Talk:Software development/Archive 1

2006

OR?

This article smells a little like original research to me. Are there any citations for the definition of software development used in the article? --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a term. There's only 55,000,000 google hits where the term is used. [1], plus the research on the wikipedia pages linked. If this is OR, then the linked pages must be OR too. Is there any part of this that you find disputable? Oicumayberight 04:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that "sofwtare development" is a term. What I'm disputing is the part where it's claimed that "Software development" is a term to encompass the processes of software engineering combined with the research and goals of software marketing to develop computer software products. Do you have a reference to back up that usage? I've seen "software development" used to refer to the act of creating software, but this is the first time I've heard anyone claim that it also encompasses marketing. The discussions of "software development" that I've seen treat it as a subset of software engineering, not the other way around. Example (this from the SWEBOK): The IEEE Computer Society defines software engineering as “(1) The application of a systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach to the development, operation, and maintenance of software; that is, the application of engineering to software." (emph. mine). --Allan McInnes (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not in those exact words. I've referred to just a few of dozens, perhaps hundreds of books, that refer to the marketing role in software development. This means that the term is used to encompass involvement from both. I suppose we could find many pages on the wikipedia that don't use word-for-word quotations from references in all of their factual statements. If IEEE wants to define software development, then maybe we'll reference it word-for-word. For now, it's safe to say that the term has broader meaning, if not broader usage than "software engineering" simply by the number of google hits yielded when searching both terms. I wouldn't call it a subset of engineering. I wonder if any reputable publications have been made on that assumption. I think it warrants it's own page and collaborative writing from more than those with engineering background. Oicumayberight 04:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You say:

For now, it's safe to say that the term has broader meaning, if not broader usage than "software engineering" simply by the number of google hits yielded when searching both terms.

which pretty much makes my point - you are drawing an inference about what "software development" means, rather than citing a source. That's what makes this article seem like "original research". Please take a look at Wikipedia's guidance on both original research and verifiability. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A few other references:

• In an interview, Joel Spolsky says: What is software development? Well, it ain't what you thought it was in college, when your professors taught you about making loops and objects. That's a part of it, but if your software is going to be popular, you are going to have to deal with a million other things: writing manuals, creating good looking icons if you have a GUI, testing, recruiting good programmers, making a product that people want, usability testing, dealing with Norman the Cranky Tester, and about 100 other things that take up most of your time.
• In From craft to science: Searching for First Principles of Software Development, Rational's Koni Buhrer says: Is software development today a craft, an engineering discipline, or something in between? Many software developers would probably assert that software development is not yet an established engineering discipline, but it is well on its way to becoming one... I think that is a delusion. In my view, software development is pure craft.
• In The Art, Science, and Engineering of Software Development, Steve McConnell says: Software development is art. It is science. It is craft, fire fighting, archeology, and a host of other activities. It is as many different things as there are different people programming. But the proper question is not "What is software development?" but rather "What should software development be?" In my opinion, the answer to that question is clear: Software development should be engineering. Is it? No. Should it be? Unquestionably, yes.

Of the three, only Spolsky doesn't explicitly describe software development as engineering (or something that should be engineering). OTOH, Spolsky's description sounds a lot like the difference between academic engineering degree programs and real-world engineering work.

I found all three of these references while searching Google for definitions of "software development". I haven't found any references yet that support the notion of software development as a superset of engineering. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I read those definitions as saying software development includes engineering, not a function of engineering. Oicumayberight 01:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

McConnell flat out states "Software development should be engineering". Buhrer, if you read the full article linked to above, says basically the same thing (his argument is that it's a "craft" right now, but can become engineering). Both are saying that software development is engineering, not that it includes engineering. --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What's missing is the word "sum" or the word "subset". Marshall McLuhan said the The Medium "is" the Massage. I could make that statement that to love someone "is" to understand someone, or that to understand someone "is" to love them. That doesn't imply that the sum of one is greater than the sum of the other. The word "is" leaves much to interpretation. "Is" can mean "includes", is the "sum", is "part of", is "similar to", "overlaps", of "equal" importance, "currently", etc. William Jefferson Clinton said it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Oicumayberight 19:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're getting hung up on the word "subset". You started out by claiming that software engineering is a subset of (encompassed by) software development. I said that I'd not seen that usage before, but had seen development treated as a subset of engineering (SWEBOK). I then also provided several references that treat software development as equivalent to software engineering. I'm not interested in getting into a semantic argument about the meaning of "is". What I'm interested in is seeing some references that provide some indication that (a) "software development" is used as a term that denotes a superset of software engineering, and (b) that marketing is included in that superset. Until those references appear, then the claim that "Software development" is a term to encompass the processes of software engineering combined with the research and goals of software marketing to develop computer software products. will continue to sound like original research to me. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You can call it OR if you want. I call it ambiguity. Until there is a verifiable source that says software development "does not" include involvement from marketing, I don't see any harm in having a page that discusses the marketing function of software development. Oicumayberight 20:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The burden of evidence doesn't lie with me. As WP:V explicitly states: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence is not proof. I believe that I've shown plenty of evidence. The only thing I haven't shown is a word for word statement to say that the "term encompasses". That is a factual statement unless someone else can prove that nobody has ever used that term to encompass software engineering, marketing research, and marketing goals. The Alan M. Davis statement seems to encompass marketing research, marketing goals and software engineering as separate entities and part of software development. Oicumayberight 21:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You say:

That is a factual statement unless someone else can prove that nobody has ever used that term to encompass software engineering, marketing research, and marketing goals.

That's not the case at all. It's a speculative assertion until someone (you, presumably) can show that the term "software development" is used to encompass software engineering, marketing research, and marketing goals. So far the best evidence of that is the Davis quote - and a single quote means that someone uses the term that way, not that the majority of people do.

Another useful reference may be Sahil Thaker's Top Ten Myths About Software Engineering, in which he points out that:

Software Engineering, Software Development, Software Development Engineering, Programming, and Coding are all terms frequently misused to describe more-or-less a single concept. and also that Largely, Software Engineering is used as a synonym for Software Development.

But goes on to say that:

Software Development, like housing development, is a broad term describing various engineering, management, and both creative aswell as asinine activities and their interactions; it could be a precisely calculated endevaour or an ad-hoc attempt yet still fit under this generalized term.

