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

RE: [XP] What are the other heavyweight methodologies?

Expand Messages
  • Dave Rooney
    ... [remainder snipped] The operative word there is sold . The originators, based on posts here from Grady Booch and Gary Pollice and recent conversations
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Steve Ropa [mailto:theropas2@...]
      > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 9:12 PM
      > To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [XP] What are the other heavyweight methodologies?
      >
      > I wonder if this is true for folks just coming in to the profession. I know
      > that when RUP was first on the market it was being sold by Rational as a
      > "everything including the kitchen sink" methodology, but we have seen this
      > change of late. Is there anyone who has only recently been introduced to
      > RUP? Does it still seem to drive you to the "over-heavy" side?

      [remainder snipped]

      The operative word there is 'sold'. The originators, based on posts here from Grady Booch and Gary Pollice and recent conversations with Philippe Kruchten, intended it to be a configurable framework from the start.

      The team on my current contract has a dedicated tester who is Rational Certified with the RUP. He also did XP while at Ericsson. He "gets" agile, and fully understands that RUP is a framework to be tailored to your project and not vice versa.

      I don't understand why the disconnect exists, but I too saw it a couple of years ago on a previous contract.

      Dave Rooney
      Mayford Technologies
      http://www.mayford.ca
    • Olson, Curtis B
      ... But isn t that a personnel issue rather than a flaw of the product? A clueless manager can just as easily screw up an XP project, no? ... I will concede
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Concerning the need to configure RUP individually for each project:

        > That's what is *supposed* to happen. I've heard enough comments about
        > clueless management that thinks that it can simply be
        > implemented "as is,"
        > without configuration, to know that there are a lot of shops
        > that do it that
        > way.
        > And then wonder why they're bogged down in paperwork.
        >
        > John Roth


        But isn't that a personnel issue rather than a flaw of the product? A
        clueless manager can just as easily screw up an XP project, no?


        > If the implementations were uniformly distributed between too
        > heavy and too
        > light, I would agree. To the extent that they are biased in
        > one direction
        > or another, it would seem that the product must be at least partly to
        > blame.
        >
        > Ron Jeffries

        I will concede that RUP projects are sometimes too heavy weight, but not
        that the product is at fault.

        I think there are two influences that would tilt the bell curve towards
        heavyweight. First, my guess is that the product is often purchased by
        relatively inexperienced managers, and they lack the acquired skill to
        configure appropriately. Second, there are so many tools, templates,
        roadmaps and checklists, that you get a "kid in a candy store" effect -
        managers may tend to throw more things into the project than can be properly
        digested. Perhaps there may be a third influence as well: it is a
        relatively expensive product, and the temptation to get a full value out of
        the investment may cause a manager to drift towards a heavier weight
        configuration.

        Anyway, these are still people issues. One needs a certain level of
        education and practice before being able to recognize the configuration for
        an individual project. Training and mentoring are strongly encouraged, just
        as with other methodologies. If management tries to go cheap and skip
        training and/or mentorship, then the product may very well not be used
        correctly. Perhaps there may be similarities with XP in that regard.

        In my organization, some of the XP practices are strongly opposed (pair
        programming, on-site customer, test-driven development, collective code
        ownership, and more). My colleagues actually see those practices not as
        light-weight, but as burdensome. But I can come up with a RUP configuration
        that takes into account the local realities, and get it as light weight as
        possible for the folks involved. I keep working to foster acceptance of the
        opposed practices. In the meantime, a custom-configured RUP implementation
        allows our projects to reach some level of success. Conversely, I can't
        think of any way to configure XP in such a way that would succeed here, at
        least right now.

        I realize this group is meant to teach XP and not RUP, but pejorative
        hyperbole (i.e., "one size fits all is dangerous") doesn't seem to me to
        work towards that goal. It seems to me that it is XP that is meant to be
        fully implemented as prescribed, i.e., it is really XP that is "one size
        fits all", not RUP. I'm not saying that's a flaw of XP, again I am working
        towards the adoption of XP practices here. I'm just saying that if you want
        XP to reach wider adoption, then people shouldn't throw stones.

        Cheers,
        Curtis Olson


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Steve Ropa
        I guess my question was is it still being sold that way, or are we just remembering how it was sold to us? ... From: Dave Rooney
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I guess my question was "is it still being sold that way, or are we just
          remembering how it was sold to us?

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Dave Rooney [mailto:Dave.Rooney@...]
          Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 6:48 AM
          To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [XP] What are the other heavyweight methodologies?

          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Steve Ropa [mailto:theropas2@...]
          > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 9:12 PM
          > To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: RE: [XP] What are the other heavyweight methodologies?
          >
          > I wonder if this is true for folks just coming in to the profession. I
          know
          > that when RUP was first on the market it was being sold by Rational as a
          > "everything including the kitchen sink" methodology, but we have seen this
          > change of late. Is there anyone who has only recently been introduced to
          > RUP? Does it still seem to drive you to the "over-heavy" side?

          [remainder snipped]

          The operative word there is 'sold'. The originators, based on posts here
          from Grady Booch and Gary Pollice and recent conversations with Philippe
          Kruchten, intended it to be a configurable framework from the start.

          The team on my current contract has a dedicated tester who is Rational
          Certified with the RUP. He also did XP while at Ericsson. He "gets" agile,
          and fully understands that RUP is a framework to be tailored to your project
          and not vice versa.

          I don't understand why the disconnect exists, but I too saw it a couple of
          years ago on a previous contract.

          Dave Rooney
          Mayford Technologies
          http://www.mayford.ca

          To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...

          To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...

          ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.