[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [epf-dev] BUP Fundamental Concepts and CollaborativePrinciplesProposal
|
Donald
Your comment on extended phases seemed to get missed in the excitement over diagrams :-)
FWIW, I think that there is a lot of value in this approach. I think it's more appropriate for a plug-in that for inclusion on core BUP though. To my knowledge, the vision for BUP is to keep it as simple (and complete) as possible.
As you have pointed out, the lifecycle extensions are more applicable to product lifecycles than project lifecycles. I think that a product lifecycle plugin for EPF, extending core BUP, would be very useful.
kind regards
Mark
Mark Dickson
SA&E Practice
-----epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
To: chris.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Donald Firesmith <dgf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 03/30/2006 03:45PM
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] BUP Fundamental Concepts and CollaborativePrinciplesProposal
Everyone,
It might be nice to consider that there are other phases before and
after the traditional RUP ones. For systems, there is initial production
and full-scale production for systems development (as opposed to pure
software applications) as well as retirement. There are also
organizational phases that surround individual project phases (e.g.,
addressing product lines and programs of related projects). There are
also issues of acquisition to be addressed. The RUP phases really seem
only adequate for simple pure software development projects. Also, what
about adequately addressing system integration as opposed to green-field
application development?
Don Firesmith
Chris Armstrong wrote:
> For what it's worth, I have found that most people have a really hard
> time understanding what each of the RUP phases are all about (which of
> course isn't terribly surprising as it relates to shifting to the
> iterative paradigm). However, it's been my observation that one of the
> things that makes it even more confusing are the actual phase names.
> That is, many people think you "elaborate" the design during
> Elaboration, and then "construct" the product during Construction.
> This of course misses the whole idea of needing to build software and
> test it during Elaboration. So, in many cases (where the audience
> hasn't latched on to the RUP phase names to tightly), I've had success
> using different names that I think help reduce (but, perhaps not
> eliminate) the confusion.
> Initiation vs. Inception
> Stabilization vs. Elaboration
> Production vs. Construction
> Transition is just fine as is
> The milestones associated with each phase are the same, as are the
> objectives and exit evaluation criteria. In my opinion, the whole
> point of the second phase is to "stabilize" the architecture and
> requirements (which, of course, is not the same as finishing them).
> The third phase is where you "produce" the remainder of the product.
> At the end of transition, the product is put into operation, not
> production (although I admit this is a tough word to re-align).
> Anyway, I bring this up as an idea on how to differentiate BUP from
> RUP... Thoughts?
> Chris ~:|
> Chris Armstrong ~:|
> President
> Armstrong Process Group, Inc.
> 651.491.5575 c
> 715.246.0383 f
> www.aprocessgroup.com http://www.aprocessgroup.com/>
> / "proven practical process"/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *WSA Consulting Inc
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 29, 2006 10:47 PM
> *To:* 'Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List'
> *Subject:* RE: [epf-dev] BUP Fundamental Concepts and
> CollaborativePrinciplesProposal
>
> Hi Richard:
>
> I like the hump chart because it visually captures what BUP is about.
> That said, I agree with you that we should probably try to
> differentiate ourselves from RUP. So perhaps we can come up with
> something. Bruce has already sent a proposal around that I thought was
> wonderfully outrageous J
>
> The metaphoric phrases like ?do it again, and again, and?? do need
> work. I just have these in there as place holders. We will need to put
> some thought into these phrases because these are likely to be the
> sound bites people will hear when we do presentations. I?m sure we can
> come up some good metaphors, and it will likely be easier than coming
> up with a name for the methodology J
>
> When I was just a wee co-op with IBM it was explained to me that
> religious anecdotes and humour was not universal.
>
> Chat with you all tomorrow.
>
> Steve
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Ricardo Balduino
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 29, 2006 3:25 PM
> *To:* Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
> *Subject:* Re: [epf-dev] BUP Fundamental Concepts and Collaborative
> PrinciplesProposal
>
>
> Steve, great initiative. We certainly need text written at a level
> that explains BUP principles and point to where in the process that is
> captured. We can further discuss it tomorrow.
