Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: top down, or bottom up?

Expand Messages
  • aacockburn
    ...
    Message 1 of 36 , Apr 28, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Hugh Beyer" <beyer@i...> wrote:
      <<
      we start by gathering clam-level details about the *existing work
      practice*--what people do on a day-to-day basis. We do this because
      people's self-reported goals *are not reliable*--they can state some of
      the high-level goals, but not all, and not the strategies that are
      critical to reaching those goals--and critical to any systems design
      process.
      >>

      Well, I don't share your level of skepticism, and I don't have any idea
      how to judge which view is more correct.

      Jeff and I have been trying to collect samples of what requirements are
      likely to fall through the cracks with the various methods. We've got a
      couple, but it's really hard to tell whether any of them really will
      get missed with any given method.

      I'll posit a slightly extreme position in this post, mostly for the
      sake of discussion, that if you are finding that people's self reported
      goals are unreliable, then you had a lousy Facilitator and the
      requirements gathering people had wax in their ears.

      The opposite statement of the above is that with good facilitation, and
      if the requirements gathering people are alert, there are lots of clues
      spoken out loud in every meeting that tell you what's going on at the
      clam level --- Mind, I recognize that this is doing the clam-up work
      real-time within the group discussion and while driving home, but still
      I claim the information is on the table.

      I just ran into two candidates situations in the last two weeks,
      working strictly kite-level down in reviews, and tumbled over two
      surprising situations that I think you might assert would show up in
      the clam-up detail analysis. So on the one hand, you've convinced me
      that clam-up detail analysis is valuable, but on the other hand, I'm
      not convinced that people don't self-report "well enough".

      I'll see if I can put the various situations in a later post, but now I
      have to get to class.

      Perhaps you can post a couple of the most interesting surprises you've
      unconvered in the clam-up analyses you've run? Of course, what Jeff
      and I discovered is that lots of things look obvious after they've been
      named. Our analysis should cover exactly what bits of discussion
      amongst the analysts triggered the discovery of those items.

      more later --- Alistair
    • Glen B Alleman
      Alistair, Crystal has a variety of options. Others are narrower. Few are as broadly based as your approach. I m more focused on specific development method
      Message 36 of 36 , May 8, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Alistair,

        Crystal has a variety of options. Others are narrower. Few are as broadly
        based as your approach. I'm more focused on specific development method that
        move outside their "sweet spot" leaking into other areas - off the sweet
        spot. I see this not as an issue of the method but it's application. Mis
        applied CMMI, mis applied XP, mis applied TOC.

        Glen

        -----Original Message-----
        From: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:agile-usability@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of aacockburn
        Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 10:46 AM
        To: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [agile-usability] Re: elite methods

        I'm sure you mean "almost" everyone, Glen --- I've been researching
        and publishing on the topic of selecting methods for over a decade
        now, have a PhD, three books, a dozen articles and most of a website
        on the question of selecting a process. I'm not alone: that aspect of
        my PhD wasn't considered novel at all but rather as fully established
        in the research community; Capers Jones talks about it in his
        benchmarking book; RUP and the UP are all about that; Boehm has a
        book and articles about it, there are others.

        By this late date, the notion of a single methodology as a silver
        bullet is severely outmoded.

        Alistair

        --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Glen B Alleman"
        <glen.alleman@n...> wrote:
        > Jon,
        >
        >
        >
        > The problem of deciding how to apply a processes to a problem
        domain is
        > nearly universal. Ranging from heavy to light. I've experienced
        poorly
        > applied CMMI to poorly applied XP and everything in between. No
        one seem to
        > want to approach the "improvement" process from an external point -
        as you
        > suggest - selecting the right process for the problem. I'm
        searching though
        > for the solution - none found so far. Everyone's got a silver
        bullet looking
        > for the werewolf to shoot ;>)
        >
        >
        >
        > Glen B. Alleman
        >
        > <http://www.niwotridge.com> www.niwotridge.com
        >
        > www.niwotridge.com/Blog
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > _____
        >
        > From: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:agile-usability@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jon Kern
        > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 6:36 PM
        > To: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [agile-usability] Re: elite methods
        >
        >
        >
        > i don't think there is any indication that anyone meant that all
        heavy
        > processes are to hide incompetence.
        >
        > however, i submit there are at least a few reasons for introducing
        process:
        > - because someone has a good set of steps worth repeating (good
        teams do
        > this automatically)
        > - because someone wants to ensure a set of steps are done and
        may not
        > trust the doer at knowing what to do (bureaucracies are good at
        doing this)
        >
        > i hope i left wiggle room in my original post for applying the
        right process
        > for the right reasons. my flippant remarks are intended to jolt
        people into
        > thinking if they are applying the right level of process. a
        heavyweight
        > process (such as might be applied in your NQA-1 example) applied to
        a
        > mediocre business app is probably not an effective use of resources.
        >
        > also, i have seen people conduct process steps "just because" --
        either
        > because they cannot think for themselves, or that they are dis-
        incented to
        > not follow process, or they are naive, or they do not care if they
        are
        > wasting resources (money and time).
        >
        > but, for a mission critical app, i hope the right process is
        followed... as
        > it is in almost every "hard" engineering discipline i ever worked
        within.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > -- jon
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Glen B Alleman said the following on 5/6/2005 8:54 AM:
        >
        > Jon,
        >
        >
        >
        > Mission critical can be applied outside man rated as NASA uses that
        term.
        > Mission critical can be applied to a brad variety of system from
        process
        > control, to supply chain management. Pacemakers are 21CFR,
        petrochem is OSHA
        > 1910.119, rod control for a reactor is NQA-1, the ground mission
        planning
        > and dispatch for air defense has another framework.
        >
        >
        >
        > The comment (now seen a flippant) that poor developers hide behind
        high
        > ceremony struck me a uninformed about those working in the high
        ceremony
        > development envirnemnt that also use agile methods. Thy are not
        mutually
        > exclusive
        >
        >
        >
        > Glen
        >
        >
        >
        > _____
        >
        > From: <mailto:agile-usability@yahoogroups.com>
        > agile-usability@yahoogroups.com [mailto:agile-
        usability@yahoogroups.com] On
        > Behalf Of Jon Kern
        > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 5:17 AM
        > To: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [agile-usability] Re: elite methods
        >
        >
        >
        > please define mission-critical...
        > man-rated, mission critical systems are a different story.
        >
        > always attach the right level of rigor and process as needed...
        >
        > software for an embedded pacemaker is different than making an
        online
        > mortgage loan application system.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > -- jon
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Glen B Alleman said the following on 5/5/2005 11:40 AM:
        >
        > As one who leads CMMI IPPD development this is likely not true in
        > practice...but simply conjecture on the part of those not
        practicing heavy
        > processes in a mission critical environment.
        >
        > Glen B Alleman
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:agile-usability@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of aacockburn
        > Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 9:35 AM
        > To: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [agile-usability] Re: elite methods
        >
        > At least, they will defend them because it's easier to hid :-)
        >
        >
        > --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com, "Cummins, Darin"
        > <mailto:Darin_Cummins@a...> <Darin_Cummins@a...> wrote:
        > > If you twist this one more time, does that imply that incompetent
        > > developers choose heavy processes because it's easier to hide? ;-)
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > _____
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agile-usability/
        >
        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > agile-usability-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:agile-usability-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
        subject=Unsubscribe>
        >
        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
        > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.





        Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.