Thursday, March 15, 2007

Yesterday I returned home. My stay was short because the test phone that we were using broke. It was supposed to go to customer acceptance testing in Dallas on Friday. So our host was glad that we found and exploited a bug but upset that we were not able to get out of it. Since we only had one of two test phones working we decided to leave as our host suggested. The phone is just so new. Our host only had it for a few days. They were the first to get them. I am not sure we could even have gotten one. They looked and felt just like our test phones but had different unstable guts. So...I am home now.

I went back this morning to the CAD architectural question. I also looked at what had been produced by the study group. I think that they have part C wrong. This is as I said in a previous entry. I presented a clear mathematical derivation of how I would solve the problem with prototypes. This is exactly what the study group came up with. My answer was actually more complete. They only had what they would do not how they would do it. I said how I had reviewed with my professor the answer and he had hinted at questioning and measuring techniques. This was the exact words used in the book Software Architecture in Practice by Len Bass, Paul Clements, and Rick Kazman. I think that this is the kind of answer that is looked for on the test. A clear writing that explains this point. But, this is also covered in Applying UML and Patterns by Craig Larman in chapter 32. Here it is talked about FURPS+ and the classifying of System requirements of which part C of this question falls into the F of FURPS+. I suppose that the technique discussed falls into the Questioning Techniques camp. The SAD (System Architecture Document) is talked about. It is a document where architectural decisions are recorded. It includes the technical memos and descriptions of the architectural views. One of the example artifacts contained in the SAD was a factor table. It was said that the use of this table was stylistic. The chapter goes on with an example of recording factors to achieve the goal of architectural analysis, which is understanding the influence of each factor on the architecture. So one other more complete answer may be to discuss the SAD and the process around it that promotes learning about the architectural issues by recording them and their impact on the system.

My thoughts on the defensibility and the risk of being able to organize an answer on the SAD on the test gets me upset. I understand the question and the answers but don`t see a clear discussion answer that is defensible. The key words Questioning and Measuring seem to be more defensible with a shorter answer and less need for an example as the SAD document would need. Coming up with an example on the test to demonstrate how SAD is done seems like a prone for error task. The possibility that the grader will have ever done a SAD document or know the finer qualities of it to infer a superior answer is slim. Also, FURPS+ is not really what the question is about. It is not worth putting it into the answer.

The answer to this question seems a little unfair if my study group pals and I both will/would have answered it in the same manner. It seems to me that this is a question of knowing how to answer and not what to answer. This is not a good thing for tests.