by James S. Collofello

14 August 2000

Software simulation project management training course — what a great idea. Collofello is not alone. People like John Sterman and Raymond Madachy, to name a few are pioneering the software project management training tool frontier. Collofello’s primary argument is how can software project management get out of this rut of software mismanagement? He cites several possibilities like working with mentors, case studies, instruction, readings, and… practicing. Practicing with simulators! Why not, pilots train that way. But, can one train software project managers like one trains a pilot? The intricacies are more overwhelming because of the interactions with humans and human nature, as well as rote project management relationships that can be taught. This article discusses the human angle and lends itself well to the beginnings of understanding the cause — effect relationship impositions placed upon the software project management process. Collofello’s description of mechanical and human interactions modeled within this paper’s training simulator bodes well to mold fundamental components of any software project management training tools. However, a lot of work needs to be done to image a software simulation training tool which mimics the "boundary-spanning roles" required by the ever increasing, faster pace of productive work environments tearing down the walls of functional and product departments within the organizational corporate structure. An ideal which the software development process has not embraced well (i.e. tearing down its functional structure within the organizational structure).

Other highlights within the article include:

A. Software Engineering benefits addressed by simulation activities:

• assessing the cost of software development
• supporting metric collection
• building consensus and communication
• requirements management
• project management
• training
• process improvement
• risk management
• acquisition management

B. Models of the Cause-effect relationships currently required:

• Inverse and opposite relationship exists between the time developers spend on quality activities impacts the number of undiscovered defects remaining in the software products.

• Circular relationship entity in a system will eventually be affected by its own action.
• Reinforcing loop characterizes a downward spiral, labeled with a addition (+) sign "ability to meet schedule". Without anything to stop it,this loop will spiral out of control.
• Balancing loop purpose is to reign in reinforcing loops and to bring the system back into balance, labeled with a negative (-) sign.

C. Metrics driving the simulator:

D. Simulation Exercises:

• Targets fundamental elements which received favorable results with software project management simulation training tools in a real world environment — Motorola.
• Forms the cornerstone of what this project should focus on for its role in attempting to locate elements and research required to improving the training tool with humans — the interface.

This article has afforded me a good contrast and similarities between two renown professors, James Collofello (author of this article) and John Sterman (author of Unanticipated Side Effects of Successful Quality Programs: Exploring a Paradox of Organizational Improvement) The interesting contrast is the viewpoint each tends to portray regarding the focus of how to obtain results. Sterman tends to focus on the global picture for understanding the internal and external environment which people are attempting to model. Collofello, in this article, focused on the micro-technical issues required to build a simulation training tool.

However, the overwhelming issues are where both agree — Dynamic Software Simulations. Sterman builds flight simulator trainers for (academic and industrial) students while Collofello builds Software Project Management Training simulators and training courses for his (academic and industrial.) students. Both are attempting to model the existing software process in attempts to understand how to fix the process that is broke. At the same time, I believe they are missing the mark in the sense that they ARE modeling the existing process. Why not model a process that should work. Several people, including Collofello, believe that a stronger interaction by software developers outside, but within, the corporate structure, would increase communication and, thusly I believe, formulate the basis a simulation model trainer which can correctly train software project managers. I don’t believe Collofello’s training simulator accomplishes this goal. I believe, again, it simply, but complexly, begins to model the existing process to create and understanding environment to learn not to do something vice the concept to "just train’em right from the beginning."

Case in point concerning "the right way to project manage" projects is the Construction of the Empire State Building. To this present day, it remains an enigma in the unparalleled achievement of completing a structure of almost any size in just 14 months http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/art/photo/hinex/empire/about.html.

Facts about the Empire State Building(*)

Construction of the Empire State Building began in March of 1930 on the site of the old Waldorf-Astoria Hotel at 350 Fifth Avenue at 34th Street. It was completed 14 months later in May, 1931. Designed by the architectural firm of Shreve, Lamb, & Harmon Associates, the Empire State Building, at 102 stories, was the tallest building in the world until the completion of the first tower of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan in 1972.

Location: 350 Fifth Avenue, between 33rd and 34th Streets, New 
York, NY 10001

Architects: Shreve, Lamb & Harmon Associates.

Builders: Starrett Brothers & Eken, Inc.

Managing Agents: Helmsley Spear, Inc.

Height: 1,472 feet (448 meters) to top of antennae. 1,250 feet (391 
meters) to 102nd floor observatory. 1,050 feet (320 meters) to 86th 
floor observatory.

Volume: 37 million cubic feet.

Area of Site: 83,860 square feet.

Cost including land: $40,948,900.

Cost of building alone: $24,718,000 (expected cost of $50 million 
did not materialize due to the Great Depression)

Construction schedule:

Excavation: Begun January 22, 1930, before demolition of old 
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel completed.

Construction: Begun March 17, 1930. Framework rose at the rate of 4 
1/2 stories per week.

Cornerstone: Laid by Alfred E. Smith, former governor of New York, 
September 17, 1930.

Masonry completed: November 13, 1930.

Official opening: May 1, 1931, by President Herbert Hoover, who 
pressed a button in Washington, D.C. to turn on the building's lights.

Total time: 7 million man hours, 1 year and 45 days work, including 
Sundays and holidays.

Work Force: 3,400 during peak periods.

Building Materials:

Exterior: Indiana limestone and granite, trimmed with aluminum and 
chrome-nickel steel from the 6th floor to the top.

Interior lobby: Ceiling high marble, imported from France, Italy, 
Belgium and Germany.

Lewis Hine was commissioned to photograph the construction of the building in 1930. Taking many of the risks the construction workers endured, Hine photographed the workers in precarious positions while they secured the iron and steel framework of the structure. In order to obtain the best vantage points, Hine was swung out in a specially designed basket 1,000 feet above Fifth Avenue.

(*) Source: James, Theodore. The Empire State Building. New York: Harper & Row, 1975. 180 pp. ill; 24 cm. biblio ., index.