Test-Driven Development. The importance of structuring the coding process to adhere to the tenants of Test-Driven Development (TDD) cannot be overstated. At its most basic, TDD entails integrating automated unit testing into the coding process. Comprehensive unit tests, designed to capture logic errors and ensure all acceptance criteria are addressed, are written in conjunction with the actual code. Use of an automated testing run commiserate with each build ensures that each unit test remains in a "green" status - indicating that the test criteria has been appropriately addressed via clean code - as local development progresses.

Setup of an automated acceptance test framework on the integration server is key to leveraging each test as new code segments are integrated into the main development branch. Any conflict between newly integrated local code and the main branch is immediately identified enabling resolution before code is put into production.

Good Coding Practices. Enforcement of good coding practices across development teams is key to producing higher-quality products that are easier to maintain, update, and upgrade. Best practices, rooted in “tricks of the trade” employed by developers over the years to achieve these very results, include:

• Uniform Style & Good Structure must be achieved by adherence to a number of principles/conventions including appropriate use of comments, descriptive naming conventions, and uniform formatting as discussed in sections to follow. Other important considerations include:
  • An emphasis on writing self-explanatory code. Readable code is always preferable as it is easier to review or enhance than code written with an emphasis on optimization.
  • Adherence to the KISS principle which postulates that a simple and straightforward approach to solving a problem is better than a more complicated and complex approach. In the context of software code: simple and straightforward code is cleaner, easier to understand, and less likely to have bugs than complicated and complex code.
  • Adherence to the Interface Segregation principle which states that many client-specific interfaces are better than one general-purpose interface.
  • A religious adherence to producing reusable code which requires each unique task to be represented by a single method or function across a software system. Several principles underlie this objective most notably Separation of Concerns which postulates that each responsibility or task should be addressed by a unique function, class or component.
• Comments substantiative and detailed enough to provide explanation and context of code snippets. These annotations are key to understanding the logic underlying implementation of the functionality of all but the simplest of code. Information conveyed improves the efficiency and effectiveness of the peer review process, provides a necessary roadmap for refactoring, and provides context for developers tasked with making future enhancements.
• Naming Conventions - applied consistently - make code more readable and reduce the risk of confusion. Whether Hungarian Notation, Multiword Delimited, or another convention is used, variable names must be self-explanatory clearly representing the underlying data each stores. Class and Function names should be descriptive with the purpose of each easily distinguished.
• Formatting, employed uniformly, reveals the structure of code. Indentation and formatting, through the use of tabs, uniform spacing, white-spacing, maximum line length or wraps, and breaks, ensure that code is well organized and as such easily readable.
• Peer Review to supplement unit testing by providing a fresh set of eyes for detection of errors in logic or failure of code to adequately address all aspects of acceptance criteria. Determination of the need for refactoring is a further benefit of this best practice. Worth noting, peer review is part and parcel of the Agile practice of paired programming.
• Portability achieved through the use of parametrized configuration variables permits code to properly function when moved from one environment to another – most typically from development to production. Hard-coded literal values prohibit ease of movement as changes in values must be made manually increasing costs and introducing risk of error. Instead, configuration variable values must be controlled through database files, flat configuration files, or application servers.
• Merge Requests (aka Pull Requests) are a critical component of larger development projects. A Merge Request initiates a process whereby code developed locally, using a fork of the main repository, is reviewed and tested before being merged into the main repository. This process ensures a thorough Peer Review of new or enhanced code and relies heavily on adequate Comments, descriptive Naming Conventions, and consistent Formatting. As well, use of an automated acceptance test framework updated with current unit test criteria is critical to the effectiveness of this best practice.

Good coding practices lie at the core of optimal software development resulting in reduced initial costs, increased efficiency and productivity, enhanced product quality, and reduction of future maintenance costs through more organized work and documented product.

Refactoring. Unique to the IT arena, the verb refactor refers to the systematic process of rewriting source code to improve its readability, reusability, or structure – in essence to bring code into conformance with the tenants of Uniform Style & Good Structure. No new functionality is added nor underlying behavior changed. Refactoring may result from initial review of code by the author or from peer review. In conformance with the Open-Closed principle, refactoring should typically be avoided.

Embedded Security. Essential to all aspects of development, security is one of the software engineering basics. Embedding security into source code is critical as the application layer, as estimated by Gartner, contains 90 percent of all vulnerabilities. Code must be engineered such that it is not vulnerable to malicious attack. Best practices require addressing security early in, and throughout, the software development lifecycle based on an up-to-date understanding of security threats and techniques to address each.

