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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.