What Does Your CM Manager Do?

Mr. Langston. I ‘m not quite sure where you ‘re coming from with some parts of your answer, but I ‘ll try to clarify things. possibly you ‘re less familiar with the software side of CM, specially as standards have done a preferably poor job in addressing software development, which is identical different from hardware development. ( That ‘s another floor. )
[ quote ] If the premise is false, then any conclusion that follows is delusive. [ /quote ]
actually, more accurately, if the premise is false, anything ( true or delusive ) can be proven to be true from that premise ( which means the conclusion may be false or true ) .
[ quotation ] Does this base that the definition of CM is dependant upon the tools one is using ? ( Or did you mean that an employees specific tasks are so pendent ? ) [ /quote ]

Reading: What Does Your CM Manager Do?

It does not mean or imply that the definition of CM is dependent upon the tools one is using. It does imply that what the CM Manager DOES ( specific tasks ) is pendent upon the tools one is using .
[ quote ] ” CM is first a discipline ; then a tool. ” ( or something close to that ). [ /quote ]
CM is a discipline – it ‘s not a tool at all. Tools support the CM summons. They are just software – not CM. Tools can help automate, organize, present, etc. But that ‘s what they do, they HELP. CM is a discipline. A CM Manager is not a discipline. It is a function within the CM discipline. And this topic deals with what a curium Manager does and which tools ( second ) he uses to help do them .
[ quote ] may have a little or a lot “to do with CM,” and certainly the CM discipline is associated with or riding herd on these things, but that is a far cry from builds being CM.[/quote]
specifically, there are three contexts for the noun “ build ” within software CM. The foremost is the “ build ” as a definition of what is to be built ( and implicitly or explicitly how ). The second is the “ roll up and linking ” function. The third base is the artifacts of the build, including the build results .
As I mentioned before, the “ compose and linking ” have little to do with CM, but surely not nothing to do with CM, with the addiction being higher for languages that require a certain compose and/or build ordering. ( e.g. Modula 2 required interfaces be compiled prior to execution sections. same with ADA ). Unless these roll up relationships are identified within the CM depository, the compilation and linking become less and less accomplishable. It is consequently necessity as separate of CM Identification to not only give a label to these “ sections ” to be compiled, but besides to be able to identify their attributes .
Futhermore, within the CMDB, it is normal to give these “ sections ” ( by and large files ) unique identifiers, as required by CM discipline. however, such unique identifiers are unlike than those understand by the compilers and linkers. Hence, it is besides necessary to be able to translate this identification into compiler/linker friendly identifiers ( typically file names, each with a directory prefix ). Furthermore, the directory prefix can change from one revision of a baseline to another ( or from one build to another ). therefore, CM designation requires that we be able to relate the internal CM designation to this friendly ( external ) designation in a context-sensitive manner. ( E.g. which directory prefix do I use on a file for build A volt build up B ). This is quite a building complex character of CM Identification that the huge majority of tools can not cope with fully, and then brusque cuts are much taken which limit the functionality of the CM cock with deference to the want CM Identification .
furthermore, it is necessary to be able to, given a construct identifier, identify precisely which revisions of each object are in the build up. This can be done from the CM depository with many tools. But it is sometimes necessary to be able to ask the same question of the software while disconnected from the repository. As such, some CM tools have the ability to insert identity data into the executables ( through the human body process ) thus that the file rewrite identifiers can be determined even when there is no access to the CM depository. This identification is hush function of CM, even though it ‘s not performed with access to the CM cock .
besides notice the want for alone recognition of each “ system ” build up ( i.e. each meaning, and hence recorded, build up ). One key use here is to ensure that the build artifacts are linked to a specific build definition, giving traceability from the actual deliverable rear to the constituent components .
But this is merely the depart of the use of a construct id. Let ‘s front at the CM Audit Function. In software, a CM audit is not done by sitting down with person and executing every functional case before their eyes and verifying the results. This would take an insane, unacceptable amount of time. rather, the running audit is done by ensuring that the requirements have all been addressed successfully. This in go requires a commemorate, not only of test cases and how they relate to the requirements ( requirements traceability matrix ), but besides, of which test cases have been successfully/unsuccessfully run against a specific build, identified by its build identifier. If this specific capability is not present, then, except for very, very belittled software projects, you will not have adequate means to complete a running audit. It is these build records, that is, which requirements have passed running audited account for a specific build up, that help determine whether or not a build is going to pass the audit. now in a boastfully software project either the dress of trial cases is insufficient, or you will never get all test cases to pass for a given build. But that ‘s very well – because it ‘s software and can be fixed in station if necessary. So the guide of the functional audited account has more to do with confidence of the software. This in turning is deduced from the Build ‘s test case metrics, along with careful analysis of the types of failures that occur.