The difference is between the reality of what software development is, vs. what the term "software development" is used to mean. That's (I believe) the substance of our debate here. Perhaps a good place to start would be to remove the word "term" from the leader (it's not exactly good Wikipedia style anyway), and to make use of Thaker's (and Spolsky's) citable descriptions of software development being something other/larger than engineering. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was being more fair and accurate to the ambiguity by calling it a term, especially if it's not in any dictionary. I took the word "term" out as advised and put in place words to keep it neutral. Oicumayberight 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried a new definition, which is (I hope) reasonably neutral, backed up by references, and fits Wikipedia style for opening sentences a little better. The rest of the leader needs some work though. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading a lot of academic theory, and little or nothing from people who've been sweating in the trenches. Software development is the process of developing software. Period. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the marketing of software, or software documentation, or customer service, etc. Those are important related efforts that affect the success of the completed application, but have no bearing on the actual development. If you aren't conceptualizing, designing, coding, debugging or testing, you probably aren't developing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.119.218 (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Development vs Engineering

Aside from the claim that the description of the term is OR because it's not described word-for-word in a reference, Allan McInnes makes the case that software development is a sub-discipline of engineering. I haven't seen any word-for-word references to this notion.

The only distinction made in the dictionary between design, development and engineering, is the specific distinction that engineering utilizes math and science. This can only serve to narrow what is described as engineering compare to the alternatives, not broaden it. This also tells me that anything that doesn't utilize math and science should not be called engineering. "Development" may be anything that contributes to the problem-solving or production of a product. Even IEEE's definition implies that software development is broader than engineering. The part that describes "the application of engineering to software" would not had needed to be said otherwise.

If enough users feel that this page should be removed, it doesn't justify redirecting the term to a page that doesn't span the full dictionary definition of terms (or words used in terms) especially if there is controversy over the term used in the official title of the page it's redirected to. Judging by the amount of controversy on the software engineering page and behind it in it's talk page, it is shameful that what is important about such an important subject is buried in the debate over terminology. Why is there so much controversy? Perhaps it's because so much software is shipped full of bugs that certified engineers are embarrassed to share the term. Is the practice of letting customers troubleshoot bugs in the software after the purchase part of the engineering process as well? It's definitely part of software development?

The last thing we should do is let the business aspect of software development suffer the same fate. Call it what you want. Redefine the term. It's obviously not as "scientific" as engineering, nor should it be. Everyone knows that product development, marketing and business are not as scientific. And yet they are all used in the software development process. Why water down the scientific legitimacy used in the word "engineering" with the messiness and open-ended expectation of business. Oicumayberight 01:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong. What I'm saying is that Wikipedia is not the correct venue for writing about your own ideas on a subject. Wikipedia's policies on original research and verifiability are pretty clear, and they exist for a reason.

The reason that I initially questioned this article is that it makes claims about what the term "software development" encompasses that don't match up with the way I've typically heard the term used. I'm not disputing that there's more to bringing a software product to market than engineering, what I'm saying is that the term "software development" isn't (in my experience) used to encompass all of those other things. The references I provided above back that up, since they equate "software development" with "software engineering". What I'm asking for is some references that back up the broader meaning you seem to be trying to give to the term. Furthermore, I'm suggesting that the article needs to discuss the fact that some people (such as the authors of the references I've provided) treat "software development" as "software engineering", while some (authors of the references you provide) treat "software development" as encompassing the larger business aspects as well. --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think it needs to be mentioned in the article that some people treat the sum of what is called software development to be less than the sum of what is called engineering, feel free to write it. I would just ask that you provide references that make that specific case. Just keep in mind that you will be speaking mainly to business minds in this article. Oicumayberight 19:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that what is needed is some kind of reference to back up your claim that the term "software development" encompasses marketing as well as engineering. I've yet to find a reference that treats "software development" as encompassing marketing, and several that treat "software development" as equivalent to "software engineering". Again, please read Wikipedia's policies on original research and verifiability. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read it. The question of if this article is OR has nothing to do with the question of "development" versus "engineering". I can go through the software engineering article and find way more unverified statements than you can find on this article. There's much more controversy over the term "software engineering". Marketing would only complicate it more. I don't see ambiguity as justification to squeeze an ambiguous term in to the tight box of what most people know as engineering. Oicumayberight 20:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You say: I can go through the software engineering article and find way more unverified statements than you can find on this article.

By all means, please do. The SE article needs substantial work, and is full of unverifiable opinions. It'd be great if someone would go through and explicitly identify the parts that need citations. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I will contribute more when I'm freed up from working on this article. Right now the claim that this is OR has my hands full trying to prove that it's not. Oicumayberight 21:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Marketing in SRA

These links further explain marketing involvement in SRA.

• http://www.iese.fraunhofer.de/network/ISERN/pub/technical_reports/isern-99-02.pdf

The linked article states:

It defines a number of software engineering processes, and a scale for measuring their capability. One of the defined processes is software requirements analysis (SRA). (emph. mine) --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.stylusinc.com/Common/Concerns/SoftwareDevtPhilosophy.php

The linked article states that:

Once the Market study is made, the customer's need is given to the Research and Development (R&D) Department to conceptualize a cost-effective system that could potentially solve customer's needs better than the competitors. Once the conceptual system is developed and tested in a hypothetical environment, the development team takes control of it. The development team adopts one of the software development methodologies that is given below, develops the proposed system, and gives it to the customers.

The development team, and the development of the system, are described as separate from marketing. Note that the article starts by saying As in any other engineering disciplines, software engineering also has some structured models for software development. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2006_07/column5

The linked article states:

The requirements analysis step typically starts with a requirements specification that the marketing team has produced. Leaders of the development team analyze the requirements specification, and make changes to it.

Again, a separation in roles between "development team" and "marketing team". --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.unex.berkeley.edu/cat/bus.html
• http://www.processimpact.com/articles/usecase.pdf
• http://www.cs.iastate.edu/~leavens/SAVCBS/2005/posters/Ereno-Cortazar-Landa.pdf
• http://dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ESERG/kphalp/ist06.pdf

All of these links stress the importance of requirements analysis to software development. But most of the literature and real-world usage I'm familiar with treats requirements analysis as one part of software engineering (as it is part of the engineering of other kinds of products). Some of the links explicitly place requirements analysis within the purview of SE. The others don't make it clear where they see requirements analysis fitting in, just that it is important. I agree that requirements analysis is important. I agree that requirements analysis requires interaction with marketing. I still don't see anything that supports the assertion that Software development is a term to encompass the processes of software engineering combined with the research and goals of software marketing to develop computer software products. If anything, a couple of the links further reinforce the fact that "software development" as a term doesn't encompass marketing, since there's explicit mention of separate marketing and development teams. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this hard to understand? If the SRA requires marketing involvment, and SRA is part of software development, than software development requires collaboration with marketing. SRA is the Intersection in software development. Oicumayberight 19:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Why is this hard to understand? I'm not saying that the creation of a software product doesn't require involvement from marketing. What I'm saying is that the term "software development" is not (in my experience, and in the references I've found so far) used to denote the part of creating a software product that includes marketing. You've made a specific claim about what the term "software development" encompasses. But you haven't shown any citable evidence that what you've claimed is in fact the way the term "software development" is actually used. In fact, several of the references you've provided explicitly differentiate between marketing and development.

