Subject:

Message:
: This is my short synopsis, what do you think? : : I'm wondering is it asking my short synopsis of the case (2000) or is it asking a short synopsis of the final quesitons that Sinofsky face that I'm suppose to touch? (i dont know so i handled both in the same paper,) : : David Gali II : : This is the brief Synopsis: David Gali II : Let me know what you think : : (note: “Office XP” is already released, yet we are analyzing on its development, therefore it is kind of a interesting position we are in. FYI) : : Through the development of Office 2000, Microsoft has had one main concern which has (and always will be) a concern over. That problem is time. Although with any project, time is a very important key factor in developmentation of any end product. Program language development, is a very time consuming, and some times costly time resourceful project to deploy. At the start of Microsoft Office development, the projects although complex in the base sense, were set in a very small, and limited environment. I’m referring to the time when Microsoft was first just getting off of the ground. They had their first visions of developing Office. They relied, on the “best” there was. Lets take the coder who could type 80 words a minute, and 10,000 lines of code in 2 days. Who, if any today can say they can do that? Using specialist, who skill and experience surpassed beyond anyone at the time, helped and hinder Microsoft at the same time. Using the super coders at the start make Microsoft get off the ground at a surprisingly fast pace, however, in the long run, with developmenting time factor’s, and long term planning, those coders will not be around forever. Plus, there vision, resulting from their skill far surpassed the thinking, and level of understanding that many could comprehend. As a result, its hard for anyone at a master status, to appease to the needs, and visions of project as a whole. : As time, went on, obviously the super coders were seen as short term, and we ventured in to the abstract and complicated checks and balances idea’s that Microsoft tried to employ in order to create the perfect office suite (Office 2000). Utilizing prior management ideas Sinofsky is now faced with the new challenge of developmentation of the next version of Office. This is where our synops comes in. Sinofsky Is faced with a decision that he must make, that has concern with the prior methods of program management. In his prior release of 2000, a series of “check ups” were performed on the base level coders, to ensure compatibility and smooth implementation of the program as a whole in the end product. Coders on a daily basis submitted there codes for “quick” and “deep” level checks of bugs, and problems that could cause hardship in the future of the development of the program. The deep level checks, although thorough, and effective to spot problems that could occur, were very time consuming, and as a result harmful. Taking 3-5 days to finish the scan, sometimes took so long, that the original code was already modified to an extent to where the deep scan analysis could be obsolete. This was a process that slowed up many milestones, and effected the release dates and overall master schedule of the program. This is what Sinofsky has to handle when he begins the process of development of the next Office. If he eliminated the deep scan process, in the short run, it could result in early benefits, of up keeping the desire schedule of events laid out in the master plan. However, what if a major flaw in one portion of a developmentation of a program (Word, Excel, etc…) results in a major setback, and revertation to another code, which results in that portion of development to be set back behind the set schedule, and as a result impossible to meet the deadline? On the other hand, what if by tightening in on the code “check up” hinders the developmentation process, by utilizing valuable time resources which results in a severe delay of developing and releasing the final product, however, resulting in a end product that is 10x better than what would have resulted by not babysitting the coder’s work? There has to be a middle ground correct? Or at least an alternative? This is our job in this little project I suppose J (obviously I’m not going to close it with that last 2 sentences, this is for the sake of the group)

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: