Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!yoda.eecs.wsu.edu!pcooper
From: pcooper@eecs.wsu.edu (Phil Cooper - CS495)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: design to cost
Message-ID: <1991Feb06.102233.19301@eecs.wsu.edu>
Date: 6 Feb 91 10:22:33 GMT
References: <15038@uswat.UUCP>
Reply-To: pcooper@yoda.UUCP (Phil Cooper - CS495)
Organization: Washington State University, Pullman
Lines: 24

In article <15038@uswat.UUCP> gbeary@uswat.uswest.com (Greg Beary) writes:
>
>We're having some difficulties in that we are trying to apply "normal
>software business" lifecycles to in-house development. What happens is
>that a internal client has the concept for a product. They "pitch" the
>idea to a funding board. The funding board allocates $x to use to build
>the product. We now begin to gather detailed requirements, estimate the
>effort- $y, and architect the product. In no case has $x >= $y. What 
>your are left with is a client that never has the dollars for the
>functinality they want and a development organization that always "comes
>up short" in the eyes of the client. 
>

    Forgive my ignorance, but how in the world can your funding board
allocate a sum of money for a particular software development effort
before any requirements are known or estimation done? I don't see how
they could possibly hope to be accurate in their forecast of the cost
of the project.  It seems to me that if the in-house client wants a
particular software application developed badly enough, they can foot the
bill for at least a preliminary estimation of the scope and cost before
requesting funding from the board.  Just $.02 worth from a future
(hopefully) software engineer. 

Phil Cooper