Yes, some of those references describe developers as using the outputs generated by a marketing team (so I suppose in that sense "software development" could be said to encompass "the research and goals of software marketing" - perhaps you could clarify exactly what you are trying to get across with that phrase). But none of them treat "software development" as encompassing "software engineering". If anything, they treat "software engineering" as encompassing "software development" (As in any other engineering disciplines, software engineering also has some structured models for software development.)

--Allan McInnes (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my latest addition quote form Alan M. Davis' Book should help. I put the quote on this page.

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471675237,miniSiteCd-IEEE_CS.html Oicumayberight 21:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw that addition. Nice work! It definitely helps make your case. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Marketing involvement in software development

Joel Spolsky makes the point that there are several different kinds of software development. Not all of them will involve marketing, since not all of them involve producing something for an external customer. A good example is in-house financial software, or flight software for a spacecraft. Neither involves marketing. This is not to say that software development doesn't involve marketing. Just that the article currently makes it sound like marketing is (or should be) always involved, which is clearly not the case. Sometimes the software requirements come from somewhere other than the marketing team. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood. There's also cases where software development do not involve engineering. The development process may start with the SRA, but then come to a halt due to lack of engineering or finances. Also, the term marketing is ambiguous when you take money out of the meaning. Some call any form of meeting anyones needs "marketing". But I wouldn't call meeting ones own needs marketing. So I suppose one could develop software for oneself, but that would be the exception to the term. I included the software development (disambiguation) page for those exceptions. Oicumayberight 21:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the new edit with the words "user needs" in the opening statement. This is where the ambiguity of "marketing" by itself may be useful. Most everyone knows marketing doesn't always attempt to sell what the user needs or even what the user wants. Nonetheless, it's marketing that sets the goals of many if not most software development projects.

I modified the first statement to reflect that it may either be a question of user needs "or" marketing goals without implying that it's always a case of one or the other. If this is too controversial for the opening statement, I suggest that the point be made elsewhere in the page, or the words "user needs" are left out of the page altogether. Wikipedia should be truthful first and foremost. Oicumayberight 23:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the primary reference I'm using for that definition (Birrell's text) just talks about "needs", rather than specifically "user needs". But I felt that "...the translation of needs into software products..." would be difficult for the uninitiated reader to understand. I'm open to alternative wordings that preserve the basic message. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you made that edit as I was posting a comment. What you did works fine. Oicumayberight 04:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Software Focus

Software development is actually an umbrella term that covers a wide range of circumstances in which many different types of computer software product might be conceived, designed, and created. So the content of this article should be at least as general as that of the software development process article. In many situations in which software development occurs, this article's references to the marketing are meaningless. However, this article introduces the role of marketing in software development in its first sentence, and contains further references to marketing throughout. Consequently, it appears to be only about the development of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software products by software vendors. Chris Loosley 19:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the article to include non-commercial and custom solutions. I agree that it is an umbrella term. It's a good starting point for going into the more specific articles. If you didn't notice, there is a disambiguation page with the same name. This page is linked first because business and (more specifically) marketing should be considered first when starting any software project. What good is a product with no need or demand for it? If there is a need, there should be a demand or marketing to stimulate a demand. If there is a demand that's not being met, it's often marketings job to make sure that suppliers are connected to the (market) demand. The reason why marketing is emphasized here is because it is not emphasized enough in the other articles. Marketing isn't exclusively commercial as in the case of cause marketing and public services. Technically, any service that is unsolicited needs to be marketed regardless of who benefits or profits. Software is just an automated service provider. Oicumayberight 01:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I had not seen the disambiguation page before, because links to software development bring you directly here, as does any search on that term. So I don't really see the point of having that page. It does not disambiguate between references to software development, because all the terms it covers are different. It seems to be a way of avoiding having a real article explaining software development, a subject that should include references to software engineering, the software development process, computer programming, and software architecture. Those are four different but inter-related concepts, which should be linked from this article.

Second, I am very familiar with the role of Marketing as you describe it; I live with a Marketing VP, who runs a marketing consultancy business. And (naturally) I do recognize the importance of Marketing's participation in software development -- when the organization developing the software has a marketing function. All the same, I believe that a lot of software is developed to meet needs that do not involve a marketing function -- for example, software applications that will be used by company employees, software that will control a manufacuring process, software that will be embedded in a device, software that I write for my own use, software written by an individual anticipating a future business, software written by researchers to support their work, open source software, etc., etc. It would be a stretch to apply the content of this article, as it is today, to those examples of software development, without redefining the term marketing to mean simply someone responsible for identifying software requirements. And that is not how most people would read the article. Chris Loosley 07:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation page does state what little distinctions are maid between uses of the term. I stated the reason why it links here first. It's common for wikipedia articles to link the broadest most common use of a term before the disambiguation. Just because an article is not thorough, it doesn't mean anyone is avoiding any explanations. You are free to include what you think has been left out. There are references to software engineering and the software development process in the article. Computer programming and software architecture are linked in those broader articles. The goal is not to tell the full story of everything and everything involved in everything in one article.

