Home » Archived » EPF » Dogfooding OpenUp
| Dogfooding OpenUp [message #46534] |
Thu, 13 December 2007 05:44  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: tony.tatil.gmail.com
Does EPF Composer development or OpenUP content creation teams use OpenUP
based processes themselves? If they do, can someone share some of their
experinces? It would be nice to have some empirical data rather than
purely theoretical assertions.
Tony
|
|
| |
| Re: Dogfooding OpenUp [message #46709 is a reply to message #46592] |
Fri, 28 December 2007 04:06  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: tony.tatil.gmail.com
Let me propose a new approach for developing and evolving relevant
software development methodologies. What is missing here is a rigorous
approach, where successful real projects are studied for the purpose of
extracting from them the concepts that seem to contribute to their
success. Then these concepts can be incorporated into methodologies, such
as OpenUP. Its critical to farther verify these concepts by applying the
developed methodologies to real-world projects in a controlled manner.
This involves definition of metrics (controls) and collection of data
during the verification projects which in tern results in validation and
improvement of each concept. I cannot emphasis the importance of
validation enough!
We should resist the temptation of dreaming up fancy, trendy, cool
concepts and take a more scientific approach. After all software
engineering is an applied science and not science fiction.
Tony
|
|
|
| Re: Dogfooding OpenUp [message #46716 is a reply to message #46709] |
Fri, 04 January 2008 19:26 |
 Bjorn Gustafsson
Messages: 2
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Dogfooding or not,
OpenUP is, in fact, just a collection of proven concepts - drawn from both
the Unified Process and the Agile worlds - repackaged to appeal to a broader
audience than both of those. Both UP and Agility came about because their
creators observed that certain techniques, methods and approaches worked,
and there is sufficient evidence in the industry that both these approaches
have generated working software.
What's new about EPF is the fact that it is open source - anyone can
contribute their know-how, hopefully it is based on their experience - and
that it comes with a tool that allows you to build the process of your
choice.
So instead of being force-fed with whatever process, OpenUP and EPF provide
us with tools and power to create "the perfect process" for our needs,
whichever they might be.
If you don't like what you see, I'm sure the EPF community will welcome your
expertise with wide-open arms - if only presented in a more constructive
way.
If you just don't understand what it is you are looking at, or you are just
not happy with the *free* stuff you were served, complaining to this forum
is not very useful to anyone.
/Bjorn
"Tony" <tony.tatil@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e55b18a4e79cc79e40a31c17d16a41d0$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Let me propose a new approach for developing and evolving relevant
> software development methodologies. What is missing here is a rigorous
> approach, where successful real projects are studied for the purpose of
> extracting from them the concepts that seem to contribute to their
> success. Then these concepts can be incorporated into methodologies, such
> as OpenUP. It
|
|
|
| Re: Dogfooding OpenUp [message #46733 is a reply to message #46716] |
Sun, 06 January 2008 00:31 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: tony.tatil.gmail.com
Bjorn Gustafsson wrote:
> Dogfooding or not,
> OpenUP is, in fact, just a collection of proven concepts - drawn from both
> the Unified Process and the Agile worlds - repackaged to appeal to a broader
> audience than both of those. Both UP and Agility came about because their
> creators observed that certain techniques, methods and approaches worked,
> and there is sufficient evidence in the industry that both these approaches
> have generated working software.
> What's new about EPF is the fact that it is open source - anyone can
> contribute their know-how, hopefully it is based on their experience - and
> that it comes with a tool that allows you to build the process of your
> choice.
> So instead of being force-fed with whatever process, OpenUP and EPF provide
> us with tools and power to create "the perfect process" for our needs,
> whichever they might be.
> If you don't like what you see, I'm sure the EPF community will welcome your
> expertise with wide-open arms - if only presented in a more constructive
> way.
> If you just don't understand what it is you are looking at, or you are just
> not happy with the *free* stuff you were served, complaining to this forum
> is not very useful to anyone.
> /Bjorn
> "Tony" <tony.tatil@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e55b18a4e79cc79e40a31c17d16a41d0$1@www.eclipse.org...
>> Let me propose a new approach for developing and evolving relevant
>> software development methodologies. What is missing here is a rigorous
>> approach, where successful real projects are studied for the purpose of
>> extracting from them the concepts that seem to contribute to their
>> success. Then these concepts can be incorporated into methodologies, such
>> as OpenUP. Its critical to farther verify these concepts by applying the
>> developed methodologies to real-world projects in a controlled manner.
>> This involves definition of metrics (controls) and collection of data
>> during the verification projects which in tern results in validation and
>> improvement of each concept. I cannot emphasis the importance of
>> validation enough!
>> We should resist the temptation of dreaming up fancy, trendy, cool
>> concepts and take a more scientific approach. After all software
>> engineering is an applied science and not science fiction.
>> Tony
>>
Bjorn,
Value of any methodology is in its usage. I am simply asking, has anybody
used OpenUP 1.0 in a software development project and can they share their
experience? I am sure you agree with me that nothing replaces real-data
when it comes to verifying and improving a technology.
