C3 dead.

C3 dead.

Post by Thaddeus L Olcz » Thu, 06 Jul 2000 04:00:00



I just noticed on Wiki an announcement that I'm suprised has not made
it here ( or perhaps it did and I missed it, in that case sorry). The
C3 project at Chrysler has been terminated. At this point, I don't
know any of the details.
 
 
 

C3 dead.

Post by Ralf Rei?in » Thu, 06 Jul 2000 04:00:00



> I just noticed on Wiki an announcement that I'm suprised has not made
> it here ( or perhaps it did and I missed it, in that case sorry). The
> C3 project at Chrysler has been terminated. At this point, I don't
> know any of the details.

You can find some more detailed information at
http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?CthreeProjectTerminated

The discussion puts the blame of the project termination mainly on
management games, but there are not many published facts that would
lead to a definitive conclusion what caused the end of C3.

 
 
 

C3 dead.

Post by Richard Smo » Thu, 06 Jul 2000 04:00:00




> > I just noticed on Wiki an announcement that I'm suprised has not made
> > it here ( or perhaps it did and I missed it, in that case sorry). The
> > C3 project at Chrysler has been terminated. At this point, I don't
> > know any of the details.

> You can find some more detailed information at
> http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?CthreeProjectTerminated

> The discussion puts the blame of the project termination mainly on
> management games, but there are not many published facts that would
> lead to a definitive conclusion what caused the end of C3.

XP doesn't work, that's wy...

Greetz,

RS

 
 
 

C3 dead.

Post by Mark Jorda » Thu, 06 Jul 2000 04:00:00





> > > I just noticed on Wiki an announcement that I'm suprised has not made
> > > it here ( or perhaps it did and I missed it, in that case sorry). The
> > > C3 project at Chrysler has been terminated. At this point, I don't
> > > know any of the details.

> > You can find some more detailed information at
> > http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?CthreeProjectTerminated

> > The discussion puts the blame of the project termination mainly on
> > management games, but there are not many published facts that would
> > lead to a definitive conclusion what caused the end of C3.

> XP doesn't work, that's wy...

Maybe they lost the XP design documents :-)

Cheers,
Mark Jordan.

 
 
 

C3 dead.

Post by Chris Ku » Thu, 06 Jul 2000 04:00:00



Quote:>management games, but there are not many published facts that would
>lead to a definitive conclusion what caused the end of C3.

I suggest too many people wanted to say that Microsoft's "C#" project was dead,
and just forgot to hold the Shift key down...

--
Chris Kuan, CSC Technology Services, formerly BHP Information Technology

"Law is a repository for the aimlessly clever" - Tim Freedman

 
 
 

C3 dead.

Post by Univer » Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:00:00


#>
#> >

#> > >
#> > > I just noticed on Wiki an announcement that I'm suprised has not made
#> > > it here ( or perhaps it did and I missed it, in that case sorry). The
#> > > C3 project at Chrysler has been terminated. At this point, I don't
#> > > know any of the details.
#> >
#> > You can find some more detailed information at
#> > http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?CthreeProjectTerminated
#> >
#> > The discussion puts the blame of the project termination mainly on
#> > management games, but there are not many published facts that would
#> > lead to a definitive conclusion what caused the end of C3.

#> XP doesn't work, that's wy...

#Maybe they lost the XP design documents :-)

It didn't matter.  They had already lost their minds!  :--}

Elliott
--
   :=***=:  Objective  *  Holistic  *  Overall pre-code Modelling  :=***=:
                      Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
   study Craftite vs. Full Blown OO:  http://www.radix.net/~universe
copyright 2000 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied freely
                 only in comp., phil., sci. usenet & bitnet & otug.

 
 
 

C3 dead.

Post by Robert C. Marti » Sat, 08 Jul 2000 04:00:00




Quote:> I just noticed on Wiki an announcement that I'm suprised has not made
> it here ( or perhaps it did and I missed it, in that case sorry). The
> C3 project at Chrysler has been terminated. At this point, I don't
> know any of the details.

Projects come and projects go.  C3 is no longer under development; but the
software is still in production cutting lots and lots of checks.

--

Robert C. Martin    | "Uncle Bob"              | Training Courses:

PO Box 85           | Tel: (800) 338-6716      | Extreme Programming.
Grayslake IL 60030  | Fax: (847) 548-6853      | http://www.objectmentor.com

"One of the great commandments of science is:
    'Mistrust arguments from authority.'" -- Carl Sagan

 
 
 

C3 dead.

Post by Daniel » Sat, 08 Jul 2000 04:00:00





>> I just noticed on Wiki an announcement that I'm suprised has not made
>> it here ( or perhaps it did and I missed it, in that case sorry). The
>> C3 project at Chrysler has been terminated. At this point, I don't
>> know any of the details.

>Projects come and projects go.  C3 is no longer under development; but the
>software is still in production cutting lots and lots of checks.

So far, all I have read is from the mouths of developers and not managers.
Predictably, they are all saying it was the fault of management...

However, it seems that the C3 project was shutdown after fulfilling 33% of
its original requirements (I'm assuming that it was meant to pay all 27K
people, and not just the 9K people it currently pays.) One has to admit
that a BigUpfrontDesign wouldn't be able to say that, it would be either
all or nothing.

It also seems that the DC management is calling the project a failure
despite the fact that it is paying 9K people. I would like to hear
management's take on why it is a "failure". (Obviously I'm not going to
hear that on Wiki or this newsgroup. :-)

Reuters says:

    DaimlerChrysler's efforts will go beyond that, attacking costs and
    wasted time within the company's design, engineering, procurement and
    supply, inventory, retail and transportation operations, Dilts said.

    ``Time is money in our business,'' he said.

Was C3 one of the things taking too much time for the money spent? Maybe
management determined that the extra "value" that the C3 project was
giving them, compared to the old system, wasn't worth the extra cost?
Maybe someone woke up and realized that the old system didn't need
replacing after all?

Questions, questions...

 
 
 

C3 dead.

Post by Univer » Sat, 08 Jul 2000 04:00:00


#However, it seems that the C3 project was shutdown after fulfilling 33% of
#its original requirements (I'm assuming that it was meant to pay all 27K
#people, and not just the 9K people it currently pays.) One has to admit
#that a BigUpfrontDesign wouldn't be able to say that, it would be either
#all or nothing.

I don't what your "BigUpFrontDesign" is, but there are many RUP like projects,
that before beginning the guts of high level production coding,  investigated
key use cases, outlined an overall architecture for achieving those use cases,
and had an iterative release schedule that replanned as necessary before each
major iteration have shown themselves able to easily handle this.

Elliott
--
   :=***=:  Objective  *  Holistic  *  Overall pre-code Modelling  :=***=:
                      Hallmarks of the best SW Engineering
   study Craftite vs. Full Blown OO:  http://www.radix.net/~universe
copyright 2000 Elliott. exclusive of others' writing. may be copied freely
                 only in comp., phil., sci. usenet & bitnet & otug.

 
 
 

C3 dead.

Post by Robert C. Marti » Sat, 08 Jul 2000 04:00:00






> >> I just noticed on Wiki an announcement that I'm suprised has not made
> >> it here ( or perhaps it did and I missed it, in that case sorry). The
> >> C3 project at Chrysler has been terminated. At this point, I don't
> >> know any of the details.

> >Projects come and projects go.  C3 is no longer under development; but
the
> >software is still in production cutting lots and lots of checks.

> So far, all I have read is from the mouths of developers and not managers.
> Predictably, they are all saying it was the fault of management...

> However, it seems that the C3 project was shutdown after fulfilling 33% of
> its original requirements (I'm assuming that it was meant to pay all 27K
> people, and not just the 9K people it currently pays.) One has to admit
> that a BigUpfrontDesign wouldn't be able to say that, it would be either
> all or nothing.

> It also seems that the DC management is calling the project a failure
> despite the fact that it is paying 9K people. I would like to hear
> management's take on why it is a "failure". (Obviously I'm not going to
> hear that on Wiki or this newsgroup. :-)

> Reuters says:

>     DaimlerChrysler's efforts will go beyond that, attacking costs and
>     wasted time within the company's design, engineering, procurement and
>     supply, inventory, retail and transportation operations, Dilts said.

>     ``Time is money in our business,'' he said.