The examples you say don't require marketing, still require internal marketing if the developer is not the internal customer and the internal customer did not solicit the development. The exceptions are also covered in the first sentence that states "Software development is the translation of a user need or marketing goal." The article doesn't have to be entirely about marketing. The only reason why this article was created was to cover the broader use of the term. Marketing didn't get much mention in the page that the term was formerly directed to. Oicumayberight 11:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Marketing is not a part of software development. Software can be developed fully without any marketing effort at all. Proof is simple: When a lone programmer develops an application that meets his personal need, that's software development. We can discuss the chicken-egg analogy all day: "Which came first, the need or the solution?". There's no question that marketing can create a need where none existed before, however if there's no demand, no marketing and no distribution, the software has still been developed. Ergo, marketing is not a part of software development. Software can be developed without any customer/user input at all, although that's not 'good' software development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.119.218 (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a chicken egg analogy, a debate over what comes first or what's the most important part. This is a matter of identifying important components. Marketing is an important component of software development. If you understand marketing, then you know it's not just selling products; it's research input into product development in order to make a product worth selling. Just because it's possible to develop software without marketing, doesn't mean that marketing is never a part of the software development process. That's like saying cheese has nothing to do with pizza because it's possible to have a pizza without cheese. This article is about the full scope of software development. Oicumayberight 17:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

68.119.119.218 is right. The use of the term marketing and its association with software development becomes from superfluous to ludicrous from the start of this article. Surely one of the worst I ve read on wikipedia. 91.132.224.196 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

2008

Disambiguation

I have altered the dab page Software development (disambiguation) to bring it in line with the manual of style which makes it clear that dab pages are for navigation to articles with the same or virtually the same name which could be confused by readers. Since there are only two such aricles (this one and Software development process) we can avoid the use of a dab page by the use of hatnotes. Please do not revert again without reading MOS:DAB. Abtract (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I read it and paid special attention to the part that says "ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason." The disambiguation page had 6 links when I edited it last. All the links were relevant and could be considered synonymous with "software development". The articles don't have to contain those words in the title. Even if there are only two articles that you consider relevant, there's also a note in the style guide that says "Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary meaning. In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless." In this case I think it is necessary as there seems to be a war of words between professions, endlessly reframing what it means to develop software. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Do as you will but quoting "ignore" is a bit feeble. Dab pages are to assist navigation to articles with the same(ish) title not for lists of articles about the same concept. But hey you will no doubt wend your merry way and some day another editor who actually knows what he is talking about will step in and cleanup after you. Have fun. :) Abtract (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I left the cleanup tag on there because I welcome any sort of clean up as long as it doesn't oversimplify the subject. The messy disambiguation page may be a reflection of just how messy the art of software development is in reality. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Relationship between software development and software engineering

If "software development is sometimes understood to encompass the processes of software engineering," then shouldn't software engineering be categorized under software development and not vice-versa as it stands now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.59.104 (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge Software development and Software development process

I propose to merge these two half articles into one complete article. The two articles are about one and the same subject. The current introduction of this article makes no sense any way. I am going to change this sone with a more reliable version. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I merged the two articles just to show that together they fitt very well. Now I don't oppose to a separate software development process at the moment it doesn't seems needed. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

At the moment the Software development process is a redirect to the Software development article. I will try to create a new article there, using the German Wikipedia artikel as an example. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Merge: One article is about a concept. The other is about a process. There are eight other translations to this article which you've ignored. If you want to experiment, use the WP:Sandbox. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This argument makes little sense. If you read Talk:Software development process you will see that there are not just eight other translations. They are all different. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Merge - in addition to the massive difference between concepts, let's not rush forward: even AfD's take 5 days. -t BMW c- 21:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a compromis here. leave this article as it is and restore the software development process. This won't hurt anything. I am in favour of restoring the software development process anyway. I have allready explained on the its talkpage there, and if you check my recent edits, I started some new design. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the article as is. See my reply below. I would have been fine with most of your edits on the software development process page had you simply answered the request that I made on your talk page to not over-simplify the title of your new template to software engineering. Software engineering is an oversimplification of software development. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

An improved Software development article

I have put quite some effort in merging the two articles an creating this new article, see here. I won't simply let this refert. I have multiple arguments:

• This article has improved severly
• This article is fitting in the larger whole of wikipedia, for example in the computer science template.
• There is all kinds of opportunaty to recreate a more sofisticated Software development process aricle.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's improved. I think it worked fine as it was as a brief overview of the broad subject for those who were interested in the broader multi-disciplinary aspects of the subject. It was just a starting point for those (including the less technically savvy) to branch out into the articles of whatever related sub-disciplines they may have been interested in. The template was more visible at the top of the page and allowed for quick links to those who may have been interested in the related disciplines to skip right to it. The software engineering and related technical disciplines were equally represented at the top. Those who wanted more step by step details about the software development process could go to that article if they wanted to. There was no need to merge the articles because this one was about a broad concept, and that one was about particular processes.

Now it is weighted heavily in favor of engineering, making it difficult for the less technically savvy to feel qualified to even have an opinion on the subject. This may discourage any young readers from pursuing careers in any of the other related disciplines besides the highly technical software engineering. The template now is almost hidden at the bottom. And the most important part of the article IMO, the part that discusses the marketing aspects of software development, have also been pushed to the bottom along with the related disciplines of marketing in software development as if they are so much less important than the technical and logistical details. It's that same ill consideration of the marketing aspects that led to much of the bug-filled and poorly designed software that saturates the market today. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored the article in his previous state, see here, I think, it is again reflecting a (your) personal point of view, that "marketing is the most important aspect of software development". Now I do agree on some other things you say:

• Yes this could be a nice overview with a multidisciplinair perspective, but it doesn't have to be short. What it needs is a good introduction, and a good structure.
• Yes this is a starting point which should motivate young readers to whatever related sub-disciplines.
• Yes (and this maybe will surprise you) the template was more visible at the top of the page, and the template itself was simple.

But I don't think the current article is giving such a clear multidisciplinair motivating perspective. I think this article focuss to much on marketing. It is confusing the way articles like Software development, Software development process and Software engineering don't really interact. I think there is a clear structure, call it a "back bone", missing. Now if you look at the main contributions I have created so far in the field of software engineering, see here, you can't keep up that I am only trying to simplify thinks. Can you follow me so far? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I can take your word for it that you are just trying to simplify. I can even appreciate your effort and willingness to improve the articles. What I don't want to see here or in any of the related software development articles is an over-simplification that skews the meaning of "development" towards the more specific "engineering." And BTW, I don't consider marketing the most important aspect. I just consider it deserving of equal attention to the engineering aspect.

I'm willing to discuss any changes you wish to make here. I'm less concerned with the changes that you want to make with the software development process article because it's understandable why it would be more detailed and technical. I just think the old template should remain in each of the articles that discuss the multidisciplinary aspects at the top because it makes it easier to step through the related articles with it. The new template you created should be more specifically about the software engineering field and discipline. And this article should remain as neutral as it was without going into detail about steps in any one software development process. If you think the engineering aspect was under-represented in this article, it's probably because you (obviously from an engineering background) rarely hear the marketing aspect mentioned as Alan Davis explained it. But I'm open to the idea that it could be under-represented. Voice your concerns here in the talk page and we can both find a solution. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I won't expand this article for now but will search for a solution to develop them both in there current format. I will (probably) get back on this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I still have got some ideas about improving this article, and I will try to present them one at the time. I will make some subchapters, here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Criterea for this article

In the past discussion we (seemed to agree on) some criterea for this article. This should:

• present a starting point which should motivate young readers to whatever related sub-disciplines.
• give a multidisciplinair perspective.