> I have a few specific comments at this time:
>
> - Should we use the hump chart? We certainly need a visual appeal for
> the entry page. BUP defines disciplines slightly different than RUP
> though, so we don't want to use the hump chart as it is.
> - 'do it again and again' sounded more like 'rework' to me, not an
> iterative approach. What about 'do it piece by piece' or 'peel the
> onion layer by layer' :-), or something more serious?
> - Is requirements about what 'they' want, need or what bring value to
> 'them' and 'their' business?
> - In general, I'm not sure if we should refer to companies names, use
> expressions specific to a language (may not be commonly accepted) and
> make religious anecdotes (it is definitely not commonly accepted).
>
> My 2 cents,
>
> Ricardo Balduino
> Senior Software Engineer
> IBM | EPF Committer
>
> www.ibm.com
> www.eclipse.org/epf
>
>
> *"steve" *
> Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 03/29/2006 11:41 AM
>
> Please respond to
> Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
>
>
>
> To
>
>
>
>
>
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
>
>
>
> [epf-dev] BUP Fundamental Concepts and Collaborative Principles Proposal
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello everyone!
>
> I?ve created a very, very low fidelity (vvlo fi) mockup of a possible
> BUP welcome page and subsequent guidelines pages (it?s a good thing I
> don?t make my living as a web page designer). The purpose of this
> mockup is to propose that we specify from the welcome page BUP?s
> fundamental concepts, collaboration, iteration, architecture,
> requirements management. I am presenting this to you to begin a
> discussion of how to capture and present to BUP users our intentions
> behind BUP.
>
> This effort began when I started thinking how we could include
> collaborative principles into the BUP. For this I turned to the agile
> methodologies because they are more about collaboration than specific
> software development techniques. In my view the success of the agile
> methodologies is how their principles capture and communicate the
> intention of the methodology designers to the users. When the
> methodology users understand the intention behind the methodology,
> then it becomes much easier for the users to apply, adapt, and grow
> the methodology to fit their specific needs.
>
> Therefore I believe the best way to communicate our intentions to BUP
> users is to capture our intentions a set of principles rather than
> specific rules, tasks, and guidelines. These principles of course
> shall help guide users understand BUP tasks, and guidelines and more
> importantly give them the confidence to know how to apply and adapt
> them. These principles are really patterns and in the examples I have
> drawn a couple of example patterns from ?Patterns for Effective Use
> Cases? and from ?Organizational Patterns for Agile Software Development?.
>
> One thing I would also like to point out, I have been conducting an
> informal survey of groups who have dumped RUP in favour of an agile
> methodology. Ok, I only have three data points, but they are from some
> rather large IT shops like the National Institute of Health and
> Ameritrade. In a nutshell, these groups adopt agile methodologies
> because they want an iterative methodology. How is that for a kick in
> the place that hurts the most? The RUP is so overwhelming that it is
> not seen as an iterative methodology.
>
> Therefore I want to distill BUP into a set of guiding principles, that
> are easy to remember, can be easily taught in a one (or two day
> course) and immediately put into practice by a software team after the
> course. The specific practices, roles, tasks, work products,
> guidelines, etc. all become like a BUP reference or specific how to.
> But the fundamental understanding comes from the principles which are
> included as part of the methodology.
> *Tour and explanation of the pages:*
> */Splash Page and Fundamental Concepts/*
> As a bit of humour towards our name debates I?ve code named our
> process TPFKB (The Process Formerly Known as BUP). The welcome page
> gives the vision for TPFKB (an iterative process that is minimal,
> complete, and extensible). Following this is the infamous hump diagram
> (can we use this or are we violating copyright? Finally the meat of
> this discussion, the BUP _Fundamental Concepts_, _collaboration_,
> _iteration_,_ requirements management,_ and _architecture_. I have
> given each of these concepts a memorable metaphoric phrase to capture
> its intent, therefore collaboration is ?it?s the people?, iteration is
> ?do it again, and again, and??, requirements management is ?know what
> they really want?, and architecture is ?long live architecture?. The
> ?long live architecture? metaphor has multiple meanings. One meaning
> of course is the intention that our objective with architecture is to
> create an architecture that sustains the long term evolution of the
> system. The other meaning is to defiantly declare the discipline of
> software architecture is still important.
