers are handling that with their unit tests…,” or “We’re not there yet; we’re waiting until we shore up our core process.”

Well, maybe. Some reasons are better than others. Few organizations actually invest in even checking out whether there is an appropriate coverage tool for the technologies they are implementing with, or, if there is, what the cost might be. Some do invest in code coverage tools, and then only use them to measure the coverage of unit testing, but not the coverage of Integration or System testing. (Or UAT for that matter.) It is another area where the engineering and technology are mature and available, yet most organizations don’t take advantage of it. It is another example of how technology is ahead of process by leaps and bounds.

Posted by Jeff Bocarsly on Thursday, February 14, 2008 4:43 PM EST
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

Architecture vs. Design - An Artificial Distinction?

2008-02-07T12:20:07.439-05:00

I recently read a blog entry by Jason Gorman on "Architecture vs. Design - An Artificial Distinction?" where he talked about the scope of architecture and design being arbitrary and the meaning ultimately resides on your point of view. I agree 100% that almost anything is arbitrary based on your point of view, but being in the software testing arena, architecture and design are two totally different things. The distinction comes into play based on a timeline. In the beginning, software and systems are designed (conceptualized) as to what they are intended to do and what they are supposed to support. The architecture of these applications and systems denote their implementation. Many definitions of design talk about planning. Definitions of architecture talk about structure. It makes me think about the comic strip that came out many years ago where each cell in the strip shows the interpretation of a tree and swing by each of the producers.

As proposed by the project sponsor

As specified in the project request

As designed by the senior analyst

As produced by the programmers

As installed at the user's site

What the user wanted

From conception to delivery you never really know what you'll get. In the end in my world, the proof is in the pudding. Design is one thing, but what you end up with can be something entirely different. When I teach methodology, my definition of architecture is that it defines how components work, how they interact with other components and how we interact with them. Ultimately, architecture determines how well or poor a complete solution will work. There are so many ways to put today's technologies together and depending upon the circumstances, needs, resources, requirements, etc., a system with an elegant design may or may not be put into architectural practice to yield the best possible results. Again, my position on architecture and design is that there is a definite a distinction.

Now you know my position on architecture and design, what's yours?

Posted by Jonathan Harris on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:53 PM EST
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

The Utility-Complexity Curve

2008-02-07T12:12:37.189-05:00

As applications are designed and developed, they typically start out with a minimal feature set that is sufficient to garner enough market share to make the product viable. Then, the feature set is built out, either in response to the original vision, competition, or both.

Initially, as features are added, the application becomes more usable, in exchange for a relatively modest increase in complexity to the user. At this point, the Utility-Complexity curve is on a steep incline – with each release, the app becomes significantly more usable, for a modest cost in complexity for the user. However, this game doesn’t last forever – as more features are added, the app continues to become more complex, but the utility of the app doesn’t change by as much – the features being added speak to too tiny a segment of the user population, or are too trivial. At this point, the Utility-Complexity curve peaks and the intuitive character of the app has peaked.

Eventually, as more releases are designed and delivered, the complexity continues to increase but the utility of the application actually declines, as “feature-clutter” sets in. Subsequent releases produce a tool that is incrementally less useful to the user. The Utility-Complexity curve turns over and starts to descend.

Why does this happen to good applications with well-considered designs (at least, initially)? It happens for perfectly good capitalistic reasons - the need drive revenue by continually releasing new versions with new features. How can you convince buyers to pay annual maintenance or upgrade to a new version if you’re just releasing bug fixes and no new features?

So, every new product is on a path from an initial good, intuitive design to a maturity in which the intuitive nature of the original design is violated, where the app becomes less usable with additional features. Vendors continue to add features well beyond the optimized design for their products, and the products become incrementally less useful to the user. I wonder if anyone has tried to calculate the loss in worker productivity due to this sort of feature-creep.

Think about some of the most common applications that you have seen released with significant re-design or enhancement, especially where the changes require a great deal of re-learning by users. Are users 100% more productive with the new application? 50%? 10%? Most likely not. They are probably no more productive than they were with the earlier version, minus the re-learning, which puts productivity in the negative. Why did the vendor do it? Just to have a reason for people and organizations to buy again, and buy more.

This applies across the board - some tools on the market today are hitting or crossing the Utility-Complexity peak. They started out with nice, minimal designs, making them very intuitive and useful products. The initial phase of releases filled out the functionality in areas where things were a bit thin at the outset, and with the addition of features, utility and ease-of-use continued to rise. Somewhere in the more recent releases though, these tools have peaked. The new stuff is just getting in the way. Which means competitors will just come on the market to start the cycle again…

What do you think? Do you agree with my observations and prediction? Or do you have a different opinion?

Posted by Jeff Bocarsly on Friday, February 01, 2008 2:18 PM EST
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

You Get What You Pay For

2008-02-04T12:20:33.709-05:00

Over the holidays I ran into my neighbor at a party. I asked her why she switched her landscaper last summer. She said her previous landscaper was the least expensive one she found, but did not do the job well, in fact he was awful. Then she added sometimes you get what you pay for. I knew what she meant. Whenever I went for the lowest bidder on a home project, I regretted it.

The conversation reminded me of many of our clients that went with offshore solutions. In the majority of cases it was upper management’s decision to select an offshore consulting firm, mainly because of cost. While $20 per hour for resources was a common price (it has since increased), I had heard as low as $8 per hour. But most of the time these engagements ended in disaster.

One of the most memorable stories involves a client that asked their internal U.S. developers how much it would cost to develop a new system and the developers said five million dollars. The management team then went to an overseas outsourcing vendor and the bid came back at two million. They fired their developers and signed up with the outsourcer. Twelve million dollars later they had a partially built system that was a year and a half late.

I have been witness to quite a few other stories like this. For example, one client contracted two of our test automation experts. To save costs they also employed a dozen overseas consultants. The overseas consultants were instructed to create a specific number of test automation scripts in a two-month period. We were tasked with a similar workload. One week before the scripts were supposed to be run, the overseas group said that nothing was completed. When asked why, they blamed our Test Engineers and said we had not provided them with the proper information. Fortunately we were prepared for this false accusation problem because we had experienced it a number of times before. We had documented everything in emails, including the overseas management’s acknowledgement that we had sent them all the information they needed. They backed down immediately and agreed to work around the clock to fix the problem. Unfortunately this meant that one of our employees had to work 12 hours on Thanksgiving Day and another 13 hours the following Saturday, but with our help, the testing was successfully completed. The bottom line is the overseas consultants were not working towards completing their tasks until they were called upon to show their status. There was no return on their low cost.

We are not the lowest cost provider of software testing and we are also not the highest, but our clients tell us we are the best value for the buck. It is the main reason why a significant amount of our work is from repeat business - our clients say we exceed their expectations and they get more value than what they paid for.

Posted by Ron Axelrod on Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:53 PM EST
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

Happy New Year! (Error Code 2048)

2008-01-31T18:25:00.115-05:00

I’m sure I am not the only one that brings my career experience into my daily non-work life. So, when I attempted to send several text messages to friends and family members shortly after midnight this past New Year’s Eve (12/31/2007), I was not surprised to encounter messages on my cell phone stating System Busy or Failed to Send Message. It seems that many of us in the larger metropolitan areas had the same idea at the same time and there was just not enough capacity to handle the volume of calls and text messages. So, it was at this point in the evening, over a glass of tasty sparkling white wine, and after wishing good tidings with my newlywed wife, that I had some thoughts pertaining to the technologies and challenges that I will probably encounter within the upcoming year, similar to a press release that RTTS distributed discussing similar concepts.

Here were some of my thoughts before resuming my social engagements for the evening:

RIA Rises - Rich Internet Applications using Web 2.0 technologies will probably make performance and scalability testing more challenging due to the dispersion of physical and logical data sources, the complexities that are now being pushed onto the web clients and the quick paced evolution of communication protocols, including SOAP, REST, JSON, and XML-RPC, amongst others. I don’t think that the Click-N-Test Methodology is going to be very effective in this arena.
Enter the Enterprise - Lately I’ve been seeing corporations creating Intranets that go way beyond the role of providing static documents. Intranets are starting to be integrated into the role of the business, providing process workflow, enabling access to corporate applications, establishing social networks, and facilitating collaboration via Wikis. If providing this functionality to a business with hundreds or thousands of employees, performance becomes a critical factor in determining the success of the application, the productivity of employees, and in some cases corporate morale. Again, applying the principles of Performance-Testing-In-30-Minutes-Or-Less will not work to one's advantage.
Meet the Mainframe - No, I don’t think that Mainframe systems are on the rise again. However, with the momentum of server virtualization picking up, the Mainframe paradigm is taking hold again. Server consolidation will mean that great care needs to be taken when establishing application capacity and assigning system resources to components that are going to share a physical platform.

So, if I had to sum up my thoughts, I would say that performance testing will become even more critical as business and technology continue to merge, and automated performance testing will become even more challenging as result of the increasing complexity of this generation of applications.

What are your thoughts pertaining to these technologies and challenges? Which other ones do you expect to encounter within the upcoming year?

Posted by Matthew Adcock on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 3:24 PM EST
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

Educating the Business: It Ain?t Widgets

2007-12-24T12:41:27.359-05:00

The biggest communications failure in modern business is not between marketers and customers, nor between management and workers, nor between businesses and their partners or investors, nor between regulators and businesses.

The greatest communications gap is between business resources inside an organization and the internal software teams that build custom software to support them. I say that this is the largest communication gap in the modern history of business because:

· it is pervasive, crossing multiple verticals

· it encompasses nearly everything that modern business does

· it affects business decisions virtually every minute of every day

This disconnect between software development teams and the businesses they support is the 800-pound gorilla sitting in the corner of every meeting and every discussion that occurs between technical software resources and the business resources that depend on them. Business types are from Mars and technical types are from Venus (or the other way around, if you like). They are, too often, ships passing in the dark.

The essence of the miscommunication is that business resources are inclined to think of a software development group as a widget factory, and the technical side in almost every organization has utterly failed to educate their business sponsors about the true nature of the beast.

The Widget Factory

Business folks are, by definition, trained to look at the world as a set of chunkable, repetitious tasks – and they are trained to write project plans and budgets around numbers of tasks and subtasks, each with an estimated time associated with it. Once they have all the tasks listed, and the time estimated for each task, they magically have a cost estimate on which to budget a development project. This is not a bad way to think – it works for much of economic life – the whole manufacturing sector uses it, and it applies to any area of the services economy where tasks are completely well-defined and repetitive. Every widget factory, I imagine, has this sort of predictability associated with it, so the projects for Widgets, Inc. always come out on time and at budget. This could work for software development, in principle, except for one small problem: it ain’t widgets.

The True Nature of the Beast

Alas for everyone involved in software development, the development groups, the support staff, the managers, and the business users, software development is largely a creative activity that just doesn’t work with the widgets model. And this is the key point that software teams fail to convey to the business side, and utterly fail to educate their business colleagues about.

However, businesses must run on budgets, and so everyone on the business side expects that the software side can work in a regime of predictability just like they do. And because business is the sponsor, the software side doesn’t like to say “no”, or “let’s strategize on this”. Instead, everyone plays along, produces a project plan, a set of dates, a set of effort estimates, and off they go again. As dates begin to slip, and hours worked rise, and deadlines loom, the same tempers that frayed last time fray this time.

Is There A Better Way?

In the most concrete, practical terms – probably not. Businesses need to run on budgets and project plans. Software development will only require more creativity as technology progresses, not less. Neither of these will change.

The thing that can change – the education part - can make a difference. All parties, software and business, will benefit if both sides are more aware of the nature of each others’ domains. It won’t change the stress associated with delivery deadlines, or the vagaries of trying to build a project estimate. But it can create an environment of greater understanding between the two sides that will smooth the path when the going gets rough. And the burden of educating the business side about how software is built – that is on the software side.

Posted by Jeff Bocarsly on Monday, December 24, 2007 10:51 AM EST
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

Dear Santa

2007-12-21T16:15:50.843-05:00

Since this is the holiday season and I am in the spirit, I figured I would apply a tried-and-true way from my childhood of getting my wishes fulfilled. With that in mind…

Dear Santa:

I was good this year (I think) and I was hoping you could help me out with my wishes. Below is a partial list. Feel free to use your infinite discretion.