Adequate Version Control. Execution of best version control practices is a necessary insurance policy to control potential damage inherent from injection of substandard code into a production environment. Whether implemented via a proprietary source code management tool, an open-source system, or a home-grown alternative, use of a version control system capable of enabling a timely rollback if required is critical to any enterprise.

Well Defined Project Work Scope. Integral to the definition of any project is an agreed upon Scope of Work on which timelines and budgets are based. Unlike the Waterfall model, all modern project methodologies allow for controlled changes in project scope. That said, engineering practices must be employed to ensure resources are expended to generate code solely  to meet agreed upon acceptance criteria. It is not uncommon for programmers to add features to applications based on a perceived need beyond those assigned – the very definition of scope creep. Project management practices, some encapsulating other software engineering techniques such as Peer Review, must ensure focus of time and resources remain on building reliable, effective code within  the scope of work.

Custom Engineered Applications

Synergy has developed a myriad of Custom Software Solutions that enable clients to implement and support a broad spectrum of strategic objectives. Our solutions include comprehensive enterprise-wide systems as well as smaller sub-systems that provide functional support at a departmental level. These systems have been implemented across a diverse group of commercial enterprises, associations and not-for-profits, pension funds, and labor unions and their affiliates.

Several of Synergy's Custom Systems have continued in use since the late 90's; over time each has been migrated across several platforms as well as enhanced to meet evolving requirements. Our clients' leverage of their initial IT investment results from Synergy's initial comprehensive Analysis and Design - the foundation of robust and extensible systems.

Development & Integration Representative Cases provides exhaustive documentation of Custom Engineered Applications that Synergy has developed over 30+ years of serving clients across multiple industries.

Project Management

Synergy provides comprehensive project management services which address the full systems development life-cycle. Many projects are focused on discrete elements of the broader life-cycle however. Each engagement is staffed to provide the level of expertise required to ensure a successful systems solution.

Many organizations do not retain dedicated development personnel on staff as, given their business needs, such resources are cost prohibitive; these corporations, agencies, or not-for-profits require Synergy Group IT to perform a full spectrum of project tasks. Where in-house development expertise does exist – and is available to a given project – the engagement scope is tailored to ensure that Synergy staff complement internal resources for specific, specialized tasks. Whether provided by client staff or by Synergy personnel, each project must have the experience and expertise to ensure that the project is successfully initiated, developed, and implemented.

A broad project management skill set is required to provide the expertise necessary to develop, promote, and synthesize input from – and cooperation among – individuals and groups both internal and external to an organization. Our project managers and business analysts have educational backgrounds in Accounting, Finance, Management, and/or Marketing. All have developed project skill sets based on experience on engagements across a wide variety of corporate, association, and not-for-profit clients.

PM Case Studies provides a sampling of project management engagements provided to our clients,

Systems Analysis

Definitions of Systems Analysis across sources vary to differing degrees. The essence of this discipline as it pertains to the information technology development arena is found in Merriam-Webster’s definition depicted at right.

Over time, distinct frameworks have evolved within academia. Through years of experience working across numerous business sectors as well as within the labor community, and with defined benefit pension plans, Synergy has honed and successfully applied the approach outlined below.

Comprehensive Determination of Goals & Objectives

Definition of a business unit’s goals or purposes is fundamental to effective systems analysis. A thorough review of available documentation provides the foundation of this phase. Building upon results of this initial effort, an interrogation of appropriate stakeholders is undertaken to delve deeper into and confirm, information previously collected; through this effort, additional business objectives not found in available documentation are often discovered.

Evaluation of Existing Practices

The second phase of systems analysis comprises an in-depth evaluation of the degree to which each objective is supported by existing practices; a key focus of this component is making a determination of the efficiency and effectiveness of methodologies & techniques employed. Use of benchmarking, as well as other scientific measurement tools, is often necessary to substantiate and support an indepth evaluation. This approach requires a comprehensive review of inputs, processes, and outputs of existing IT systems revealing the manner and method used to automate a subset of overall policies and procedures. Such examination may expose additional business goals and objectives not exposed in the first phase of analysis.

