|Type: Envisioning||Project ID: P050702|
|Style: Abbreviated||Status: Routine, tracking refinement based on experience.|
|Assigned To: Dennis E. Hamilton||Defined By: Dennis Hamilton (2005-07-06)|
|Date Initiated: 2005-07-05||Date Completed: 2005-07-10|
3.1 Wanting to Demonstrate Trustworthiness. While wrestling with the project part of my M.Sc dissertation, I learned that demonstration of trustworthiness (what I call TROSTing the software) has to be incorporated from the very beginning. Furthermore, achieving trustworthiness requires anticipation of users having their hands on the product for the duration of the activities that are important to them; the delivered software is merely an instrument in the adopterís pursuits and that must be recognized and supported.
3.2 Respecting the Userís World. This leads to taking the software-development life cycle out beyond the usual level of attention into what is called the system-life cycle view in the adopterís world. In particular, it involves anticipating that the software-product life cycle intersects a consumerís distinct application life cycle that is nowhere coterminous with that of the software. (By the way, I am shopping for terms other than producer-consumer, especially the -consumer part, as labels for the participants in this kind of engagement/commerce. I notice that I have been using adopter and I think that will stick.)
3.3 Starting from Nothing. The upshot of this perspective is that, in preparing to build up to a stable release where there is no delivery process already in place, I needed to bootstrap the construction and deployment of deliverable packages first. That provides the necessary foundation for periodic software builds, confirmation of the builds (a software quality assurance and stabilization activity), and delivery of preliminary material to potential reviewers and interested developers in a way that exercises and confirms the deployment methodology, building trustworthiness along the way.
3.4 What They Get Is What They See? So what do we put in the hands of those lucky recipients? Thereís certainly some (early) version of the software itself, but what else must be in place to have there be what Iím calling, for now, a trustworthy deployment?
3.5 Exhibit A: The scoping checklist. The checklist is a general one that came to mind for delivering software of this kind. Because Iíll be bootstrapping my way into the deployment process ahead of and then concurrent with building the software itself, versions of the checklist will have a good number of ďnot addressed for this versionĒ) entries at first. Thatís all right: Accounting for the checklist elements makes explicit what the desired state is (the envisioned scope), and what the current state is (an interim, achieved scope).
3.6 Feedback Invitation. The draft scoping checklist is available for review and comment. Comments are welcome here and on the TROST-discuss and ActiveODMA-discuss lists. Iíve already received some feedback. My notes on what Iíve learned are in the Diary & Job Jar page that accompanies the scoping document.
3.7 Trustworthiness in Artifacts? Laying out the trial scoping and discussing it today have given me a powerful insight into how trustworthiness is reflected in artifacts: the artifact is an expression of the producerís care for the adopters/users. I invite your consideration for how developer attention to such elements is an opportunity to express care for the recipient of the artifact and thereby build trustworthiness.
ODMA Interoperability Exchange.
created 2005-07-05-18:20 -0700 (pdt) by