1) A PC that does not freeze on me every other day. I know I have asked for this in the past, but no matter how many upgrades and state-of-the-art purchases I make, I still freeze up.

2) A clean desk. I know you did not mess it up, but whatever you could do to fix this issue would be greatly appreciated by me (and my co-workers).

3) Test tools that are way too complicated for people to use. Enough with the wizards and stuff in the tools. Give me tools that only consultants can figure out.

4) Vendor conferences at different times of the year in exotic locales. Why do all the vendors have them in May and June? And why in the desert in summer? How about the Bahamas in winter? That works for me!

5) While we’re on the vendors, how about deals with no paperwork. No more 50 forms and 22 acronyms inputted into 30 different systems. One email and that’s it.

6) Can you make cell phones with ear zappers? If you talk on the train/bus while others are around, you get zapped.

7) I need a “Guide to the Y Generation” book. What’s with YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, etc? Let’s force people to have to speak face to face, not Facebook to Facebook. (I should put that comment on my LinkedIn page).

8) Anabolic steroids and HTH for my Knicks. Hey - if it works for Bonds and Clemens, why not? They can’t be any worse.

9) While we’re on sports, how about blinders for my Dallas Cowboys’ Tony Romo? Every time he looks into the stands at Carrie Underwood and Jessica Simpson, he stops looking at T.O. and Witten!

10) A customer who would like a 10-year deal for as many people as we have.

11) A golf club that hits a ball straight. The ones I have bought all seem to be damaged.

12) A fantasy football season where one of my top guys does not break his leg (see Willie Parker and all of my other players over the past).

13) A fantasy tester game where RTTS people are picked in the first round.

14) Oh yeah. One more. Peace on earth and good will towards men (and women and children).

Thanks Santa!!!

Respectfully,

Bill Hayduk

Posted by Bill Hayduk on Friday, December 21, 2007 4:15 PM EST
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

The Holidays Have Gone Plaid: Prepare for the Back-To-School Season

2007-12-21T15:35:22.484-05:00

Black Friday. Cyber Monday. Green Monday. What's next, Plaid Friday? I don't think I could ever slip in a reference to Spaceballs, but hey I'll try anything for a laugh, or two.

Anyway, it's been quite some time since my last entry, but it's not due to lack of eagerness. I have simply been engrossed in a couple of time-sensitive customer engagements, during which we assisted with holiday e-commerce preparations and an enterprise rollout of a Microsoft SharePoint solution. So, my free time has been costly and as a result this holiday season is rushing past me at ludicrous speed. And I have for the first time purchased all of my holiday gifts through online vendors. There are lots of reports out there publishing positive news for this 2007 Holiday Shopping Season and sales seem to be projected to grow by 20% when compared to last year's online purchases. I have heard of several e-commerce vendors that have experienced significant customer dissatisfaction due to sluggish responses and/or the inability to complete the checkout process due to some form of application error. However, it seems that the vendors that had issues during the 2006 Holiday Shopping Season have prepared themselves very well. One of my personal favorites, Overstock.com, was featured in several articles discussing its investment of almost ten times the amount of resources in previous years towards the goal of better application performance management. And yes, I did shop there this season. For the most part I have had few issues with the large online vendors, most of which occurred on Black Friday. From a personal experience, what I do see is that some of the brick 'n mortar vendors may be experiencing an unanticipated deluge in sales. Many of these smaller web sites have been slow, but even more significant, the order fulfillment process has been painful; I am still waiting for several gifts from these smaller vendors.

So, why did I make the Back-To-School reference? Well, there was a published report this past September 2007 that Online Back-To-School Sales were ranked second in volume when compared to the holiday shopping season. If there were any vendors that experienced issues this past Back-To-School shopping season, I urge them to see what Overstock.com has accomplished. Their plans took some time to implement, but I feel it was well worth it, since I continue to be a return customer.

Happy Holidays!