I have some more remarks here:

• There are more starting articles here: computer science, software and software engineering and in a way software development process... and the starting points of the disciplines related here, such as project management, marketing... and?
• I allready started that I think this article needs good introduction, and a good structure.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Software is the first link of the article, and software engineering is the second link. Software development process is a big and bold link at the top and is the title of the template, which repeats the link to software engineering. I'm not sure what more needs to be said about the links because any curious reader will just click on them and go to those articles. IMO, the only thing this article should say about the sub-disciplines is how they relate to each other in the big picture. It's not meant to sell any one over the other because each reader will already have an idea of what sub-discipline they are interested in before finding this article. The article doesn't say too much about any of the subjects linked because it's more of a starting point to read other articles, almost like a disambiguation page.

As for computer science, I don't see that as a discipline in and of itself as much as it is the foundation for the applied discipline of software engineering, amongst other disciplines that relate to computing, including hardware. But I don't see any harm in listing that in the see also section. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You start listing the links in the current article. Maybe I haven't explained myself right. When I stated "There are more starting articles", I meant there are more starting points in Wikipedia for an outsider to start reading about software development. This is just something which can be taken into consideration, No more no less. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure what your point is here. Could you expand on the relevance or what you think needs to change? Oicumayberight (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason I wrote this is to get some criterea to judge the alternatives, which come up in the other talk items. No more no less. Sorry if I don't respond more directly. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The introduction

The current introduction needs improvement. I think it isn't offering a neutral point of view. I will explain what is wrong with this intro:

Software development is the translation of a user need or marketing goal into a software product. Software development is sometimes understood to encompass the processes of software engineering combined with the research and goals of software marketing to develop computer software products. This is in contrast to marketing software, which may or may not involve new product development.

It is often difficult to isolate whether engineering or marketing is more responsible for the success or failure of a software product to satisfy customer expectations. This is why it is important to understand both processes and facilitate collaboration between both engineering and marketing in the total software development process. Engineering and marketing concerns are often balanced in the role of a project manager that may or may not use that title.

Because software development may involve compromising or going beyond what is required by the client, a software development project may stray into processes not usually associated with engineering such as market research, human resources, risk management, intellectual property, budgeting, crisis management, etc. These processes may also cause the role of business development to overlap with software development.

This intro is talking about marketing in every of the first six sentences. I think this is confusing. Now I allready proposed an alternative intro:

Software development are the set of activities that results in software products. Software development may include new development, modification, reuse, re-engineering, maintenance, or any other activities that result in software products.

The term software development may also refer to computer programming, the process of writing and maintaining the source code.

I think this introduction does offer a neutral point of view. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A few counter points

1. As mentioned above, software engineering is the 2nd article linked and is linked twice at the top.
2. Marketing is the 3rd article linked and is only linked once in a sentence that refers to the processes as "software engineering" processes.
3. Engineering is also mentioned in 5 of those 6 sentences.

Again, it maybe your lack of familiarity with "marketing" that makes that word stand out more to you specifically, like a word that is only understood as a dirty word by specific cultures, in this case professions. If marketing seems over-represented in this article, it's probably because it's under-represented everywhere else on the wikipedia that discusses software development. In fact, before this article was started, the term "software development" use to be redirected to the software engineering page which made no mention of marketing at that time, implying that the concept in its entirety was summed up by engineering. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make some counterpoints, then this should be adressed to the new opening I am presenting. Not to the your own opening, which should be moved anyway. If you look at the new opening, this isn't naming marketing, not systems engineering. Maybe this is a good thing. I oppose the references to marketing and you oppose the references to software engineering.

On other thing about the marketing fixation I am opposing. I think the word shouldn't be mentioned in the introduction. Now I noticed I am at least the 4th person here starting about this. I will reconstruct:

1. You started this article 25 Oct 2008 (2 years ago) with a version, see here, which also containted 6 references in the first 6 sentences to marketing. A few hours latter user:Allan McInnes was suspecting original research, see here. A long discussion followed but the article's intro has never been changed much eversince.
2. Two months later 27 December 2006 User:ChrisLoosley questioned the articles focus, see here, on Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS), stating: In many situations in which software development occurs, this article's references to the marketing are meaningless. However, this article introduces the role of marketing in software development in its first sentence, and contains further references to marketing throughout. Consequently, it appears to be only about the development of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software products by software vendors.
3. An anominous user 6 months ago wasn't that nice, see here. He wrote: The use of the term marketing and its association with software development becomes from superfluous to ludicrous from the start of this article. Surely one of the worst I ve read on wikipedia.

Now this has nothing to do with my presumptioned lack of familiarity with "marketing". It is simply a matter of how to right a neutral opening to a Wikipedia article.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The once negative responses to this article has been primarily from those with obvious engineering backgrounds and has since changed to positive. I'm not sure if as many with marketing or business backgrounds have seen this article, but I'm sure they wouldn't feel the same way as the anonymous user. As for User:ChrisLoosley, his points were well addressed and it appears that he was satisfied with the article after that because he kept it on his watch page doing nothing more than protecting it from vandalism months later. As for user:Allan McInnes, I learned a lot from him and we came to a compromise. He even helped me edit the article and added supporting references. Some of your criticism maybe in opposition to the input of a fellow software engineer. So if your saying that marketing has no place in this article, that debate was settled in the Alan Davis book and in the archived talk pages by all but one anonymous user with no real counter-point. Maybe you shouldn't have archived those debates so soon if you felt that they were unresolved. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't "oppose the references to software engineering" as you say. I included references to the software engineering article when I started this article. If you "oppose the references to marketing" as you say, then that's a serious confession. Marketing involvement in subject of software development are well documented. It would be difficult for one to assume good faith edits if you have a problem with marketing involvement in software development. Perhaps you should reconsider the neutrality of what you are trying to do here. Also reconsider just how controversial the subject of software engineering is with its long archive history enough to warrant a separate wikipedia article. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. When I say introduction. I mean the introduction of this article. I state

"marketing shouldn't be mentioned in the introduction" ... of this article

and you assume taht I state

"that marketing has no place in this article".

