Ken Schwaber wrote:
> I have an article due and am looking for comments. It is posted at
Overall, this is good stuff!
On the assumption that you'd like the comments in a public forum, here
are some more specific bits-o-feedback:
- Generally, there's a need for some heavy copyediting. There are
little nits, like "The approach is an Agile implementation of iterative,
incremental development, which has been employed over the *lat* ten
years" (page 1, emphasis mine), or "an investor might only be willing
*the* buy 1kg of tomatoes if the price *ifs* $5/kg. At higher prices,
when the return on investment is lower, the investor would be unwilling
to fund the purchase of *any* kg of tomatoes." (page 2 - again, emphasis
mine). Then there are things like Figure 4 (page 10), where the graph
labels mix "Accumulated" and "Cum" - "Waterfall Accumulated Costs +
Benefits" and "Agile Cum Costs + Benefits". ("Agile Cum" may well get
this bounced by somebody's porn filters.)
- Probably want a citation to Brooks' "No Silver Bullet" on page 11,
especially if the target audience is in academia (where footnotes rule).
- Provide citations for things like the Big Dig cost and schedule
override percentages (page 16).
- Whatever a Stacey graph is (page 16), it still needs to be included.
- At the bottom of page 19, you say "It used to be said that if
changing a requirement at the start of the project cost $1, changing the
requirement at the end of the project cost $100. This is no longer
true." I *really* wish there was some good, citable research to support
this statement - at least, to support it for the cases where a team is
using Agile methods. If you know of any, *please* cite it!
- *Very* nice point about how teams can improve their engineering
practices while simultaneously delivering business value (pages 21-23).
Edmund Schweppe -- schweppe@...
The opinions expressed herein are at best coincidentally related to
those of any past, present or future employer.