{"id":576,"date":"2020-01-25T15:53:14","date_gmt":"2020-01-25T20:53:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/?p=576"},"modified":"2020-01-25T15:53:22","modified_gmt":"2020-01-25T20:53:22","slug":"metromaps-and-t-cubes-beyond-gantt-charts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/metromaps-and-t-cubes-beyond-gantt-charts\/","title":{"rendered":"MetroMaps and T-Cubes: Beyond Gantt Charts"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Mart\u00ednez, Dolado, &amp;  Presedo (2010) discuss two visual modeling tools for software  development and planning, MetroMap and T-Cube. This discussion is in the  context of greater attention being paid to the development process and  metrics, not just the software engineering itself. A concession the  authors make very early on is that Gantt charts are the prevalent method  for project mapping in organizations, and that the research to date  shows they are not effective for communicating, especially when  different groups are involved. Enter the MetroMap, a way of visualizing  abstract train-of-thought information that communicates both high-level  and detailed information to viewers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"605\" src=\"http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/Screenshot-2020-01-25-15.47.38-1024x605.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-577\" srcset=\"http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/Screenshot-2020-01-25-15.47.38-1024x605.png 1024w, http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/Screenshot-2020-01-25-15.47.38-300x177.png 300w, http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/Screenshot-2020-01-25-15.47.38-768x453.png 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><figcaption>Image courtesy of Mart\u00ednez, Dolado, &amp; Presedo (2010)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>T-Cube visualization is \nreminiscent of a Rubik\u2019s Cube, utilizing the three-dimensional nature of\n a physical cube, the individual cubes making up the whole, and the \nfacets (colors) on each individual cube. These correspond to tasks and \nattributes. The authors utilized a specific software set to illustrate \nthese concepts, represented in the article. As the tasks and attributes \nare written independently, they can be represented by workgroup, type of\n task, module or time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>These two methods have their strengths and \nweaknesses, both individually and together. At first glance, it is \nobvious that the MetroMap can represent many indicators at once while \nthe T-Cube can only show one at a time. MetroMap uses a variety of icons\n and styles to represent information while the T-Cube uses traditional \ntreemaps. The authors size up the tools in a simple comparison table, \nnoting that MetroMap generally has the edge on viewing a lot of \ninformation at once.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Features and benefits are great, but how does\n actual use differ? Is one easier than the other in practice? The \nauthors examined a shortest-path route to accomplish the same task in \nboth tools, and found that MetroMap was the most efficient in multiple \nscenarios. In all cases the actions were more basic and straightforward.\n Overall, either tool is more informative and effective than Gantt \ncharts. Access to information and ability to understand it are paramount\n in any planning and development exercise. These are two tools that \nbetter enable that. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Reference<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Mart\u00ednez, A., Dolado, J., &amp; Presedo, C. (2010). Software Project Visualization Using Task Oriented Metaphors. <em>JSEA, 3<\/em>, 1015-1026. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Mart\u00ednez, Dolado, &amp; Presedo (2010) discuss two visual modeling tools for software development and planning, MetroMap and T-Cube. This discussion is in the context of greater attention being paid to the development process and metrics, not just the software engineering itself. A concession the authors make very early on is that Gantt charts are the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[98,93],"tags":[221,219],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/576"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=576"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/576\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":578,"href":"http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/576\/revisions\/578"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fowlercs.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}