Posted by Matthew Adcock on Friday, December 21, 2007 11:54 AM EST
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

Road Warrior-ism

2007-12-21T15:33:31.796-05:00

This may be a little off the blog topic as it does not refer to technology, but since I've have been away from home a lot lately on assignment, thought I’d say something about it. All hail the Road Warrior; those that get to travel all over the world to new and exciting places, and do all sorts of fantastic things. I've been a Road Warrior since I started consulting in the field of testing back in 1988 and whenever I talk with someone about where I've been and for who and what I did there, I get questions like "did you go see this?" or "did you go do that?" Of course they are referring the attractions somewhere within a hundred miles of where I was. In most cases the answer is, "no, I didn't really have time to, but I'll make time for it the next time I go." Now don't get me wrong, I do get to do some fun things. I've visited the airplane graveyard and the Biosphere in Arizona, taken the underground city tour in Seattle, dug for gold and gems in the north-east, gone to countless amusement parks, museums, visited famous beaches and have eaten at many high class restaurants; all of which have been made possible in conjunction with business trips. First and foremost I service the client who has contracted to have me there and in many cases I continue to work back at the hotel. For me this is great since my personal view of my career is that I get paid to play; the work is very challenging and I'm always getting into new situations and devising new solutions.

One of the greatest things about traveling is the frequent traveler programs. When I lived in New Jersey I flew out of Newark and used Continental Airlines since Newark was their hub. I made Gold level status year after year (almost), a couple of them I almost made platinum. Continental had a promotion that if are Gold for 5 years in a row, you stay gold for life. Wouldn't you know it, the fifth year I was on a long term assignment locally and didn't make it. Now I live new Phoenix, so I use US Air (formerly flew America West but bought out by US Air). I've made gold all five years since I've been here and this year will make platinum (RTTS has been busy). One of the benefits of the frequent flyer program is that you get to board the plane before non-frequent flyers, thus ensuring overhead space for your roll-aboard luggage. Others include, depending upon the status level you are, space available for free upgrades to first class and a tag added to any checked luggage marking it as priority so that it comes up on the baggage carrousel first. Also, depending upon your status level you accumulate a percentage of flight miles above and beyond the actual miles flown, which are good towards free flights.

Then there is the hotel frequent stayer program. I like staying at Marriott brands. There are status levels depending upon the number of nights you stay. I've been Gold on the Marriott Rewards program forever. You get points depending upon the amount of money you spend at the hotel that can be used for free nights and they even have a catalog of merchandise you can use your points on. Two of the perks of having elite status at Marriot are the free upgrades to bigger and better rooms and at the full service hotels, admittance to the concierge level and free food (continental breakfast and cocktail hour at night).

Then there are the frequent renter programs for vehicles. I typically use Avis. There aren't any formal status levels, but you get additional flight frequent flyer miles when you rent from them and free upgrades to better class cars. The biggest perk is that you don't have to wait on line. When you arrive, your car is ready with your contract inside.

The points I accumulated over the first 3 years as a road warrior, I was able to take my immediate family (my wife, 5 kids and me) to Cancun, Mexico. All of the flights and the 2 hotel rooms were free. Now that the family is spread out between Arizona, Florida and New Jersey, we use the points to visit the kids and for the kids to visit us. Priorities change over time.

Enter the demons. I was waiting at the gate for a flight recently, watching all of the people and started thinking about traveling. What I find is that when its getting close to boarding time I automatically migrate as close to the jet way door as I can get without crowding anybody, knowing I am elite status and can get on the plane sooner than most. This particular time I was upgraded to first class. The normal process is that those needing assistance are called to board, followed by first class customers, then it’s by boarding zone number. I start to get irritated by the zone 4 person standing between me and the jet way door. Why are they in the way of me and the others who can board before them? Don't they know the boarding sequence? I plan my route on how to get around them when they call first class to board. I'll say "excuse me" and proceed around to their right. Then a woman behind me asks if I am in first class. I say "yes" thinking to myself "first class and elite, thank you very much!" She was in first class as well, but it made me think that you really cannot judge by looks since I see all kinds of people in first class dressed in the full range of attire.