Revamping and Enhancement of Existing Procedures

Subsequent to, or in parallel with, evaluation of existing practices, the analysis team will determine changes and/or enhancements to existing policies or practices which do not address defined goals and objectives. This step may

(The team may determine that the existing processes and workflow are fundamentally flawed and ineffective – are in effect dysfunctional - to the degree that changes cannot be made to enable efficiencies sought through further investment in automation to be achieved. In such a case, a recommendation will be made to executive leadership to curtail the systems analysis project and initiate a more comprehensive Business Process Re-Engineering effort. All work product of the analysis team will be preserved to support a BPR initiative.)

However, when the structure of business units and internal departments provides a strong foundation for effective workflow, the analyst will submit recommendations for improvements to existing policies and procedures, and for fundamental changes or enhancements to the manner and methods by which automated policies are effected. Finally, recommendations will be made regarding potential enhancements to current systems to automate additional processes.

Output and Recommendations

It is imperative that the analysis team produce unambiguous documentation encompassing the comprehensive set of “operations and procedures for accomplishing [the unit's goals and purposes] most efficiently”; doing so will provide a roadmap for next steps which will utilize the results of systems analysis project.

High level recommendations must reference details of changes in policies and procedures necessary to effect increased efficiencies and quality of business unit output. Additionally, recommendations typically address areas of improvement in project structure and implementation which may be of use to other projects initiated by stakeholders. For example, it is often the case that suboptimal executive level support for a project leads to inefficient and difficult implementation; attention of such a situation can ensure that it is addressed early in any follow-on project.

Systems Analysis and Agile

Systems analysis is necessary at the onset of all IT development projects including those structured around an agile method. Output of a successful analysis will provide a roadmap which when deconstructed will suggest an effective breakdown of an overall project effort into sprints of appropriate size and scope.

Synergy uses variations of the systems analysis process outlined to structure engagements in Project Planning, Data Analysis, Capability Analysis, Risk Measurement, Operational Research & Analysis, and Quality Assurance.

Systems Analysis and Conversion of Legacy Systems

Comprehensive analysis is critical at the onset of any legacy system conversion. It is imperative that the development team fully understand inputs, processes, outputs, and interfaces before initiating a conversion project without regard to whether the effort includes significant system re-design. The adage frequently displayed in Pottery Barn retail outlets - "You break it, you own it" - is a fundamental truth of legacy systems conversion.

Engagements Requiring an Approach Analogous to Systems Analysis

Synergy has engaged in other projects akin to systems analysis structured upon variations of the systems analysis process outlined. Undertakings include: Operational Research & Analysis, Risk Measurement, Quality Assurance, Data Analysis, Capability Analysis and Project Planning.

Business Process Re-Engineering

The underlying premise of Business Process Reengineering (BPR) holds that maximum efficiency of operations within an organization cannot be achieved simply by automating dysfunctional processes many of which were not consciously designed but evolved of necessity over a period of time. To adapt the adage most often attributed to Michael Hammer, “Using technology to make a horse faster by ‘upgrading’ it with lighter horseshoes makes little economic sense; a more prudent use of technology is to build a car - replacing the horse while providing infinitely greater functionality.”

(Michael Hammer first proposed the conceptual underpinnings of Business Process Reengineering; the principles which would define the field were codified in Reengineering the Corporation, co-written with James Champy.)

A second postulate of BPR argues that the pursuit through innovation of increased quality of products and services will permit traditional objectives to be achieved to a higher degree using fewer resources. For example:

• existing internal controls (checks and balances) can be enhanced
• existing costs can be reduced significantly
• growth and expansion can be more profitable as automation of re-engineered processes changes the linear trajectory of variable unit cost of product sold or service rendered

BPR History & Successes provides an in-depth review of BPR's historical roots as it pertains to the dramatic results which accrue to organizations that redesign, reorganize, redevelop, modernize, and streamline workflows. It features the dramatic results achieved by Ford Motor Company from its radical transformation of its Goods Acquisition Process.

Synergy's Experience & Expertise

Our expertise in the field of Business Process Reengineering is both broad and varied. Synergy has performed BPR across several industries as well as labor unions and defined benefit pension plans. Responding to technological changes as well as changes in its internal political environment, one client performed BPR a second time – 15 years after the first - to revamp the operations and workflow of its Membership Processing and Services department.

