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

Re: [XP] Product Mix - was: Re: RUP is Agile? -- Rational tools

Expand Messages
  • Victor
    ... There are those that contend the current IBM mix of product offerings makes it less of a hardware company and more of a service provider. People are
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron said:
      > ... it seems unlikely that IBM will exhibit a business
      > interest in scaling down software development process.
      >
      > They should: creation of more software will create the need for more
      > hardware in deployment. But I'm not sure they're likely to get it. I hope

      There are those that contend the current IBM mix of product offerings makes
      it less of a hardware company and more of a service provider. People are
      welcome to reach their own conclusions.

      Victor

      P.S. Regrettably, market psychology has not much to do with offering the
      best possible product for the money. Example: A while ago, my Department
      agreed to receive a bunch of computer terminals for beta testing. They were
      neat, but I observed that the keyboards were on the heavy side. The weight
      seemed to be excessive and unnecessary to me, so I asked why. The answer
      was that the keyboards by themselves were too light, so the company decided
      to add extra weight so the customers would not feel they were being
      overcharged. This happened a few years ago, so I thought about it as an
      historical curiosity. However, as I was writing this message, I lifted the
      keyboard of my new Dell computer. It was heavier than seems necessary. So,
      I went and lifted my friend's new HP computer keyboard. It was lighter.
      Ahhhh, somebody got it right. :-)

      Maybe my next computer will be an HP. :-)

      Hmmm. This could be used as metaphor. If/When clients start appreciating
      light weight methodologies, the mastodons will have to either adapt or
      disappear. Sadly, not always works so easily.




      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries@...>
      To: <extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 1:56 PM
      Subject: Re: [XP] Re: RUP is Agile? -- Rational tools


      > On Monday, September 1, 2003, at 11:10:28 AM, Steven Gordon wrote:
      >
      > > So, given that RUP is a framework, does it even make sense to ask if RUP
      is
      > > agile?
      >
      > In fact it might not, though I would take either side in a debate on the
      > subject. More pointed questions might be:
      >
      > Can an instance of RUP be configured that is agile? The answer to this
      is
      > yes, it is possible,.
      >
      > Is RUP focused in any fundamental way towards agility? I would say that
      > the almost hidden core of the framework does support agility, in that it
      > is focused on incremental and iterative development.
      >
      > Is RUP easy to configure in an agile fashion? It depends what you mean
      by
      > "easy". An expert in agility can easily do it. A team that is not
      already
      > expert in agility is not likely to do so, as their "agile values" are
      > probably not strong enough, nor their experience strong enough, to avoid
      > the pitfalls.
      >
      > Is RUP commonly configured in an agile fashion? I have never seen a RUP
      > instance in use which I consider agile. I believe that the RUP "menu" is
      > like a candy store. It is very difficult to avoid buying too much.
      >
      > > One view might be to ask how does this framework constrain what can or
      > > cannot be an instance of RUP? It would be these constraints that would
      > > define the extent to which instances of RUP can be agile. Presumably,
      it is
      > > possible to define very agile processes in RUP. Of course, any process
      (be
      > > it an instance of RUP or not) can be applied in an agile way, although
      in
      > > some cases the only way to be agile seems to be to work around the
      formal
      > > process when it is being counterproductive.
      >
      > I would not agree that any process can in fact be applied in an agile way,
      > at least if "applied" means actually doing it. Pure waterfall, which no
      one
      > does of course, is an example of a process that cannot be done in an agile
      > fashion in my opinion. Any process that is strongly phased would have this
      > difficulty to a greater or lesser degree.
      >
      > As another example, it is very difficult to imagine an agile application
      of
      > Cleanroom.
      >
      > > Another view would that there must be a process for creating an instance
      of
      > > RUP, even if that process is not defined other than by instructions,
      > > manuals, help screens, and consulting services. That process would be a
      > > software development process process, or meta-process. The question
      then
      > > becomes how agile that meta-process is.
      >
      > Although my first reaction was different, I think this is interesting.
      Part
      > of software development agility is in the adding and removing of process
      > elements. So instead of predefining what our RUP instance is, perhaps we
      > could have a meta-process that draws in and kicks out process elements
      > based on what is going on on the process. Hmm ...
      >
      > > Maybe, this meta-process is actually too informal for new users. If the
      > > designers of RUP want to claim that RUP is agile in principle, and would
      be
      > > in practice if only its users would follow their sage advice, then
      perhaps
      > > RUP should come with an explicit meta-process. Then, customers defining
      > > instances of RUP would have an explicit methodology that will lead them
      to
      > > define the leanest possible development process for their project and
      also
      > > give them ways to add to that process later if they discover new needs
      > > during their project.
      >
      > I think that the various plug-ins are sort of RUP By Example, which is
      > intended to do something of the same thing. Based on my experience with
      the
      > XP Plug-in, I'm not entirely delighted with the effectiveness of that
      > notion.
      >
      > I don't think it's the fault of the RUP creators: people seem to be able
      to
      > pervert even the most clear writing, i.e. mine. I do think that the fact
      > that Rational sold expensive tools to use with RUP was in conflict with
      the
      > desire to be agile, and it seems unlikely that IBM will exhibit a business
      > interest in scaling down software development process.
      >
      > They should: creation of more software will create the need for more
      > hardware in deployment. But I'm not sure they're likely to get it. I hope
      > they do.
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Ron Jeffries
      > www.XProgramming.com
      > Just because we learned something new today doesn't mean we were
      > frickin' idiots yesterday. -- Chris Morris, possibly paraphrasing
      someone.
      >
      >
      > 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.