|
G'Kar was so fundamental to the last three or four series that I can't see B5 without him working. Londo was good - and played excellently - but a heck of a lot revolved around the "growing up" of G'Kar (maybe "evolution" is a better word, I'm not sure) and that reflected in the maturity of the Shadow war / Second Naan war / rebellion.
He really was pivotal to the whole story thread.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
The thing that always impressed me about Babylon 5 was that when a spaceship used it thrusters to rotate, you could see it use the opposing thrusters to stop the rotation. The people doing the graphics understood inertia. I've never seen that in any other show. Look at how the Vipers do their flips in Battlestar Galactica - to my knowledge (I could be wrong) you never see the opposing thrusters fire to stop the rotation!
The other exception is Space Cowboys, where you can see that with the shuttle thrusters as well.
|
|
|
|
|
The Expanse does that as well.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Both the Expanse & Babylon 5 the ships look as if they are not designed for atmosphere, the Expanse more so I could be wrong haven't seen B5 for a while. 
|
|
|
|
|
Ruling planet of palm utensils (7)
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO: No
At my previous company, we didn't have BAs - and when I joined my current company we didn't have them either. But that changed, a few years back, when a new head of IT came in and decided he needed to replicate the structure from his old place. We now have dozens of BAs and are constantly recruiting more.
What this has achieved over the last 5 years, is:
- Software Developers being down-graded to coders. To be honest, some are not troubled by this. They're also not troubled by sitting, on their own, in their bedroom for a whole weekend, playing computer games! 
- A layer of obfuscation. Having someone who neither understands the business nor the technology as the 'go between', inevitably results in Coders not developing what the business actually needs.
- Lack of ownership. Coders no longer feel responsible for working with the business to understand how a requirement can best be developed and delivered.
- A disconnect. Where we once had software developers working directly with business users to solve a problem, we now have the person who truly understands the problem, not talking to the person who can solve it.
What's even more puzzling is that we are trying to be Agile! I've never been convinced that Agile is better than other approaches - but I don't see where BAs fit in!
|
|
|
|
|
An enterprise role is like a tool : if it is not used properly, it is useless, and can even be dangerous.
I would not generalize about businees analysts not being useful.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, the OP's generalization is wrong, but not for the apparent reason -- the developers are being used wrongly, not necessarily the BA.
IME, developers should have an understanding of what they are building, how it should work, and how it will be used. When managing a project, I have developers sit in on some of the requirements and design sessions, so they get first hand experience with the situation. This produces better results. The BAs and TAs have the lead in those sessions, but everyone participates.
BITD, we weren't developers, we were Programmer/Analysts, and we had Business and Technical Analysts. The roles were not as stratified and IMO worked better. One project where we had clearly defined Programmers and Analysts did not go well, too much miscommunication and lost effort.
|
|
|
|
|
5teveH wrote: They're also not troubled by sitting, on their own, in their bedroom for a whole weekend, playing computer games!
Don't blame other people's hobbies for the reason you hate your own life.
Suck it up, or find a new job.
|
|
|
|
|
You failed to include the when quoting me. 
|
|
|
|
|
I thought you just had a nervous twitch from all the rage 
I didn't mean to sound so harsh in my message... but the sentiment remains: If we don't like the job we have, we either suck it up or we find a better one. No good blaming other people who are happy/content with theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
Like all positions, there are varying degrees of people filling them. I've worked with different performers. Some of them are only good for documentation after the fact and require a lot of babysitting. Others do an amazing job of getting requirements out of customers that I'm pretty sure I might have missed. Good luck and patient!
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
Analyst to developer: I've been tasked with documenting the system requirements for you, so I need you to tell me the requirements and then I'll type them up in Excel.
|
|
|
|
|
SteveH wrote: Having someone who neither understands the business nor the technology as the 'go between'
That sounds like your main problem. If the BA lacks domain experience, they need to be good at gathering requirements from those who have it, in which case they can offload this task from developers. But if they try to do it alone, or if those who know the domain don't give them the time of day, it'll be like you say.
For most of my career, I worked in more or less a waterfall model where the first thing to be written was the requirements document. Sometimes it was written by a BA type. Other times it was written by the developer, especially if it was an internal capability or could reference a standard and outline the subset of it that would be implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
Back in the day, we wrote up the requirements doc as a team of users (engineers), developers (we just called them programmers), a liaison (programmer who was also an engineer - me), and managers (BAs maybe?). We'd work until everyone understood the requirements and signed off on it, then it was just a SMOP, but everyone was clear on what they were producing and how it fit into the whole. This, I believe, is what is now known as the Waterfall model.
BAs can be useful in keeping everything on track by keeping the big picture in mind and avoiding bunny trails that crop up when users and coders start to get excited 
|
|
|
|
|
It was something of a red herring for me to call it a waterfall model, because there isn't much point in designing or coding until the requirements are reasonably firm. After that document was written, a meeting was held to review it before development began.
Yes, limiting the interaction between users and coders is important once development begins!
SMOP = simple matter of programming? 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Simple Matter of Programming
I tend to reduce most projects to this model: make a clear plan, gather all needed resources, execute plan, so essentially I want to get to the SMOP even when it's not really programming 
|
|
|
|
|
5teveH wrote: a new head of IT came in and decided he needed to replicate the structure from his old place
Let me guess: he hired a bunch of his cronies from the old place.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Gary R. Wheeler wrote: Let me guess: he hired a bunch of his cronies from the old place.
Yep! You got it!
|
|
|
|
|
A GOOD BA is invaluable, a mediocre one causes all the problem you have described. I always managed to get myself included in the initial requirement studies, the follow up crap was left to the BA.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: A GOOD BA is invaluable, a mediocre one causes all the problem you have described.
Yes, we have both good and bad - and, (maybe not that clear from my OP), I wasn't saying that all BAs do a bad job. I was questioning their necessity.  When working in a software development role, I have always preferred direct and continuous interaction with the end user. I find it much easier to get a proper understanding of their requirement and I, therefore, have a much improved chance of delivering the right solution, with fewer iterations.
|
|
|
|
|
If you’re short on staff I would say no as a good dev will cover the analysis. This is where I like to be.
If you’ve got the staff then I see BAs as a specialism: developers can spend more time on the technicalities whilst the BAs can dig deep on the “whys” around specific business practices, unravelling complex processes that as a developer you might find tedious. However, BAs and Devs need to both attend the core meetings to that BAs don’t become a go-between or worst, a poor information conductor 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure that you work on problems quite as complicated as I do.
I work about 10 hours a day. Frankly, I need all the help I can get. I need the help of DBAs that know the connections and flow between the ... 20 or so databases that my system interacts with. There are literally thousands of sprocs. I have no idea what is in most of them. It's the same way with BAs. I've had useless business analysts and I've had ones that made my job a joy. Dealing with customers can be time consuming and problematic. If someone can offload that task, that's great.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Breeden wrote: I'm not sure that you work on problems quite as complicated as I do.
Over 50 front-end web applications, (some with their own databases), all interacting with our legacy system, which consist of over 1000 tables and 10,000 pieces of software. I wouldn't call it simple.
Note. I use the term 'legacy' to describe it's long standing value - not as a derogatory term commonly used in IT these days.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
