Re: Re: SIP is "just another Six Sigma measure"?

On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 11:02:48 AM, Dan Palanza wrote:

> My question is intentionally vague.

I'm not sure that intentionally adding to vagueness will serve your
communication needs. ;->

> I want to differentiate current 
> production of product from long term policy statements relative to what 
> product ought to be built. For example, if a software product is to be 
> built as part of a unique process, say the control of a just in time 
> assembly line, then a notion of lead time fits into the assembly line's 
> scheme as a product which, without the software, is incomplete. The 
> software costs become a part of the just in time venture, which is a trade 
> off of costs between a large versus small inventory.

True. However, this does not in any way obviate the SIP considerations, as
I'll discuss below.

> There is a different type of software product. Suppose that a double entry 
> bookkeeping framework could serve all of many just in time assemble lines. 
> That type of product is set into motion as a function of policy more 
> typical of building a factory, or of buying machinery. In accounting 
> jargon, where the unique application is a function of current costs, the 
> universal application is a function long term capital investment. My 
> initial argument to Kent is that software ought to be more often in the 
> later category.

I would entirely agree that it is better for software to be considered a
long term investment. This does not in any way, however, obviate the SIP
consideration, as I'll discuss below.

> In any case the two types of application ought to be clearly distinguished. 
> I brought this up to Kent originally because my sense is that software 
> people are not seeing the importance of this distinction. What is worse, 
> and sadly, business people are seeing it less and less as well. My interest 
> is in community issues that suffer terribly from the absence of universal 
> applications. To put it bluntly, unique software becomes more like an 
> implement of war than of service. Locally, culturally, that is hurting.

This is arguably true. How many word processors does the universe need? And
how many features. However, this does not in any way obviate the SIP
consideration. I shall explain. No, it is too much. I shall sum up.

SIP is a measurement of what we might call the "carrying cost" of software
development. A company tries not to borrow money before the money is
needed, other things being equal. The reason is that the money comes with a
carrying cost.

Similarly, if software needs to be delivered at some known future date, it
is the most effective use of resources -- again, other things being equal
-- to begin that software on the last possible date which ensures that the
software can be built on time.

SIP is an issue of organizational efficiency. Except in the presence of a
specific, economically measureable (bookkeepable) benefit, decreasing SIP
is uniformly beneficial to the organization, and to the universe. SIP is
wastage. Cutting wastage is always good.

Your reply?

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  --Inigo Montoya


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/