August 30, 2012
Dear Everyone:
“Ludmilla” is getting a little miffed with me
because I steadfastly refuse to read her mind to know what she means by
things like, “…this was mentioned in the TDD…”
For those of you playing the Home Game,
“Ludmilla” is the “special Contractor” that was hired to run the
testing
on the software application that is currently being raked over the coals
in an effort to get it to do everything except make the morning coffee
at work. I was brought in to
“help” her after the first three “helpers” all ran screaming from the
building.
Suffice to say that “Ludmilla” could be
considered something of a “professional nitpicker.”
She also manages another software (we’ll call this one the
Defects Software, or “DS”, to avoid confusing it with the other
software, which we’ll call the “Facility Management (and everything but
the morning coffee) Software, or “FMS”.)
So every time someone finds a “bug”, or defect,
in FMS, they’re supposed to enter it into DS.
Example:
When the Facility Manager logs into FMS, he/she should see
certain options displayed on the “Landing Page”.
If that doesn’t happen, during testing, report it as a “defect”
in DS. “Ludmilla” then
evaluates the problem and assigns it to one of the programmers to “fix”.
The programmer “fixes the problem” and updates it in DS, changing
the status to “Fixed” and assigns the “defect” back to “Ludmilla” to
check to see if the problem really is fixed.
This is where I come in (after the aforementioned
“helpers” all bailed out, one way or another.)
I go into DS and find the problems that are marked “Fixed” and
assigned to “Ludmilla”. Then
I, typically, follow the same “Test Script” that originally discovered
the “problem” in FMS and see if it really is doing what it’s supposed to
do.
Everyone with me so far?
Good.
What I recently discovered is that over half of
all the “problems” reported in DS are ones that “Ludmilla” “found”.
Example:
Summary. “Preventive
Maintenance, Job Plan, Shadowing not working.”
(I hate when that happens.)
Description: “See
‘Jeff’ for more information on how this should work.”
(Obvious question:
Who’s “Jeff”?)
Is it just me?
Or does it seem that “Ludmilla” is “inventing problems” to
report?
My current favorite:
“Building Assessment Condition Details: 2nd & 3rd
Planned Renewal Years not calculating correctly.”
It seems there is a “building” in the city of
“Concord” (we’re still in the test environment, so we use a lot of
imaginary data here.)
According to the system, the building has a “Service Date” of 1/1/1995,
meaning it was built/bought in 1995.
The system is supposed to keep track of how long the building has
been “in operation” and, based on criteria entered by someone, when the
building should be reviewed or “renewed” for possible upkeep, or
replacing, or something.
Still with me?
“Ludmilla” went into the system and entered (I’m
not kidding) “13,970 days” and had the system calculate when the
building should be reviewed.
According to “Ludmilla”, the system displayed a date in 2078, when
obviously (!!!) it should have been 2071.
Horrors!!!
The system looks to be off by seven years.
Not only that, but when she added another 13,970 days to the
“renewal date”, it came out to 2109 instead of 2123.
Clearly this is a Catastrophe-In-The-Making!!!
Seriously?
Let’s have a show of hands:
How many of you are planning on still being around in 2071, much
less 2078? How many think
the Company will still be in business in 2071?
How many think the building will still be around in 2071?
In 2123? Will the
city of “Concord” still be a going concern in 2123?
And how many (be honest, here) think the FMS will
still be in use in 2071? How
many software applications are you currently using that were functioning
59 years ago?
Needless to say, the really big question is:
Who the $&#* cares?!!!
That’s right.
(Where did “Ludmilla” get 13,970 as the “ideal”
number of days? Why not
13,500 or 14,000? No idea.)
Ah, well.
The whole thing will only last until the end of September, when
the third installment of Fun with “Ludmilla” comes to a screeching halt
on the 28th, that being to “Go Live” date for “Functional Set
3”. In the meantime,
“Jeannie” and I are off to
Ashland next week for our annual pilgrimage
to the
Oregon Shakespeare Festival.
So, no Letter next week.
Try to hold on.
Love, as always,
Pete
| Previous | Next |