When arriving at my destination airport, my checked bag was one of the last to come up onto the carrousel; so much for tagging it priority. Irritated, but outwardly showing it, I headed to the rental car shuttle. What I've learned is that some airports appear to honor the orange "Priority" tags and some don't. Case in point, US Air at Newark airport never does.

OK! I have an "Avis First" priority reservation. I've had it for a week now. I was here last week and the week before without an issue. I'm dropped off at the "Preferred" counter and have to show my driver’s license and credit card, etc. Hello! Where's the consistency?

I am assuming for the most part that you probably don't know me personally and have not met me personally. I am not one that tends to get stressed or irritated as I mention here. I believe things happen and we just have to navigate our way around them and through them. I have always enjoyed traveling as part of my job and have no plans to stop. The benefits, both for career and personal endeavors, make those momentary demons seem insignificant.

Posted by Jonathan Harris on Sunday, December 16, 2007 9:56 PM EST
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

RTTS Knows How To Attract and Retain Talent

2007-12-13T15:14:46.570-05:00

A recent article titled “How CIOs Attract and Retain Talent” featured on CIO INSIGHT gave a wide angle look at the trends within IT recruiting. It depicted how some of the leading organizations within IT are attracting and retaining the best talent during a time when demand for resources is high and IT majors are scarce.

As I read through the article I identified many of the recruiting best practices in staffing and retention that are also utilized by us. These include intensive on-the-job training, professional development, and a clear path to career growth. RTTS provides the highest level of training to all of our new hires: 325 hours to be exact. We encourage our employees to pursue professional development opportunities on and off site through mentoring, eLearning courses, and lunch-and-learn webinars and industry events. Our pyramid of professional growth clearly outlines the path to career growth in our organization so that a potential candidate can envision their future career goals being met in two years, five years and beyond.

To attract and retain the best talent, RTTS emphasizes work/life balance, offers competitive salaries, the opportunity to work with our impressive list of Fortune 500 clients and gain exposure to many areas of the business community, a cooperative work environment, and a list of benefits too long for this blog entry!

Our target audience of hires includes recent undergrads, MS/MBAs and career changers. RTTS employs many people taking the first steps in their IT careers and many who have long since grown into senior positions since graduation day. IT majors may currently be scarce but RTTS continues to grow because our company culture and policies actively engage top talent and we are committed to the success of our employees.

I encourage any and all Computer Science and IT faculty as well as Career Services staff to share this entry with students. If you are an HR professional let me know what are some of the things that your company is doing to attract talent. If you are a candidate, what practices are most important to you? I look forward to your responses and a continued exchange of ideas!

Posted by Margaret Lively on Friday, December 07, 2007 11:15 AM EST
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

Top 10 Interview Do's and Dont's

2007-11-21T16:22:44.353-05:00

Before joining RTTS, I was a member of the Career Services staff at Fordham University. I worked diligently to create opportunities for students to meet with employers on campus and prepare them for the interview process. I reviewed and edited resumes to perfection, administered workshops on how to “Network Beyond the Handshake,” and role-played the interview process so students would have the necessary skills to dazzle recruiters. When undergraduate and graduate students transitioned into the professional arena I walked supportively beside them through each step of the process, calmly coaching from the sidelines, whispering career advice in their ears.

As Director of Recruiting at RTTS I am on the flip side. Now I am the recruiter sitting across the table from candidates, reviewing their resume to see if they meet our standards, and asking the tough questions while listening intently for answers that let me know whether or not they will be a fit for our organization. During the first few weeks in my new role I longed to take a time out during an interview so I could stop and let the candidate take a much needed deep breath, or provide counsel to them on better ways they could have answered the questions they missed the mark on. Although I was not the one in the “hot seat” I found myself squirming around in my chair when I heard candidates provide answers that made no sense, went on forever, or were so inappropriately personal that I could feel my face getting hot out of embarrassment for them!

Over the past six months in my new role I have grown accustomed to the inevitable interview bloopers and have compiled a list of Top 10 Interview Do’s and Don’ts from my experiences as both a Career Services professional and Corporate Recruiter:

DO research the company inside and out. Have a clear understanding of the company’s identity, the specific services or products they provide, and how the role you are interviewing for is positioned within the organization.

DON’T ask the recruiter to tell you about the organization. It is your job to be prepared and make a terrific first impression. If you don’t have a clue as to what the organization is all about, odds are you will not make it past the first interview.

DO dress professionally for your interview. Regardless of what the dress code is within an organization (i.e. business casual); an interview candidate should always look polished and professional. Proper business attire is expected, not optional.

DON’T arrive late for an interview. It isalways a good rule of thumb to arrive 15 minutes ahead of schedule.

DO answer the question, “Tell me a little about yourself,” in 60-90 seconds. The recruiter is looking for you to summarize your resume and provide some insight to your future goals. Be succinct in your answer and careful not to ramble on.

DON’T ask questions until you are invited to do so. An interview is your time to respond to questions and shine. Interrupting the recruiter or jumping in with questions prematurely will make you look pushy and aggressive – a sure turn off!

DO ask, “What are the characteristics of the ideal candidate for this position?” The employer will have the opportunity to go into detail about the role and describe who they see as the ideal fit for the position. You will find that many of your questions will be answered all at once.

DON’T inquire about work hours, vacation, or fringe benefits. At least not during the first (and in some cases second) round of interviews. These discussions are more appropriate once you are aware that an offer will be extended or you have it in your hand.

DO follow up with a thank you letter ASAP. Most candidates will send theirs via email which is the most widely practiced and accepted form of communication. However, don’t underestimate the power of the written word. A hand written thank you will be a rare and welcome treat!

DON’T post inappropriate materials to your social networking site. Recruiters access these sites to learn more about candidates of particular interest. It is important that you remember to keep your profile looking impressively professional – leave the photos from last Saturday night’s adventures set to private!

What do you think? Are there any Do’s and Don’ts that you would like to see included on this list? Your comments are a welcome addition so please leave them below.

Have a Happy and Healthy Thanksgiving!!!

Posted by Margaret Lively on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:20 PM EST
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

Games People Play

2007-10-01T14:11:01.463-04:00

I just read that the Nintendo Wii outsold the Sony Playstation 3 by a ratio of 4 to 1. I am very familiar with the game console systems since my sons (10 and 7) are real gamers. They have the Wii, Playstation 2, GameCube (the Wii's predecessor), PSP (handheld), Nintendo DS (handheld) and the old Nintendo GameBoy Advanced, along with a computer (Dell's XPS) that was specifically designed to play games. Did I just list 7 different gaming systems for my kids?

What happened to playing outside with your friends? Now it's play dates or gaming and there is also the hybrid - a play date that includes gaming. I know Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are making buku bucks from selling these systems and there are some really interesting games, but how did this happen? And why are we enabling this? I even know 2 adults who work all day and then play some online game all night long. I know other adults who are gaming junkies.

I miss the days when, as kids, we would pick up a ball and bat and play baseball all day long with all the rest of the kids in the neighborhood. Or football or basketball or soccer or tag or some other active, competitive game. Now it's the Wii or PS3 or computer games. Not that there aren't competitive video games and not that the kids don't break a sweat (I actually saw my sons sweating from boxing on the Wii). It just seems like this is fundamentally wrong. But just try taking it away from the kids and they cry about how all of their friends have systems and why they will be ostracized for not having the latest and greatest games.

Maybe I can take a negative and create a positive. Maybe I can contact Sony and Nintendo and Microsoft and see if my kids can become beta testers for the games. And maybe I can bill them out as gaming experts. Maybe we can make extra money and put it away for college. Or maybe I can use the money to buy that flat screen TV with the great graphics that I have my eye on. That would work great with my Xbox…

Posted by Bill Hayduk on Monday, October 01, 2007 2:10 PM EDT
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

The Holiday Season is Coming! So is Microsoft?s Patch Tuesday!

2007-09-19T12:28:58.370-04:00

Are your applications prepared for the Holiday Season Shopping Blitzkrieg? How about Microsoft’s Patch Tuesday? Recent events regarding Skype’s two day system outage again revealed that we must take into account how an application and its infrastructure perform under expected and manageable conditions, in addition to proactively responding to excessive demand during unpredictable scenarios; the latter always seeming to be the most challenging and subsequently news worthy.