>
> These fundamental concepts are intended to be headliners to longer
> narratives that describe the essence of the concept. In our language,
> these headliners are pattern names and the narratives are like
> patterns, captured knowledge that may be shared. I?ve been reading
> through a number of papers that relate fast cycle times (the core of
> agility) to heuristic narratives that help people take the initiative
> within the organization in a harmonious manner. In my humble opinion,
> this is what we must capture and build into the methodology.
>
> You will also notice that I included on this page a section called
> Project XYZ Guiding Principles. This opens up the opportunity for a
> development organization to include project specific ?guiding
> principles? In this example I used principles that are specific to a
> client that I am currently working with (we are using BUP on this
> project). They are re-engineering a legacy system and you know how
> easily legacy replacement projects can go off track, hence a set of
> specific principles that we harp on again and again to keep the
> developers focused on what is important.
> */It?s the People/*
> If you follow the link to the ?It?s the People? page you will see how
> I may describe collaboration. First I start with why collaboration is
> important, because success through agility is based on culture. In my
> personal opinion we must emphasize this concept that success is a
> rooted in culture. The agile methodologies have successfully
> publicized the importance of culture and if BUP is to meet our goals
> we must do likewise. The text that first appears here is derived from
> USAF Colonel John Boyd?s study of strategy and fast decision making
> cycles.
>
> The collaborative principles are intended to be the half dozen or so
> ?guiding principles? or patterns from which emerges the collaborative
> culture. I have included a few patterns from various sources to
> provide an example of what these patterns might be. I have tried to
> give the patterns metaphoric names. However you have to remember I
> have a twisted sense of humor and I can already guess that a name like
> ?come to Jesus? isn?t going to go over well with most people. Just as
> an aside, that name is really a place holder for a ?retrospectives?
> guideline or pattern. The phrase ?come to Jesus? is apparently the
> slang used by employees of Southwest Airlines for their weekly
> retrospective meetings.
> */Share the Vision/*
> If you follow the Share the Vision link you will see the pattern (or
> narrative) for share the vision. This specific pattern is taken from
> ?Patterns for Effective Use Cases?. It describes the problem, the
> forces and the solution. What is relevant to BUP is the additional
> sections that show specific BUP practices (or as I joked TPFKB)
> support this pattern. In this example I just quickly wrote down that
> tasks like Define Vision and work products like Vision support this
> principle. This connects specific BUP practices to the guiding
> principles and helps BUP users understand the intention behind the
> practices and the work product.
> *So Where to >From Here?*
> I don?t know if you agree my proposal for the welcome page, but I
> would like to start the process of creating the collaboration
> principles. So that is that is the task I want to propose is that we
> (I guess ?me?) create and write a set of collaborative principles that
> are an intrinsic BUP feature. So before I start plunging head long
> into this I want some feedback and a casual straw vote on whether
> capturing collaborative principles in this manner as either narratives
> or patterns is a good idea. I believe linking the principles to
> specific BUP work products and tasks is important. I?m hoping that a
> few of you are also going to jump up and say ?good idea Steve, can we
> participate in this?? J
>
> Chat with you all tomorrow.
>
> Best regards,
> Steve Adolph
> [attachment "bup welcome page sample.zip" deleted by Ricardo
> Balduino/Cupertino/IBM] _______________________________________________
> epf-dev mailing list
> epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>epf-dev mailing list
>epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
Whilst this email has been checked for all known viruses, recipients should undertake their own virus checking as Xansa will not accept any liability whatsoever.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and protected by client privilege. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient.
Please delete it and notify the sender if you have received it in
error. Unauthorised use is prohibited.
Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not
necessarily the organisation.
Xansa, Registered Office: 420 Thames Valley Park Drive,
Thames Valley Park, Reading, RG6 1PU, UK.
Registered in England No.1000954.
t +44 (0)8702 416181
w www.xansa.com
