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

Re: [good] [XP] Re: Oracle & Ford in need of XP

Expand Messages
  • Victor
    ... Since this is an important concept, we may want to consider using the acronym UBRUF. :-) Victor ... From: Doug Swartz To:
    Message 1 of 145 , Sep 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > To me, an appropriate interpretation of BRUF is: "Understand
      > the big requirements up front". It is not appropriate to
      > "Spend a big effort to understand the requirements up front".

      Since this is an important concept, we may want to consider using the
      acronym UBRUF. :-)

      Victor



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Doug Swartz" <daswartz@...>
      To: "Dominic Williams" <extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 7:31 AM
      Subject: Re: [good] [XP] Re: Oracle & Ford in need of XP


      >
      > Tuesday, August 31, 2004, 10:55:58 AM, Dominic Williams wrote:
      >
      > > I would just like to add that I consider the idea that
      > > gathering requirements (and deciding whether to pursue)
      > > is not addressed by XP's practices to be one of the
      > > most common misconceptions.
      >
      > > XP says: don't just think about requirements - release
      > > running software early and frequently to end users and
      > > use the feedback to define further requirements.
      >
      > > XP says: keep doing that as long as what you gained
      > > from the last release allows you to pay for the next
      > > one.
      >
      > > So the practice that addresses those issues is frequent
      > > releases. The value is feedback. It's all there.
      >
      > I don't remember anyone on this thread saying XP doesn't
      > address gathering requirements or steering the project ("end
      > the project" being one steering command).
      >
      > What many of us are talking about is "start the project".
      > Classic XP has little to say about the project pre-work which
      > is done in every organization I've worked in. Regardless of
      > whether the development work is done in-house or contracted
      > out; low-bidder wins, choose trusted supplier, or sole source;
      > someone (a gold owner) has to decide it is worthwhile to start
      > the project.
      >
      > Usually the gold owner requires some indication of three
      > things: the approximate overall cost of the project,
      > approximate time of value delivery, and a decent sense of what
      > value will be derived (which is in large part determined by
      > what features will be delivered). We know that none of these
      > three factors will ever be exact. We also know that an XP
      > development approach is one of the best ways to optimize in
      > all three dimensions. But, it is appropriate for the decision
      > maker to ask all three questions. In fact, I don't really want
      > to work for a decision maker who doesn't ask all three
      > questions.
      >
      > One of the ways to characterize XP is "How little can we do
      > and still create excellent software?". This thread is about
      > "How little can we do and still make smart business decisions
      > about which projects to do?". While the two questions are
      > connected because the ability to steer the project using XP
      > techniques can lower the cost of making a poor decision
      > up-front, let's not confuse the two different questions.
      >
      > To me, an appropriate interpretation of BRUF is: "Understand
      > the big requirements up front". It is not appropriate to
      > "Spend a big effort to understand the requirements up front".
      >
      >
      > --
      >
      > Doug Swartz
      > daswartz@...
      >
      >
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
      >
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
      >
      > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Randy MacDonald
      Previous experience worked for me. ... From: John D. Mitchell To: Sent: Friday, September 10,
      Message 145 of 145 , Sep 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Previous experience worked for me.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "John D. Mitchell" <johnm-extreme@...>
        To: <extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 12:57 AM
        Subject: [XP] Re: The Value of XP when Requirements are Stable


        > Of course, sustainable very-high-speed typing and previous experience in
        > the various problem domains go a long way, too. :-( :-)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.