The systemic computer restart that occurred on Patch Tuesday revealed another set of conditions that organizations should be prepared to handle; a very large number of clients all requesting application services within a very short time frame. In the case of Skype, a fairly stable system was suddenly barraged with a large demand for access to its systems. Although the type of chaos that occurred due to the proprietary retry algorithms was unique to Skype, the behavior is similar to an e-commerce application that offers special on-line sales for a period of fifteen (15) minutes or an on-line news site that provides high-profile breaking news stories. The result is a seemingly infinite number of user visits, when compared to system capacity, which quickly overloads your application and/or its infrastructure. And in extreme cases, the demand can knock your systems off-line. So, what can be done to prevent this? First, performance tests can be orchestrated not only to validate the expected behavior of your application, but out-of-the-box performance scenarios can be devised to determine if there are potential scenarios that need to be accounted for. Second, determine the performance characteristics and limitations of your application. Third, enable mechanisms that intelligently determine when your application is reaching its limitations and subsequently govern/throttle access to the application’s services. In it's simplest form a message that says your application is busy is much better than allowing an unfettered number of customers vying for access to scarce resources and potentially undermining the stability of the application.

Although it’s not optimal to turn customers away from your application and possibly diminish immediate financial returns, sometimes it may be beneficial to be the Grinch, minimize your losses, and reassess your application’s needs for moving forward. It's better than making the news for all the wrong reasons.

Posted by Matthew Adcock on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10:32 PM EDT
Leave a comment | View Comments (0)

RTTS Announces Online Distance Learning Program; First Courses Centered Around IBM Rational Tools -- Software Testing Firm Helps IT Professionals Grow Careers On Their Own Time

2007-08-27T10:26:26.276-04:00

New York, July 31, 2007 -- RTTS, a professional services organization specializing in software quality assurance, announced today the launch of its worldwide online distance-learning program. The online distance learning program is an exciting expansion of RTTS' well-regarded in-depth testing tool training courses. The first online courses will be centered around IBM Rational (NYSE: IBM) tools, with additional courses from HP (NYSE: HPQ), Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) and Compuware (Nasdaq: CPWR) to be added shortly.

"We are offering the IT testing community the opportunity to learn new skills on their own time, at a cost-savings to themselves and their employers," said Bill Hayduk, CEO of RTTS. "We have taken our successful classroom courses and divided them into convenient, hour long segments over a two-week period. IT professionals no longer have to take a full week off from work and fly to another city to improve their skill set – they can do the sessions on their lunch hour, and work on the exercises on their own time. "

The online distance learning courses will be taught in real-time by RTTS' group of expert trainers. The typical curriculum will include introductory courses from the vendors that will be supplemented by RTTS' advanced courses. RTTS' internal team of experts developed the RTTS training programs. "All of our instructors have worked here at RTTS as software testers with a wide variety of Fortune 500 clients," said Eric Smyth, Director of Educational Services, RTTS. "So we are end users of the software as well as instructors. RTTS' online distance learning curriculum focuses on topics that have been experientially useful to us as testers as well as the real-world problems that we know will come up, and the real- world tools that will solve those problems."

RTTS is also offering a unique support system for its online students. While questions can be asked in real-time during the sessions, RTTS will also offer online "office hours" twice per week where students can call, email or IM their instructor to ask questions and get help.

For more information on the online distance-learning program, including schedule and requirements, visit http://www.rttsweb.com/training/distanceLearning/.

About RTTS: RTTS is the premier professional services organization that specializes in providing software quality for critical business applications. With offices in New York, Atlanta, Orlando, Philadelphia and Phoenix, RTTS has been serving Fortune 500 and mid-sized companies since 1996. RTTS draws on its expertise utilizing best-of breed products, expert engineers and proven methodology to provide the foremost end-to-end solution that ensures application functionality, reliability, scalability and availability. For more information visit www.rtts.com. Real-Time Technology Solutions, Inc., RTTS and the Real-Time Technology Solutions, Inc. logo are trademarks and/or service marks of Real-Time Technology Solutions, Inc. in the United States and/or other countries. All other company names, product or service names mentioned in this document may be trademarks of the companies with which they are associated.