Application Release and Management - Essay Example

Section/# Application Release and Management Although the range and complexity of software applications hasincreased exponentially over the past several decades, the process by which software is developed and the means by which stakeholders involved in the process engage with one another has remained fundamentally unchanged. For instance, the very same software development approach that was utilized in the early 1990s, such a great degree of success, by firms such as Microsoft and others illustrated an outline of the approach that could be utilized even within the current era. As a function of this, even though software development has shifted from being PC-based to being based upon mobile platforms, such as iOS or android, the same root outline an approach to bringing such software or applications to market remains largely unchanged. Accordingly, the following analysis will engage the reader with a discussion and in-depth review of the outlining process by which a team leader might engage stakeholders within a firm that is task and releasing an application directed towards both android and iOS devices. For purposes of specificity, the application in question will be directed towards providing utility to the user based upon facilitating meeting and appointment making/fulfillment. It is the hope of this particular analyst that such a level of review will provide a beneficial background with regard to the way in which the process should take place; and the means by which stakeholders should be involved in the creation of such an application. It should further be noted that even though alternative approaches have been utilized, companies that have seen the greatest degree of success have invariably followed the templates and outline of required actions that will be illustrated within the following discussion. The first stage is obviously to oversee a review and discussion with respect to the scope of the project seeks to entail and the end result that is hoped for. Obviously, without a definitive scope and all individuals involved in the process being mindful of this, the degree and extent to which such an application can speak to the needs of the consumer is fundamentally in doubt. After the review has been conducted after a scope has been definitively agreed upon, the software development phase enters into what is known as “pre-alpha”. This is pre-alpha build is provided as a means of encouraging several different approaches to tackling the different needs that the application involves. Firms that have a relatively high level of research and development budget will encourage several different groups of software engineers to provide alternative pre-Alpha platforms as a means of seeking to determine which of these is the most efficient and able to provide the end result that the project seeks to effect. Naturally, once this pre-alpha process has been completed, it is been a requirement of stakeholders to determine which of the pre-alpha candidate is the most effective and proceed on with the alpha build. Within the alpha build process, stakeholders are encouraged to solidify the best practices that have been indicated within the pre-alpha and determine which of these will be included in what order within the alpha production. This process is oftentimes misunderstood by outside observers; due in part to the fact that it is the week that the alpha process is something of a trial and error approach (Singh & Chana, 2013). However, this is not the case. Instead, the alpha process is ultimately attempting to include best practices and reach the end goal as fast as possible. Rather than merely fumbling around with an intended approach to meet the needs of the end consumer, the alpha process is one in which coders, programmers, marketers, and all stakeholders within the company are uniquely interested in realizing the final product as soon as possible. However, it is also understood by stakeholders that this particular process is not one can be accomplished overnight. Instead, requires multiple iterations and the alpha process is necessarily a complement part of this. After the alpha process has been completed, at least to a sufficient degree of satisfaction, it is then required for the stakeholders to develop a beta platform; one which will be utilized as close as to market release as possible. This particular process is not intended as a means of further innovation for development. Instead, it is the final test prior to the product being potentially launch to a minimal distribution network. Accordingly, it is essentially important that the process exhibit as few flaws as possible and the ultimate utility of the platform be tested beyond reasonable doubt. It is at this particular stage that most firms and companies spend the largest amount of time and the largest level of monetary resources as a function of ensuring that the data version of whatever application or software distribution is being developed is as robust and efficient as humanly possible (Roche, 2013). Whereas it is of course impossible to ensure that no issues arise with respect to a beta release, a certain a happy medium has to be found between the overall level of time and investment that will be directed and improving the beta release and the overall level of time and investment in seeking to get the product to market that can be tolerated. Once the beta process has been completed, it is then incumbent upon individuals within the process to begin development on what is known as a “release candidate” this is oftentimes known as a camera or a Delta process in terms of software development and coding (PASS, S, & RONEN, 2014). However, this process is less involved with respect to the actual creation and manipulation of the software itself; instead, it is contingent upon individual developers approaching the software and platform from a variety of different standpoints. In essence, developers are oftentimes interested in probing weaknesses and finding potential drawbacks that might exist prior to releasing a candidate of the program or software platform that is being developed (Kamp, 2014). The underlying reason behind