Crisis is a burning issue; this is not a phenomenon, which can be conquered forever. Current approach to crisis is an optimized collaboration, which allows for manageable, measurable and predictable software development. Crisis is a new reality to live and work with. The current software development crisis dates back to the 1960s. The root cause of crisis is misbalance between resources and options. Understanding the nature of crisis helps to understand the reasons for the future crises.
This book is a navigator in lifecycle models, methodologies, principles and practices for predictable and efficient software development in crisis, i.e. under rapid requirement changes, resource deficit and other uncertainties. Therefore, the starting chapters suggest the major approaches to software development and their applicability in crisis. Further narration is case-based; it involves large-scale software implementations in different industries and knowledge transfer processes in IT education. The book suggests a set of principles that potentially marry the client’s and the developer’s views of the future software product in order to avoid or to mitigate the crisis.
The book will be helpful for students, postdocs, theorists and practitioners in software development. It suggests approved principles and practices of crisis management for software development.
The article describes the model of the school lifecycle, proposed the methodology of a determining the stage of the school lifecycle using quantitative and qualitative parameters. Assessment the stages of the life cycle of four schools that are identical in their characteristics (status, age, size, location) and providing practical solutions are important result of the research. At first, we examined the position of the schools in the model of the lifecycle by quantitative indicators using three criteria: education quality, educational process resource supply, competitiveness of educational services. School reports based on self-examination provided the empirical evidence for indicators’ calculation. All the indicators are analyzed in a five-year dynamics, their averages for sample schools are defined over two time periods and percentile changes over a given period are calculated. The life cycle stage of a school is determined based on an aggregate indicator (final school evaluation), which is calculated considering weight coefficients. At second, we determined a dominant organizational culture type, which based on the Robert E. Quinn and Kim S. Cameron’s OCAI method, for verification the primary quantitative diagnostics results. Qualitative data was gathered from a teachers and school managers’ poll. The life cycle determination method proposed in this study can be used in management practice by the school principal.