Please remember. This is only about the introductions of the article. Now you have given some explation. What I really would like to know is, what your problem is with the new opening I presented?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the new opening you presented is that it oversimplifies the subject especially if you take out the parts of the article that really should be in the software development process article. All that would be left in this article is an opening. The whole article is a brief introduction that doesn't need to be any more brief regarding "what is" software development. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The current introduction seems to be based on corrupted sources

Oicumayberight claims that the new opening is oversimplifies the subject. But there seems something very wrong here? The current introduction sentence claims to be based on two sources:

Software development is the translation of a user need or marketing goal into a software product.

Those two are:

Now:

1. The content of the first book does not mentions marketing in any chapter.
2. And the second source is exactly stating:

A set of activities that results in software products. Software development may include new development, modification, reuse, re-engineering, maintenance, or any other activities that result in software products.

And this was the new introduction I implemented. I wonder if there even exists a reliable source for the current opening sentence. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I also checked the third source, see here and I found nothing which even looked like the second sentence:

Software development is sometimes understood to encompass the processes of software engineering combined with the research and goals of software marketing to develop computer software products.[3]

I can only conclude one thing: The introduction here is basaed on corrupted sources. This shouldn't be here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The structure of a (short) overview article

This article hasn't got the structure of an overview article. I mean this structure:

Contents [hide]

1 Various approaches to software development

2 See also

3 References

4 Further reading

The question remains:

• What the introduction should be? Now I allready made that a separate talk item.
• What "the various approaches to software development" section should explain? At the moment:
  • it only mentions that there are several approaches
  • and then it lists the software development activities

This is not my idea of an giving an overview. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there are several approaches is more the point of the software development process article. I didn't add the "Various approaches to software development" section. I did think it was a bit redundant considering there is a separate article for the process. But maybe the person who added it, thought that this article was lacking in content and figured that a little more needed to be said about the process. I just added a "main article" tag to the section so any reader will know right away that they are only getting a brief overview of what is being said in greater detail in the other article.

What we want to avoid is making this article too much about details that detract from the big picture. The details are in the related articles, which is why the template is so important. This article answers the question of "what it is." The software development process article answers the question of "how it's done." The related articles answer even more specific questions about specific disciplines and models. I think the subject matter is too big and too important to be one article. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I noticed an anominous user:24.79.228.146 created the "Various approaches to software development" section, just 2.5 months ago. See here. Just before that, this article of yours was a stub explaining the link between marketing and software development, see here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The several approaches

I keep wondering about the several approaches mentioned in the first chapter? Could these be listed? Or is this undetermined? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See my comments in the previous section. Also I'm not against deleting that section or reducing it to a paragraph that only emphasizes the importance of knowing that their are several approaches. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My question here is: Could these be listed? Or is this undetermined?

--Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO they are not needed in the article, but if you want to list them they should not go into detail. The most I would suggest is one sentence per approach contrasting the differences between other approaches. But again, I think that's what the software development process article is for. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

If this article should motivate it should contain some images. Any ideas? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure if it makes sense. I haven't had much luck keeping pictures I chose remain on wikipedia, especially if the article is about a concept. I've had several abstract pictures deleted from many of the articles I frequently edit. After awhile, I just figured "why bother."

I like pictures too, but there seems to be a collective lack of taste on wikipedia that doesn't allow any picture representing concepts or that aren't clear and complete unmistakable examples of what is being discussed without selling an individual product and agreed upon by every editor/user. I don't know what you would use that wouldn't be quickly deleted by some other user who didn't like the style, the content, or just plain didn't like feeling left out because he/she doesn't get why that picture is representative of the concept. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I can image it must be hard to find images expressing the software development and marketing link. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A separate software development markting article

Three questions:

• Is there a separate article about the role of software development and marketing?
• What theories software development and marketing exists? How are they nammed? Do they have Wikipedia articles?
• Which scientists are involved here? Do they have articles in Wikipedia that refer to software development and marketing theories?

Oicumayberight stated that marketing is the most important aspect of software development. Now this could be important in practice. I am not going to argue about that. But Wikipedia isn't concerned with practice. It tries to represent the current knowlegde. So the important Wikipedia question here is, is this so important in theory. Are there a lot of books and articles about it, and scientists concerned with this matter. If there is there should be a series of Wikipedia articels possible here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I didn't state that "marketing is the most important aspect of software development." That would be a biased statement, which is actually a bias that I don't have. If I do have a bias, it's with design and project management, fields which I believe bridge the gap between engineering and marketing.

Now to answer the question, there are many software business and marketing related articles in the see also section. But it makes sense that there are less marketing related articles on wikipedia because wikipedia was started by software engineers sharing programming ideas. There is also a list of further reading books at the bottom about the software development industry which includes business and marketing concerns. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I can't find any real answers here. Maybe you can take the time to answer my questions one by one. I am intersted in real names, real Wikipedia articles. You have been monitoring this situation for two years now, and you must have some ideas? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Is there a separate article about the role of software development and marketing?

If you are saying that none of the articles listed in the see also section are about marketing involvement in software development, then perhaps you should read more than the titles. Also consider that most of the articles that should mention marketing, may have excluded use of the word because they were written with a software engineering bias, or perhaps references to marketing were carefully removed at times. The requirements analysis and functional specifications are ones that IMO carefully exclude use of the word "marketing" despite the fact that marketing is usually the primary stakeholder and is heavily involved in those steps of the process. But that's just one opinion speaking from experience from working with major software companies. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

2. What theories software development and marketing exists? How are they named? Do they have Wikipedia articles?

If you read some of the books in the further reading section, I'm sure you'll find some. Maybe you can add them to the article once you do. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

3. Which scientists are involved here? Do they have articles in Wikipedia that refer to software development and marketing theories?

Since neither software development nor marketing are an exact science, I doubt you'll find a "software development scientist" or even a "marketing scientist" for that matter. And computer technicians simply calling their field of study a science (as if computers are a natural phenomenon instead of synthetically manufactured) doesn't make them any more qualified to say what works or who should have an opinion on the subject. But I'm sure you'll find some scholarly opinions such as the Alan Davis quote in the article. Just because software involves computers doesn't mean that it ends with computers. Since some software requires a human element known as an end user, it's impossible to mathematically calculate or even predict how everything will work with all software. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a shocking conlusion here that there are no real articles about marketing software development, possible theories and scientists involved in Wikipedia? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

False conclusion. There's just not an article with that specific title or one that is exclusively about marketing involvement because marketing is applied in so much more than software and most of what marketing does involves other departments. The closest one to what your expecting to see would probably be the marketing strategies for product software article. There are no articles about "software engineering for the porno industry," but that doesn't mean software engineers don't contribute to developing porn software. And again, you won't find a scientific theory because software development is not a science. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. There is one marketing strategies for product software. Just one? No theory? No scientists involved?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

I will leave it for now, with the point listed above. Please comment on particular ideas at these separate items and with general ideas here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Collection of notable definitions / descriptions of Software development

I propose to list a view defintions and descriptions from notable scientists and/or reliable sources. Now in the past discussion between Oicumayberight, and Allan McInnes already several descriptions of software engineering came up.