> Was C3 one of the things taking too much time for the money spent? Maybe
> management determined that the extra "value" that the C3 project was
> giving them, compared to the old system, wasn't worth the extra cost?
> Maybe someone woke up and realized that the old system didn't need
> replacing after all?

> Questions, questions...

Ron did a talk at XP2000 about the fate of C3.  (Ron, we should do a
webinar.)  As I understand it, the fundamental issue revolved around who was
paying for the development.  IT was funding it as a research project and
wanted the (payroll dept?) to take over.  The ensuing battle lead to the
shutdown of the project before all functionality was complete.  It was the
classic dichotomy between the GOAL DONORS and the GOLD OWNERS.  (i.e. the
real customer wasn't the one paying.  The one paying was not the customer.)

(Ron, you could describe this better than I can.)

--

Robert C. Martin    | "Uncle Bob"              | Training Courses:

PO Box 85           | Tel: (800) 338-6716      | Extreme Programming.
Grayslake IL 60030  | Fax: (847) 548-6853      | http://www.objectmentor.com

"One of the great commandments of science is:
    'Mistrust arguments from authority.'" -- Carl Sagan

 
 
 

C3 dead.

Post by Edward V. Berar » Sat, 08 Jul 2000 04:00:00




> However, it seems that the C3 project was shutdown after fulfilling 33% of
> its original requirements (I'm assuming that it was meant to pay all 27K
> people, and not just the 9K people it currently pays.) One has to admit
> that a BigUpfrontDesign wouldn't be able to say that, it would be either
> all or nothing.

It is bad enough that non-XP approaches have to be characterized using
a pejorative term like "BigUpfrontDesign" and all of its negative
connotations. Do you have to misrepresent literally hundreds of
software development methodologies?

The only projects that I have ever worked on, or know about, that were
"either all or nothing" shared much more in common with XP than with
more conventional approaches. The "all or nothing" aspect was not
necessarily a negative characterization. That is, the use of powerful
tools allowed for very rapid development. So rapid, in fact, that one
could afford to discard an unsatisfactory solution and quickly create
another one.

Even old-fashioned waterfall approaches allowed for "resizing" or
"changes in scope." In fact, the reviews that were conducted at the end
of each life-cycle phase, required that a "go/no-go" assessment be made
before going on to the next phase. In addition, any
recommended/required changes in project scope (or size) had to be
documented.

Are there actually people out there that believe that all changes are
forbidden in non-XP projects?

            -- Ed

--
**********************************************************************
Edward V. Berard                  | Voice: (240) 271-3777
The Object Agency, Inc.           | Fax:  

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20885-4116 | Home Page: http://www.toa.com/
U.S.A.                            |
*Consulting, Training, & Research in Web/Internet/Intranet Technology*

 
 
 

C3 dead.

Post by Daniel » Sat, 08 Jul 2000 04:00:00




>> However, it seems that the C3 project was shutdown after fulfilling 33% of
>> its original requirements (I'm assuming that it was meant to pay all 27K
>> people, and not just the 9K people it currently pays.) One has to admit
>> that a BigUpfrontDesign wouldn't be able to say that, it would be either
>> all or nothing.

>It is bad enough that non-XP approaches have to be characterized using
>a pejorative term like "BigUpfrontDesign" and all of its negative
>connotations. Do you have to misrepresent literally hundreds of
>software development methodologies?

It was not my intent to misrepresent any methodologies. It was my intent
to characterize an iterative methodology as being better at delivering
value to the customer *even if it is considered a failure*. AFAIK, over
the years, methodologies have espoused shorter and shorter iterations with
XP being the shortest so far. Maybe too short?

Quote:>Even old-fashioned waterfall approaches allowed for "resizing" or
>"changes in scope." In fact, the reviews that were conducted at the end
>of each life-cycle phase, required that a "go/no-go" assessment be made
>before going on to the next phase. In addition, any
>recommended/required changes in project scope (or size) had to be
>documented.

>Are there actually people out there that believe that all changes are
>forbidden in non-XP projects?

Forbidden? No, not forbidden. However I do believe that many projects
place barriers to change, for example the requirement that business must
get approval from development before bringing changes to the table (IE
they have to *ask* for the change.) Also, the insistence of designers to
not allow the customer to see the product in its nascent form (so that
they less time to evaluate the system.)