Synergy clients have reaped many of benefits depicted at right through an investment in bringing about radical change to their historical workflow. These advantages include:

• Increased Profitability from dramatic reductions in cost as well as revenue growth
• Higher Employee Retention from empowering employees and improving their satisfaction
• Decreased Time to Market from leaner and more productive processes leading to reduced cycle times
• Increased Staff Productivity through eliminating obsolete inefficient procedures and unnecessary management overhead
• Improved Supplier Relationships resulting from cost savings to suppliers provided through the use of digital interfaces
• Increased Quality of services due to dramatic improvements in customer service
• Higher Product Quality through the use of system enabled lean manufacturing with automated quality checks
• Better Business Practices emanating from dramatic improvements in business processes as measured by quality and customer service
• Increased Flexibility to Power Growth resulting from bending the curve of variable costs as related to revenue increases

Following are details of several Business Process Reengineering engagements which demonstrate Synergy’s skill in the field both as it pertains to achieving fundamental changes to operations and related workflow as well as being perceptive to, and mitigating any effects of, the stresses of organizational change on client employees.

Links below detail two Business Process Reengineering engagements which demonstrate Synergy’s skill in the field both as it pertains to achieving fundamental changes to operations and related workflow. As well each case highlights Synergy’s focus – and success – on mitigating any effects of, the stresses of organizational change on client employees.

Highlighted in SGIT Case: Warehouse Operations is a BPR engagement Synergy performed which resulted in more effective and efficient Sales and Warehouse Operations as well as increased customer satisfaction. As discussed in SGIT Case: Membership Services, Synergy radically re-engineered the Membership Services function of a top International Labor Union over two engagements.

Implementation Management

Over a 30-year period, Synergy’s implementation engagements have run the gamut from straightforward to complex. The variation in degree of difficulty has been driven by the breadth of system functionality as well as by the number of client departments, and team members within each department, impacted by the software (the footprint).

Further, differences have been influenced by the type of system being installed. Procedures employed vary depending upon whether the system is a newly developed software application, a major enhancement to an existing application, or a third-party vendor software package.

The scope of responsibility has differed across projects. For example, the task of production testing of various features and outputs has fallen under the purview of a small number of projects. Similarly, a small number of third-party software implementation engagements have included responsibility for configuration of standard features and for customization of features necessary to meet an organization’s specific needs.

Our approach to each engagement has been shaped through use of a proven framework to ensure the most effective and efficient rollout possible.

Outlined below is the approach that Synergy employs on implementation engagements. Components of this framework are selected, greater emphasis given to some, based on the footprint of the system within the organization and on the type of system being installed (e.g. newly developed, major enhancement, third-party). Through our approach we endeavor to:

Synergy has demonstrated its skill successfully implementing a variety of systems over the past 30 years. Throughout each project we apply the appropriate tools within our framework to reduce the risk of obtaining suboptimal results or outright failure. The cost of such outcomes, as outlined in the final segment below, demands adequate investment in the implementation phase.

The Consortium for Information & Software Quality (CISQ) has estimated the total Cost of Poor Software Quality (CPSQ) in the US for the year 2020 to have been $2.08 trillion; of that amount, CISQ estimated that “unsuccessful development projects” account for $260 billion of that total.

CISQ data is not broken down to separate unsatisfactory outcomes due to inadequate or poor design versus resulting from poor implementation planning and execution. Subpar implementation outcomes often result in software not being used to its full potential; as well as it may give rise to unexpectedly high costs incurred yearly subsequent to implementation. Consequences of both adversely impact – or altogether negate - return on investment.

The risk of implementation failure extends beyond calculable sunk costs. It can result in distrust of other IT systems among stakeholders within the organization. Skepticism regarding system outputs will unquestionably contribute to a decrease in revenue and/or an increase in variable costs.

Oriola, a pharmaceuticals and healthcare products firm operating in the Nordic countries, suffered damage to its reputation in 2017 due to failure of its Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system implementation.

Catastrophically, implementation failure may impair an organization’s ability to succeed within its market. For example, Target suffered a more dramatic loss after it implemented an SAP ERP system to support its expansion into the Canadian market; the new system was rolled out to replace a legacy system used in the US. After three years of effort to correct issues with the system - which included a complete collapse in its supply chain - the firm pulled out of the Canadian market altogether.

A properly structured implementation supported at the highest levels of Oriola would have uncovered flaws in the design of its ERP system prior to final cutover. Likewise, an autonomous cross-functional team having adequate communication to capture user feedback would likely have uncovered critical flaws in Target's attempt to implement SAP's ERP software; whether crippling issues were due to misconfiguration or to a poor fit for the organization when the issues arose the magnitude should have been ferreted out and addressed. Well-staffed implementation teams, supported at the highest levels of an organization, can significantly blunt the financial impact of a poor software development process, or of poor package selection, by unearthing significant problems before an ill-advised go-live decision is made.