MGMT 382 1st Edition Lecture 8Last Lecture I. SDLC Cont’d II. Data III. Process FlowsCurrent Lecture Outline I. VASA Case Analysis a. Includes notes from article not discussed in class II. Unclear or Missing Requirements III. Failure to manage Scope IV. Changing scope can affect project plan V. Skipping (minimizing) SDLC phases Current LectureI. VASA CASEII. Unclear or Missing Requirements a. Missing or incorrectly during analysis phase i. Communication*- lots of talking and no listening, complicated because it was the 1600s—super slow, not really friends, King assumes people know what he is talking about ii. Shipbuilding1. It is an art in the 1600s rather than a science 2. Used trial and error methodology 3. Master Shipwright dies- stuff at this time is not written down, so all of his thoughts and plans are lost—ancient copyright system; from spies; passed down orally- lots of illiteracy; cant read or write- doles out information over time to apprentices.4. King keeps changing thingsb. Misdiagnosing problem in identification and selection phase- addressing symptom instead of actual problem III. Failure to Manage Scope or Boundaries of Project a. Scope Creep: project expands beyond initial stated requirements i. Starts as a regular ship then becomes a flagship; represents Sweden, power, fear in the eyes of the enemies, the King’s ability to win wars These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.ii. King originally wants 2 small, 2 large ships (108 ft and 136 ft respectfully)- changes his mind during the implementation stage that he wants them to become medium 120 ft ships (2), this is extremely costly in the 1600s1. Why? Because in order to make a 140 ft keel you need to find an 140 ft tree; also joints will crack with pressure and impact and in the 1600s its highly likely the ship will run into something (no radar and GPS) iii. Guns get changed- 24 lbs is the weight of the shot coming out of the gun- gets very heavy (why is this scope creep form 36 60?) because the king (customer) is ordering the change b. Feature Creep: developers add features that weren’t part of the initial requirements i. Sculptures: 500, to impress king, gets heavier and heavier ii. 3 and 1 lb guns- maybe they are fillers because they only put 48 24 lb on the ship, maybe they are spending the kings money because they can c. Failure to define the scope of the project (back in initiation and planning or identification and selection phase)IV. Changing Scope can Affect Project Plan a. Plan is living, breathing b. Best, worst, average, probable, constant monitoring c. Don’t panic i. Timeline was originally 3 ships in 5 years; idealistically a perfect ship is2 ships for every 2-3 years; so already rushing; then King adds a 4th ship1. This doesn’t work if you try to cut it in half eitherV. Skipping or minimizing SDLC phases a. To cut time and or costs phases are cut short or eliminated b. Testing is one of the first things cutc. Analysis and design phases also are victimsi. Cuts in adequate analysis lead to missing or unclear requirements ii. Cuts in Design= less optimal solution/ problems with development and implementation d. VASA CASE: cut corners with testing* they didn’t tell anyone they failed, the test wasn’t even good (30 men running across and it rocked) and they never did a retest VI. Changing Technology a. Forward thinking b. Cant stand still for too long c. Must really understand you industry and field welli. VASA: double decks for the gun deck- they didn’t understand at the time how it affected the center of gravity of the ship- didn’t offset raising the main deck so it was top heavy Vasa Syndrome: very large scale project- think about a time when a project