What we need is a methodology that explicitly states that the customer is
always right, no matter how fickle or short sighted we may think him to
be. If the customer turns out to be wrong, it's because the developer
failed to give the customer the knowledge he needed. AFAIK, XP has come
closest to this ideal.

From what little I have been able to read about the C3 project, (again it
is all from the developers prospective) the developers lost sight of *who*
the customer really was. There are still, however, many questions. For
example, I've read that the developers were being paid by IT (research?)
but producing a product for Payroll. Who exactly is calling the project a
failure, IT or Payroll?

 
 
 

C3 dead.

Post by Daniel » Sat, 08 Jul 2000 04:00:00



Quote:>Ron did a talk at XP2000 about the fate of C3.  (Ron, we should do a
>webinar.)  As I understand it, the fundamental issue revolved around who was
>paying for the development.  IT was funding it as a research project and
>wanted the (payroll dept?) to take over.  The ensuing battle lead to the
>shutdown of the project before all functionality was complete.  It was the
>classic dichotomy between the GOAL DONORS and the GOLD OWNERS.  (i.e. the
>real customer wasn't the one paying.  The one paying was not the customer.)

>(Ron, you could describe this better than I can.)

Yes Ron, please do because the above tells us nothing.

Did the so called Goal Donors and Gold Owners want different things? What
were the research departments goals? Were they met? What principals of XP
come to bare or will be developed in order to forestall this sort of
problem in other XP projects? Did the XP Developers simply forget the
Golden Rule (he who has the gold makes the rules?) It seems that Payroll
was not impressed enough with the C3 system to be willing to front the
money, was the project not producing enough return on investment? Couldn't
that be a serious flaw with XP if true? Or maybe Payroll couldn't afford
the investment no matter what the return?

 
 
 

C3 dead.

Post by Daniel » Sat, 08 Jul 2000 04:00:00




>#However, it seems that the C3 project was shutdown after fulfilling 33% of
>#its original requirements (I'm assuming that it was meant to pay all 27K
>#people, and not just the 9K people it currently pays.) One has to admit
>#that a BigUpfrontDesign wouldn't be able to say that, it would be either
>#all or nothing.

>I don't what your "BigUpFrontDesign" is, but there are many RUP like projects,
>that before beginning the guts of high level production coding,  investigated
>key use cases, outlined an overall architecture for achieving those use cases,
>and had an iterative release schedule that replanned as necessary before each
>major iteration have shown themselves able to easily handle this.

You have just done a wonderful job of describing XP in a single paragraph.
Thanks for the input.
 
 
 

1. C3 dead.


So far, all I have read is from the mouths of developers and not managers.
Predictably, they are all saying it was the fault of management...

However, it seems that the C3 project was shutdown after fulfilling 33% of
its original requirements (I'm assuming that it was meant to pay all 27K
people, and not just the 9K people it currently pays.) One has to admit
that a BigUpfrontDesign wouldn't be able to say that, it would be either
all or nothing.

It also seems that the DC management is calling the project a failure
despite the fact that it is paying 9K people. I would like to hear
management's take on why it is a "failure". (Obviously I'm not going to
hear that on Wiki or this newsgroup. :-)

Reuters says:

    DaimlerChrysler's efforts will go beyond that, attacking costs and
    wasted time within the company's design, engineering, procurement and
    supply, inventory, retail and transportation operations, Dilts said.

    ``Time is money in our business,'' he said.

Was C3 one of the things taking too much time for the money spent? Maybe
management determined that the extra "value" that the C3 project was
giving them, compared to the old system, wasn't worth the extra cost?
Maybe someone woke up and realized that the old system didn't need
replacing after all?

Questions, questions...

2. want proof.sty

3. Linker strips "dead" code that isn't really dead

4. Cannot login into AS/400

5. Hear about Chrysler C3 at Smalltalk Solutions

6. Starship Andromeda

7. to C3 participants

8. Recent uploads to Aminet

9. about C3

10. another truth from C3

11. 'Dead' message box

12. finding dead functions

13. DLL Detect Dead Process?