As far as dogfooding goes, it is a generally accepted practice in todays
software development tools market. Jazz team dogfoods Jazz. Microsoft
VSTS team dogfoods VSTS. I cannot see why OpenUP team cannot dogfood
OpenUP. If its not useful to the creators how can it be useful to others?
Also, my understanding from your post is that OpenUP is just a collection
of proven concepts - drawn from both the Unified Process and the Agile
worlds. I was hoping that OpenUP was more innovative than just a
collection. In that case, at least each concept should be systematically
tested and inclusion decision justified based on the resulting data. In
the absence of such data, the decision-making process can be driven by a
mixture of politics, who shouts the loudest and other techniques not noted
for their effectiveness.
Tony
|
|
| | |
| Re: Dogfooding OpenUp [message #586022 is a reply to message #46709] |
Fri, 04 January 2008 19:26 |
Bjorn Gustafsson
Messages: 2
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Dogfooding or not,
OpenUP is, in fact, just a collection of proven concepts - drawn from both
the Unified Process and the Agile worlds - repackaged to appeal to a broader
audience than both of those. Both UP and Agility came about because their
creators observed that certain techniques, methods and approaches worked,
and there is sufficient evidence in the industry that both these approaches
have generated working software.
What's new about EPF is the fact that it is open source - anyone can
contribute their know-how, hopefully it is based on their experience - and
that it comes with a tool that allows you to build the process of your
choice.
So instead of being force-fed with whatever process, OpenUP and EPF provide
us with tools and power to create "the perfect process" for our needs,
whichever they might be.
If you don't like what you see, I'm sure the EPF community will welcome your
expertise with wide-open arms - if only presented in a more constructive
way.
If you just don't understand what it is you are looking at, or you are just
not happy with the *free* stuff you were served, complaining to this forum
is not very useful to anyone.
/Bjorn
"Tony" <tony.tatil@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e55b18a4e79cc79e40a31c17d16a41d0$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Let me propose a new approach for developing and evolving relevant
> software development methodologies. What is missing here is a rigorous
> approach, where successful real projects are studied for the purpose of
> extracting from them the concepts that seem to contribute to their
> success. Then these concepts can be incorporated into methodologies, such
> as OpenUP. It
|
|
|
| Re: Dogfooding OpenUp [message #586038 is a reply to message #46716] |
Sun, 06 January 2008 00:31 |
Tony
Messages: 52
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Bjorn Gustafsson wrote:
> Dogfooding or not,
> OpenUP is, in fact, just a collection of proven concepts - drawn from both
> the Unified Process and the Agile worlds - repackaged to appeal to a broader
> audience than both of those. Both UP and Agility came about because their
> creators observed that certain techniques, methods and approaches worked,
> and there is sufficient evidence in the industry that both these approaches
> have generated working software.
> What's new about EPF is the fact that it is open source - anyone can
> contribute their know-how, hopefully it is based on their experience - and
> that it comes with a tool that allows you to build the process of your
> choice.
> So instead of being force-fed with whatever process, OpenUP and EPF provide
> us with tools and power to create "the perfect process" for our needs,
> whichever they might be.
> If you don't like what you see, I'm sure the EPF community will welcome your
> expertise with wide-open arms - if only presented in a more constructive
> way.
> If you just don't understand what it is you are looking at, or you are just
> not happy with the *free* stuff you were served, complaining to this forum
> is not very useful to anyone.
> /Bjorn
> "Tony" <tony.tatil@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e55b18a4e79cc79e40a31c17d16a41d0$1@www.eclipse.org...
>> Let me propose a new approach for developing and evolving relevant
>> software development methodologies. What is missing here is a rigorous
>> approach, where successful real projects are studied for the purpose of
>> extracting from them the concepts that seem to contribute to their
>> success. Then these concepts can be incorporated into methodologies, such
>> as OpenUP. Its critical to farther verify these concepts by applying the
>> developed methodologies to real-world projects in a controlled manner.
>> This involves definition of metrics (controls) and collection of data
>> during the verification projects which in tern results in validation and
>> improvement of each concept. I cannot emphasis the importance of
>> validation enough!
>> We should resist the temptation of dreaming up fancy, trendy, cool
>> concepts and take a more scientific approach. After all software
>> engineering is an applied science and not science fiction.
>> Tony
>>
Bjorn,
Value of any methodology is in its usage. I am simply asking, has anybody
used OpenUP 1.0 in a software development project and can they share their
experience? I am sure you agree with me that nothing replaces real-data
when it comes to verifying and improving a technology.
As far as dogfooding goes, it is a generally accepted practice in todays
software development tools market. Jazz team dogfoods Jazz. Microsoft
VSTS team dogfoods VSTS. I cannot see why OpenUP team cannot dogfood
OpenUP. If its not useful to the creators how can it be useful to others?
Also, my understanding from your post is that OpenUP is just a collection
of proven concepts - drawn from both the Unified Process and the Agile
worlds. I was hoping that OpenUP was more innovative than just a
collection. In that case, at least each concept should be systematically
tested and inclusion decision justified based on the resulting data. In
the absence of such data, the decision-making process can be driven by a
mixture of politics, who shouts the loudest and other techniques not noted
for their effectiveness.
Tony
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Dec 26 19:35:44 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04505 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