this stage as to do with the fact that it is one of the last stage is involved prior to developers releasing the product to a limited market and therefore must necessarily have a high degree of quality control; unless negative ramifications may result of the way in which the ultimate product is released. Once the release candidate stage has been completed, it is then necessary to proceed to the release to marketing or release to manufacturing stage. At this stage, the development of the product and ongoing changes necessarily cease and a focus on developing potential corrections for future patches or iterations is required. Thus far, process that has been defined is an active one; or one in which software developers are able to effect an immediate changes with respect to the platform or software that they have thus far developed (Manlu et al., 2014). However, at the release candidate stage being completed, the ability of software engineers and/or programmers or review staff to continue to make involves changes with respect to the way in which the software operates or engages with the consumer is impossible. Due to the fact that production of the software and distribution is currently in the process of taking place, any further changes, weaknesses, or additions will necessarily need to be Incorporated as a further iterations of the software, update, past, or other term of post-release improvement. Even though the beta process is contingent upon seeking to probe potential weaknesses of the software, this stage that is currently being defined is an essential complement of seeking to improve upon the software that has been developed (Babb et al., 2014). Sadly, far too many firms neglect this particular stage and merely wait until the time in which negative feedback is being received from the market in order for them to actively participate in any level of change to the software platform. Following the release to manufacturing or release to marketing stage, general availability is generally realized. In times past, period of time between the release of a candidate software for platform and general availability was usually rather long; due to the fact that floppy disks had to the image, CDs had to be printed and other marketing essentials should be accomplished. However, in an age in which almost all media is now available for download without external copies, the speed at which this process takes place has become increasingly quick. Accordingly, the stages that exists between the release candidate and general availability have become increasingly essential with respect to the way in which firms react to ongoing development and the need for the creation of further tools within these parameters. In terms of the case in question, it is essential that the stages between release candidate, release to marketing, and general availability all serve as a unified approach that exhibits ongoing development (Fulbright, 2013). The current speed of the market and the means by which consumers engage with new technology creates a dynamic by which the consumer is not likely to give the software engineer a second chance as a means of fixing something that should have been right to begin with. In an era, release updates, patches, and the unavailability of completing products created a dynamic by which software development firms have the luxury of continuing the process once general availability has been realized. However, in the current dynamic, this is not something that the software development industry can count. The information that has thus far been described, it is clear and apparent that the process is one which must be followed strictly. Although elements within the process of change shifted as a function of the market and the means by which technology is currently exhibited, the production of software that is available for use and integration within either iOS or android is markedly similar to the process that previously defined software development and applications fully 20 or 30 years ago. As such, in order to guide 18 through this process it is essential to ensure that each and every metric and milestone is accomplished along the way in the eventuality that one of these metrics or milestones overlooked, the entire project can come crashing to a close. Furthermore, in the eventuality that a milestone or metric this, the ultimate level of consumer satisfaction it is likely to be achieved is reduced to a minimal level. With this in mind, it is absolutely essential that the rubric that has been defined within this analysis is followed to a clear and definitive and and that ongoing support and development continues even after general availability has been recognized within the market. Bibliography Babb, J, Hoda, R, & Norbjerg, J 2014, Embedding Reflection and Learning into Agile Software Development, IEEE Software, 31, 4, pp. 51-57, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 August 2014. Fulbright, R 2013, Incorporating Innovation into Iterative Software Development Using the Inventive Problem Solving Methodology,International Journal Of Innovation Science, 5, 4, pp. 203-212, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 August 2014. KAMP, P 2014, Quality of Software Costs Money--Heartbleed Was Free, Communications Of The ACM, 57, 8, pp. 49-51, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 August 2014. MANLU, L, HANSEN, S, & QIANG, T 2014, The Community Source Approach to Software Development and the Kuali Experience, Communications Of The ACM, 57, 5, pp. 88-96, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 August 2014. PASS, S, & RONEN, B 2014, Reducing the Software Value Gap, Communications Of The ACM, 57, 5, pp. 80-87, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 August 2014. ROCHE, J 2013, Adopting DevOps Practices in Quality Assurance, Communications Of The ACM, 56, 11, pp. 38-43, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 August 2014. Singh, S, & Chana, I 2013, Introducing Agility in Cloud Based Software Development through ASD, International Journal Of U- & E-Service, Science & Technology, 6, 5, pp. 191-201, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 26 August 2014. Read More