Problem Analysis and The Software Development Process
When problem analysis is incorporated into the software development process, the software development lifecycle starts with the problem analyst, who studies the situation and:
- creates a context diagram
- gathers a list of requirements and adds a requirements oval to the context diagram, creating a grand "all-in-one" problem diagram. (However, in many cases actually creating an all-in-one problem diagram may be impractical or unhelpful: there will be too many requirements references criss-crossing the diagram to make it very useful.)
- decomposes the all-in-one problem and problem diagram into simpler problems and simpler problem diagrams. These problems are projections, not subsets, of the all-in-one diagram.
- continues to decompose problems until each problem is simple enough that it can be seen to be an instance of a recognized problem frame. Each subproblem description includes a description of the specification interfaces for the machine to be built.
At this point, problem analysis — problem decomposition — is complete. The next step is to reverse the process and to build the desired software system though a process of solution composition.
The solution composition process is not yet well-understood, and is still very much a research topic. Extrapolating from hints in Software Requirements & Specifications, we can guess that the software development process would continue with the developers, who would:
- compose the multiple subproblem machine specifications into the specification for a single all-in-one machine: a specification for a software machine that satisfies all of the customer's requirements. This is a non-trivial activity — the composition process may very well raise composition problems that need to be solved.
- implement the all-in-one machine by going through the traditional code/test/deploy process.
Read more about this topic: Problem Frames Approach
Famous quotes containing the words problem, analysis, development and/or process:
“From cradle to grave this problem of running order through chaos, direction through space, discipline through freedom, unity through multiplicity, has always been, and must always be, the task of education, as it is the moral of religion, philosophy, science, art, politics and economy; but a boy’s will is his life, and he dies when it is broken, as the colt dies in harness, taking a new nature in becoming tame.”
—Henry Brooks Adams (1838–1918)
“Analysis as an instrument of enlightenment and civilization is good, in so far as it shatters absurd convictions, acts as a solvent upon natural prejudices, and undermines authority; good, in other words, in that it sets free, refines, humanizes, makes slaves ripe for freedom. But it is bad, very bad, in so far as it stands in the way of action, cannot shape the vital forces, maims life at its roots. Analysis can be a very unappetizing affair, as much so as death.”
—Thomas Mann (1875–1955)
“Dissonance between family and school, therefore, is not only inevitable in a changing society; it also helps to make children more malleable and responsive to a changing world. By the same token, one could say that absolute homogeneity between family and school would reflect a static, authoritarian society and discourage creative, adaptive development in children.”
—Sara Lawrence Lightfoot (20th century)
“To exist as an advertisement of her husband’s income, or her father’s generosity, has become a second nature to many a woman who must have undergone, one would say, some long and subtle process of degradation before she sunk [sic] so low, or grovelled so serenely.”
—Elizabeth Stuart Phelps (1844–1911)