Published August 18, 2018 in Warp & Woof
Getting Things Done in Real Time
What I Learned About SDLC, and What I Didn’t
In the early ‘80s, I resolved to prepare myself for a second career, beyond librarianship. I enrolled in a 36-hour master’s degree program at American University which allegedly would qualify me to enter the growing field of systems management. The degree was called a Master of Science in the Technology of Management (MSTM). It came in 1984. I had talked my employer (the Library of Congress) into granting me a leave of absence, a sabbatical, for purposes of pursuing this academic endeavor.
The program taught me much about the nature of ADP (Automated Data Processing, an archaic acronym) and systems management in a variety of economic sectors, including government. Among the topics covered was software engineering. I learned that there was something called thewhich followed a series of rules and formulae for successful development of large software projects; indeed, all software projects in those days were large, centered around mainframe data processing shops.
The SDLC had five basic phases: 1) requirements analysis, 2) design, 3) implementation, 4) testing, and 5) production. Not too different from any other engineering methodology. The difference with software development, as we were beginning to see in the early ‘80s, was that technology was racing ahead so fast that the entire cycle needed to be compressed into something of much shorter duration, to maintain an agile systems dependent organization.
Alas, my newly minted MSTM degree was insufficient to escape ten years of vested library experience. There would be no start of a new career for me in the “beltway bandit” sector, those software developers popping up, especially in Northern Virginia. I returned to my old job at LoC, gradually becoming an advocate for relevant “user-centered” systems development. This role did bring me into contact with other agency minds working in similar directions, and eventually with decision makers, both in my user shop and the central ADP directorate of the Library.
We made a strong case in those days for greater user participation in both requirements analysis and design of new systems. Technology aided this approach – the Library deployed networked desktop computers widely in the ‘90s. Such technology empowered users and facilitated the implementation phase of new systems. Testing was carried out via incremental implementation – first one group of users, iron out the bugs, then another group, etc.
Problems arose mostly in the production phase. Things broke. And, soon, user requirements changed. Systems were retired, users forced to migrate to something new. Eventually, we discovered that “off-the-shelf” software worked better than anything the local DP shop could create. That SDLC transformed itself into: 1) shopping for best commercial product, 2) mastering its user interface (UI), 3) buying enough for all potential users, 4) providing “user support” to get most from product, and 5) rinse and repeat, until time to migrate to a new product. This worked through the nineties and into the aughts.
Then, technology changed again. Security vulnerabilities existed in the proliferation of commercial packages — a serious matter in the federal government. Internet connectivity was the villain. But, everybody needed Internet connectivity.
Enter the world of cybersecurity. What used to be empowering was now constraining. Users started complaining. FIPS regs () added security to the body of rules required for all federal agencies. New rules affecting design of software, and access. Users became unhappy with new restrictions on their activity. I became a policeman.
There was still “high level” requirements analysis and design, carried out only at an abstract level. I lost much of the UI practical expertise I had spent the last several years accumulating. I responded by inventing situations where I could try to convince folks that a new design was needed, hoping for some systems analysis opportunity. Not much success there, despite finally landing a new job (and promotion) carrying a position description of an official IT specialist (USCS 2910 series) rather than a librarian (USCS 1410 series).
My job became boring. Deployment (i.e., buying stuff) began to consume more of my time. As old users retired, new (younger) users came on board. They needed less “user support,” except for the policeman variety, telling them why they couldn’t do what they wanted!
I retired in 2015. The good news is that I was quickly replaced. Good news, because it signaled that my boss, at least, prioritized my role. But, only since retirement have I learned that there is a move afoot to modify that SDLC methodology. The new thing is called, and the design of UI is now known as designing . Much of this is commercial hype and may not spread very fast in the federal government. But it is interesting, nevertheless.
ASD emphasizes. The design team meets with users many times over a process of “sprints” and “scrums.” Design is occurring simultaneously with the requirements phase – and focuses on UX, which will cascade into UI design, through both implementation and testing. User acceptance testing, rather than coming at the end, as in traditional SDLC, now comes at the beginning. It is UX testing. , thanks to tools for developers (yes, off-the-shelf products – I even downloaded a free one, Adobe XD). Also, development of mobile apps (iOS and Android) is now the dominant part of the consumer market. It’s , and is where many developers have landed.
What does this new methodology say about career prospects for young systems developers? Nothing good, I’m afraid. The old-line software engineers maintain their barriers to entry, earning their salaries mostly by dealing with security threats. Theis relegated mostly to a subordinate role – possibly being hired by a start-up consultancy doing design work for business clients who don’t want the overhead of a dedicated design staff. But, job hopping is a fact of life for younger workers these days, and there are certainly enough of the new around to choose from.
My question as a software consumer now, schooled in the “old ways,” is this: isn’t the traditional software engineering SDLC still the best paradigm for all engineering projects? Even with newlike “sprints” and “scrums” and multiple iterations? It’s still the way things get done in real time — even as real time becomes more condensed. Nobody ever argued, even in my day, that requirements analysis was not the key to successful design, deployment, and QA testing (Quality Assurance). And, designers (or analysts) working closely with users was always standard procedure for all projects I remember.
Conclusion: it’s the skills of those designers and analysts that makes the difference, not the methodology!