And it gets a batch more complex because requirements change over time, and so do the test cases, and the set of examination cases that apply to a specific build up ( i.e. hardened of build artifacts ) .
In short, if the CM Manager does not take province for the assorted aspects of performing builds, you will not be able to complete a software functional audited account. As well, given that you can, you hush need to ensure that you can identify the human body, and verify that the components of the construct match the forcible audit ( which revisions of which files are in the build executables, which in turn is traceable to which changes have gone into the human body and which requirements are ultimately addressed by those changes ). Tools HELP vastly here, but tools are not CM. It is besides critical that builds do not go downstream ( from growth to integration to verification to establishment to alpha to beta to production, etc. ) without the proper criteria being defined for such promotions. otherwise, although you have identified builds and failed their audits, they very well could end up in customer sites. so this promotion level, including the standard, are an integral region of the Configuration Audit .
In software, the physical audit may be done manually for very small projects, but ultimately, you have to have confidence in your tools that it is putting into the builds what you expect is going into them. This confidence is gained in two ways : inspecting components of builds, and inspecting the tools and serve that cause the components to end up in the physique ( i.e. artifacts ) .
[ quotation mark ] Why is it “ critical ” that the CM Manager take duty for the activities you list ?
[ /quote ]
I ‘ve dealt with some of the activities above … to continue :
One particular facility for doing these inspections is build comparisons. At a humble floor, you might compare which file revisions went into build B that were n’t in build A ( and vice versa ). But higher level build comparison tools allow you to compare which outstanding problems were addressed in B since A, which features and requirements were addressed in B that were n’t in A, and which test cases passed ( or failed ) in B that did not ( or did ) authorize in A. These are crucial for shape audits. Build Frequency affects how easily such comparisons can be done. incremental builds, as opposed to wax builds, can be used ( if done properly ) to minimmize the re-creation of artifacts that are n’t affected by the changes between builds. This may or may not make comparisons, and hence audits, easier, depending largely on your tools .
There are many other aspects of builds that affect status account. The state of a rewrite of a file is either in-progress or completed. not thus for the submit of the human body, which has a much more building complex life motorbike than a file rewrite. The integration and confirmation steps on a build allow us to identify the state of the changes that have been applied ( often tagged against the file revision alternatively of the change software ). But let ‘s leave that for nowadays .
shape control does not merely deal with how change occurs to a configuration, but besides who has access to perform such transfer. As such, things like roles, enforced work and access operate are an integral separate of configuration operate .
In the like way, condition accountancy is not just a recording of “ states ”. It covers an authoritative “ report ” capability so that the “ accounting ” can be done. And it is crucial to be able to make decisions in a timely manner using the capabilities of the tools to provide condition information. In this common sense, the more you can adjust your tools to present the information each function requires with equally short effort or change for error as possible, the more successful your condition accounting capabilities will be. This is why we equip our CM guy with the ability to improve things like traceability seafaring, build up comparisons, action visibility, summaries, etc. Often this is done through the creation of dashboards, with a dashboard satisfying a particular view of a function ( whether a CM Manager function, a product owner function, a developer character, or otherwise ). Status accounting affects all roles because all roles need the communication of information which allows for proper configuration operate, context-sensitive designation and diverse audits.