• In an interview, Joel Spolsky in 2001 says:

What is software development? Well, it ain't what you thought it was in college, when your professors taught you about making loops and objects. That's a part of it, but if your software is going to be popular, you are going to have to deal with a million other things: writing manuals, creating good looking icons if you have a GUI, testing, recruiting good programmers, making a product that people want, usability testing, dealing with Norman the Cranky Tester, and about 100 other things that take up most of your time.

• Rational's Koni Buhrer in 2000 says

Is software development today a craft, an engineering discipline, or something in between? Many software developers would probably assert that software development is not yet an established engineering discipline, but it is well on its way to becoming one... I think that is a delusion. In my view, software development is pure craft.

• In Steve McConnell in 1998 says:

Software development is art. It is science. It is craft, fire fighting, archeology, and a host of other activities. It is as many different things as there are different people programming. But the proper question is not "What is software development?" but rather "What should software development be?" In my opinion, the answer to that question is clear: Software development should be engineering. Is it? No. Should it be? Unquestionably, yes.

On 23:31, 29 October 2006 Allan McInnes came up with:

Software development is the translation of user needs into a software product.

On 22 October 2008 17:36] I took the second source Alan McInnes presented (see here:

Software development are the set of activities that results in software products. Software development may include new development, modification, reuse, re-engineering, maintenance, or any other activities that result in software products.

Further comments

The past section is just for collecting software development descriptions. Further comment here, please. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute : Replace corrupted source referenced intro with a neutral one

The whole present introduction of this article seems to be based on corrupted source references:

Software development is the translation of a user need or marketing goal into a software product.[1][2] Software development is sometimes understood to encompass the processes of software engineering combined with the research and goals of software marketing to develop computer software products.[3] This is in contrast to marketing software, which may or may not involve new product development.

It is often difficult to isolate whether engineering or marketing is more responsible for the success or failure of a software product to satisfy customer expectations. This is why it is important to understand both processes and facilitate collaboration between both engineering and marketing in the total software development process. Engineering and marketing concerns are often balanced in the role of a project manager that may or may not use that title.

Because software development may involve compromising or going beyond what is required by the client, a software development project may stray into processes not usually associated with engineering such as market research, human resources, risk management, intellectual property, budgeting, crisis management, etc. These processes may also cause the role of business development to overlap with software development.

What should be a general introduction of software development here, turns out to be a POV fixation on the role of marketing in software development. While there are many dozens articles about the engineering aspect in Wikipedia, there only seems to be one article about the role of marketing in software development. Instead of bringing balance here, the (almost sole) editor of the introduction user:Oicumayberight keeps insisting, that the term marketing should be kept in every sentence of the introduction, and shouldn't be in a separate paragraph. This simplification and typical fixation has been noticed by several other users, and each time user:Oicumayberight kept the discussion going without giving any real arguments.

Now after a long discussion with user:Oicumayberight, he argued that a new neutral introduction copied from (reliable) internet source, so called "it oversimplifies the subject".

Now it turns out to be that the current introduction user:Oicumayberight created two years ago, and has been defending ever since, seemed to be based on three corrupted sources, see previous discussion. I think this is completely unacceptable. I have read most of the previous discussion and history of this article and user:Oicumayberight seem to be acting as if he is owns this article, and the subject of software development.

The solution here is simple:

• Keep this article neutral
• Keep this article based on reliable sources
• Keep that talking about marketing and software development in that one article
• And focuss in this article on the many dozends of Wikipedia articles about software development.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comment

I like to offer some help here, creating a neutral article here, and maybe add some reliable text to that one marketing article. This seems like a reasonable solution here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This next talk continues in the section "Neutrality dispute"

Neutrality dispute

Almost 2 years ago to the day, this article was started because I went searching for information about software development on wikipedia and found very little about it other than oversimplification to programming. Anyone considering the neutrality of this page should also consider the neutrality of related articles and the sheer amount of participation of software engineers vs the other related disciplines on wikipedia involving software development in other articles. I fear that the implication here on wikipedia is a message to young prospective software developers searching the wikipedia for answers is a strongly biased message of "software engineering is all you need to know" which is simply not true. My evidence is that just two years ago, the term "software development" was redirected to software engineering which at that time said nothing about marketing and categorized the other disciplines as sub-disciplines of software engineering. Yes, I've been heavily involved in this article, but I don't consider myself the owner of the subject or the article. I don't even consider my self an expert on the subject. But I've worked with major software companies enough to know that its more than just software engineering. I've involved myself in editing and defending this article more than I've liked to, simply because I feel that not enough professors of software development other than software engineers know what kind of bias and compromise this article has had to overcome.

It appears that Marcel Douwe Dekker is taking the position here that because not enough has been said about marketing involvement in software elsewhere on the wikipedia, that even less should be said about it in this article. I see it quite the opposite. Because there is no shortage of information on the wikipedia about software engineering involvement in software development, you can't miss that it involves software engineering even from this article. His suggestions would make a difficult to find but important subject (marketing involvement in software development) even more difficult to find. From my experience, marketing research and decisions are a critical part of the software development process that's much more obvious in the work place than it is on wikipedia. It's no surprise that there's a bias towards software engineering on wikipedia, because wikipedia itself was originally started by software engineers for the purpose of sharing programming ideas. This very short article is the counterbalance, but it appears that he wants to make it even shorter and even less about marketing. His original intent was to bury the part about marketing at the bottom of a long article with his edit here. Now that he's agreed that most of the technical information should remain in its original software development process article, he won't leave well enough alone with this article. He wants to undo the compromises made between me and other respectable software engineers after weeks of painstaking debates and editing by harshly scrutinizing references that were put there by another software engineer as a result of the compromise and beating the dead horses that came from those once settled debates. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to admitt your original research here, stating: From my experience .... marketing research and decisions are a critical part of the software development process that's much more obvious in the work place than it is on wikipedia.... So you admit, the article introduction's preoccupation is based on your experience. Should I (re)add the original research tag? This is at least one more argument to simply remove the whole introduction here, and just link to the one single Wikipedia article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a statement made in the talk page. I was under the impression that original thought was allowed in the talk page. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes on the talkpage you can express, that "from your experience...". No problem. In the second comment you ever made here on the talkpage, you stated: "I've referred to just a few of dozens, perhaps hundreds of books, that refer to the marketing role in software development", see here. My point here is, that if you cann't prove you used any real sources, and can't prove the current sources are related to the existing text, those remarkt suggest "original research".

Let's not beat a dead horse here. The question there was "does software development warrant it's own article." The alternative was a redirect to the software engineering article at that time. That hinged on sources that clearly showed marketing involvement not defined as engineering. Sources were since found and added. If you don't think the sources support what's said in the article, then that's a different issue. But if you were to go through wikipedia and remove every unsourced statement or every statement that didn't match sources word for word, then there wouldn't be a wikipedia. Some WP:POV is allowed. It's the glue that holds wikipedia articles together. IMO, the only POV that warrants removal is that which is contrary to sources in that particular article. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just prove the link between the statements and the sources

As I stated in the previous talk item(s) here, the main reason I dispute the neutrality is, because I can't find the connecting between the first statements in the article and the sources. The only thing I ask is that, you supply prove here. Just list the original text and show how you got to those statements.

This is a separate talk item, and I will removed the tag if you give the prove. If you don't, in let's say three days, I will remove the first lines from the article. The other talk items stand apart from this, and remain open. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you challenging the entire first 3 paragraphs? If so, a total of 5 days is not long to give to fix so many references.

Lets allow cool heads to rework this.

My initial reaction to the 3 paragraphs is mixed. To me, it is neutral POV: it seems to be factual, and I expect we could find a number of references in Management of Information Systems textbooks if we were in a suitable library (I am not)

However, in style and emphasis, it does seem more suitable for a textbook, or at least deeper in a wikipedia article, than a lead section. There is a sense, to me, of the polemic, urging the reader to consider the role of marketing when learning about software development. But, in my opinion, these problems are not serious, and should be discussed without deadlines for deletions.

In the meantime, Wikipedia has many articles with errors and egregious omissions that would well reward the emotional energy invested in this debate.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am challenging the first two sentences. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. And I fully agree with "at least deeper in a wikipedia article, than a lead section". This is exactly my point.

I suggest you look at the history and talk to the software engineer who after coming to an agreement with me, helped me edit those first sentences and included those sources. I'm not the only editor of this article.

f how I have develop articles like this. :

• With moving the Computer graphics article: before and after done 23 July 2008
• With developing the Systems Development Life Cycle article: before and after, done in the past days

Now these are only two examples of some hundred articles I have developed and been improving in the past year. I would like to go on just doing this. So I thing there are two ways out here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind you expanding the article. In fact, I welcome it. It was never meant to have a bias towards marketing, even if it seems that it does. The key here is the emphasis on multidisciplinary. Having a separate software development (marketing) article wouldn't be a good idea because that would imply that it means something totally different in marketing terms. Even though marketing professionals may speak a different jargon than software engineers, we are still talking about the same product here.

Your second solution of having marketing as a separate section would work better, but only if marketing were still at least mentioned on equal footing with engineering and other related disciplines. It wouldn't be fair to mention engineering involvement in the opening section and not mention marketing. IMO the opening section should at least emphasize that software development is multidisciplinary even if the various disciplines are not mention in the opening section. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. A separate marketing section it is (for now). I have been working on dozens of overview articles and they all have a similar structure:

Contents

1. Overview
2. History
3. Topics
4. Studies
5. See also
6. References
7. Further reading
8. External links

Now I have my doubts about the need for a history section, because this already developed in surrounding articles. I am not so sure about a "studies" section also. Maybe it could be a "related discipline section" because we want to talk about both the theory and the practice here. If we call the 4th chapter related disciplines is easy to involve Software engineering, project management, marketing, ergonomics etc. A text about the marketing involvements can be listed there.

Now it also depends on how the rest of the article evolves. Now I am also working on the surrounding articles, such as Computer software, software engineering, software engineer, software development process, and the history if software engineering. And I will be shifting/relocating some of the chapters between those articles, so things can be moving here for a short while. I order to do so I need that firm neutral base. This is why I have been making such a big issue here.

One more thing. If you want to make a point, such as expressing the multidisciplinary of software development in the introduction, the safest way to do so is to find a scientist, who already expressed your ideas. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality dispute solved

I solved the neutrality dispute here by removing the three references from the disputed text. I added a "verify tag" because I still think these remarks should be properly referenced, or replaced by similar quotes from reliable sources. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't solve it by removing the references. If you think its a false reference, you can add a tag. But, unless you have read the sources yourself, you can't prove that the references are false. don't remove the references until you at least have given sufficient time for the editors who put them there to explain the reference. I'm checking out the book for reference #3. You should wait till the software engineer who put the first reference there responds. This article has been up for over a year without complaints, you can wait at least a couple of weeks or a month. Have you even attempted to contact him? Oicumayberight (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok.

• You have replaced the probably corrupted sources, with the words "restored references until proven false". So I have re-added the POV sign.
• I all ready explained that multiple google searches doesn't links the text to the sources.

My conclusion is that those links are corrupted. Instead of resolving this situation yourself, you again start reverting my work. Now instead of starting an edit war, please get some help here, if you are incapable of proving the sources yourself.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't agree I propose to ask the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for help. I'm quite sure I have done, what I could do. And I made a reasonable request to prove your case. And three days is a reasonable time. Such a thing usualy takes me less than 10 minutes to solve, see for example here.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all software development involves marketing

It seems to be cooling down, so I can give my opinion about marketing.

1. it should have a brief mention in the lead
2. I have seen statistics (don't know how reliable) that 90% of software development is bespoke, and therefore is developed directly for user requirements, with a different role for marketing than commercial software.
3. the roles of marketing for both bespoke and packaged software should be discussed in depth in the body of the article

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. These points could even be mentioned in the article. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree those 90/10% is definitely something we have to check and link with some reliable sources. Now you spoke of bespoke or Custom software and commercial or retail software. I think these are terms (with wikipedia links), which should be mentioned and shortly explained, possibly in the marketing section.

But Hroðulf mentioned an even more fundamental aspect, with the phrase "Not all software development". This implies there are different "types of software development". This could maybe be a separate topic here, if we find some reliable sources. But enough of that. I would luke to get back to improving articles.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)