Re: [epf-dev] method comparison of up, xp and scrum

[Ricardo Balduino <balduino@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Rick,

Others may chime into this, but I think
the rationale for organizing the methods (as you ask below) was straightforward,
IMHO.
We wanted to show examples of methods
captured in EPF. For example, Scrum and XP content does not use some of
the method constructs (such as disciplines). Other methods, such as OpenUP,
leverage practices from Scrum and XP and also use other structural elements
such as disciplines, domains, phased WBS, etc. 
No right or wrong way of doing it (again
IMHO)  - just different examples of how one can leverage the process
framework provided by EPF.

I hope this helps address some of your
questions.
Ricardo.
 





From:      
 richard.murphy@xxxxxxx
To:      
 epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:      
 01/31/2011 01:26 PM
Subject:    
   [epf-dev] method
comparison of up, xp and scrum
Sent by:    
   epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

I recently psoted the follpwing question to the EPF forum, but received
no response. Would anyone here have an insight ?

Would anyone involved in earlier discussions on creating the content for
the xp and scrum method libraries be able to say why decisions were made
to select only one discipline (scrum_activities) for the scrum method library
and no disciplines for the xp method library? If the answer is something
to the effect that we're like constitutional scholars and the approach
to embedding the method content in the method library is very formal and
the methods do not formally acknowledge disciplines, I understand. However,
I thought tailoring consistent with the intent of the unified process.
If I remember correctly, that would be the role of the process engineer.
Assuming the decisions made as reflected in the current method libraries,
how do the method library authors of the xp and scrum method libraries
intend to represent the juxtaposition of what should be abstracted disciplines
against phases as in the up hump chart which seems essential to the nature
of iterative, incremental methods? 

Best wishes,

Rick

office: 202-501-9199
cell: 202-557-1604_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev