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

Re: Multiple customers

Expand Messages
  • jonas.b@home.se
    He must have thought that the ProductOwner was always an actual customer, now when I think of it. I didn t get a clear picture of how they managed their
    Message 1 of 23 , Dec 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      He must have thought that the ProductOwner was always an actual
      customer, now when I think of it. I didn't get a clear picture of how
      they managed their customers. Perhaps I should have investigated the
      issue a little more... But I wasn't absolutely sure of how the
      ProductOwner worked (now I know).

      /Jonas

      --- In scrumdevelopment@y..., "Ken Schwaber" <ken.schwaber@v...>
      wrote:
      > I wonder how much floundering occurs at this company. Not knowning
      their
      > specifics, I don't understand why they haven't resolved this
      problem. If you
      > have multiple customers dicatating different priorities, how do one
      or more
      > development teams work on a common product from a single code base?
      The
      > errors and rework must be pretty impressive.
      >
      > We've always worked with multiple customers who often have different
      > priorities and interests. The thirty day Sprint often makes them
      willing to
      > subsume their immediate desires to another, since they aren't
      waiting years,
      > only a Sprint before their interests are served. Scrum is common
      sense.
      > Common sense says that a team can only work on one thing at a time -
      > otherwise how do they self-organize? Multiple teams may work on
      differing
      > functionality at a time, responding to different customer needs,
      but the
      > functionality has to have maximum coupling and minimum cohesion to
      avoid
      > floundering between teams.
      >
      > The product owner's job is to sort through the various needs of the
      > customers and prioritize the product backlog so that their wants
      and needs
      > are coherently represented as a queue of work. To save this
      person's sanity,
      > the only important prioritization is for the next several Sprints.
      I've had
      > customer review meetings (end of Sprint reviews) where multiple
      companies
      > review what was just completed. The Product Owner then conducts the
      meeting
      > to help the various customers decide what they want next. Every
      thirty days.
      >
      > It sounds like the person you interviewed has lost control of
      customer trust
      > and satisfaction.
      >
      > Ken
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: jonas.b@h... [mailto:jonas.b@h...]
      > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 6:01 AM
      > To: scrumdevelopment@y...
      > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Multiple customers
      >
      >
      > This morning I interviewed a project manager at a multinational
      > corporation. I managed to restrain myself from bringing Scrum up
      > until the actual interview was over. I did not think I could
      convince
      > him to try Scrum out since the corporation use the same process
      model
      > for all their projects. They experienced quite some problems with
      the
      > software projects since the estimations were never satisfactory
      > (surprise, surprise) unlike the hardware projects. The model they
      use
      > seems to be quite waterfall-like with projects running for at least
      > 12 months. So I presented the iterative part of Scrum, to divide the
      > project into Sprints. He said that it could be very useful to do so
      > when you're working against one customer. But he felt that because
      > they have sometimes up to 50 local companies as customers, which in
      > their turn could have as much as 50 end-customers. Therefore there
      is
      > no way they could satisfy all the customers so he didn't believe in
      > the backlog-idea for their projects. Because I didn't see any chance
      > of turning him into a Scrum-convert and felt I had to show him some
      > respect I did not object.
      > But how do you handle multitudes of customers (i.e. not end-users)?
      I
      > believe that the chaos in such cases is greater than ever. Do you
      > assign a person to be the ProductOwner who have to take all his
      > customers into account? Is it possible to have a group of people as
      > ProductOwner? I believe that the book says that one person shall be
      > the ProductOwner and that all the others had to convince him. Is it
      > possible to choose a person that everyone trust and can be a good
      > representation of all the customers?
      >
      > Regards,
      > Jonas Bengtsson
      >
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@e...
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Mike Beedle
      Lately there have been a lot of claims that it is possible to do agile development and call it CMM-complaint or that is possible to do agile development and be
      Message 2 of 23 , Dec 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Lately there have been a lot of claims that it is possible to
        do agile development and call it CMM-complaint or that is possible
        to do agile development and be within the requirements of the CMM.

        My position is that this is nonsense. Let me explain.

        The CMM comes from Crosby's MMM (Manufacturing Maturity Model), and
        it was therefore defined in the context of a manufacturing-like model
        for software development. For manufacturing it makes more sense to
        require "repeatable and completely defined low-level processes" because
        manufacturing is about building a predefined identical objects in
        an assembly line i.e. a Ford Model T, a VCR model, or a jet engine.
        Even when you add customization, you can still apply a manufacturing
        framework that overrides some of the sub-process in order to
        change parts of the finished product, but they are still defined
        and repeatable processes with pre-defined overrides.

        However, software is different: it requires research and creativity,
        even for trivial projects. Even if components or frameworks are
        used, which will lessen the requirements on research and creativity,
        they are assembled in _different_ ways to create different
        applications, so they are not used like in a manufactured
        assembly i.e. always in the same way.

        The acts of finding requirements, designing, and building a prototype
        of a component are different than executing the assembly instructions
        of a well-known component. Compare solving a jig-saw puzzle with
        building an assembly-required book shelf. The former requires
        research and creativity, the latter follows a recipe. Well,
        software development is like a jig-saw puzzle where in most cases
        both the jig-saw puzzle pieces and the picture they compose
        are being defined simultaneously.

        On the other hand, agile methods _are_ defined, repeatable and
        predictable but only in statistical ways -- not in detail steps
        because it is impossible to predict how many times one will have
        to talk to the customer, how many times one will refactor a
        piece of code, or how many times one will need to retest. To know
        what to do next in an agile method, one depends simply has to
        determine the current context by constantly being aware of
        what is going on and then do whatever makes sense
        at that time. In agile methods what is repeatable are
        the practices that you can use to do software development but
        certainly not the _detailed process_. In other words, there
        is not much process definition beyond than partitioning a project
        in iterations and following a set of practices.

        This is the heart of agility:

        constant inspection that leads to self-organization

        as opposed to cookbook like recipes or assembly instructions.
        Inspection on the other hand can take several forms: customer
        feedback, developer feedback, testing feedback, iteration
        reviews, code reviews, etc.

        Scrum for example, is based on a model used by American and Japanese
        companies for creating NEW products, not manufactured products,
        that strongly relies on feedback loops throughout the development
        lifecycle:

        Takeuchi, Hirotaka and Nonaka, Ikujiro. January-February 1986.
        "The New New Product Development Game." Harvard Business Review.

        This is fundamental because the act of software construction
        requires a Gestalt-like, Do-All-At-Once, self-consistent,
        iterative solution, that is _emergent_ in nature i.e. cannot
        be prescribed.

        Although the agile movement doesn't make the connection with
        creating NEW products explicitly:
        http://www.agilealliance.org
        its values and principles reinforce these beliefs:

        Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
        Working software over comprehensive documentation
        Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
        Responding to change over following a plan

        And these values are in direct conflict with the unadulterated
        spirit of the CMM.

        I see efforts to make things like Scrum and XP CMM compliant,
        or efforts to make the CMM agile, as complete nonsense because
        these approaches are _fundamentally different_.

        So beware: until processes are described as emergent and
        self-organizing by the CMM, there is no overlap and no point
        of comparison,

        Mike Beedle
        http://www.mikebeedle.com

        e-Architects Inc. http://www.e-architects.com
        Hipaa Accelerator http://www.hipaaccelerator.com

        XBreed http://www.xbreed.net
        Agile Scrum http://www.agilescrum.com

        Agile Alliance http://www.agilealliance.org
        Living Metaphor http://www.livingmetaphor.org
      • Andrey Khavryuchenko
        Michael, MB == Mike Beedle wrote: MB Lately there have been a lot of claims that it is possible to MB do agile development and call it CMM-complaint or
        Message 3 of 23 , Dec 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Michael,

          "MB" == Mike Beedle wrote:

          MB> Lately there have been a lot of claims that it is possible to
          MB> do agile development and call it CMM-complaint or that is possible
          MB> to do agile development and be within the requirements of the CMM.

          MB> My position is that this is nonsense.

          I think you're arguing the wrong point.

          One may put certify agile development organization to be CMM, if he needs
          to. For example, for marketing efforts (I see no other point, really).
          The CMM spirit and its basis have little common with this, since the
          process has to be certified to the conformance to formal criteria.

          On the other hand, XP, implemented properly, gives quality faster than
          CMM.

          So, before discussing XP vs CMM, I'd ask "Why you need CMM?"

          I'm not touching Scrum, since I know little about it.

          --
          Andrey V Khavryuchenko http://www.kds.com.ua/
          Offshore Software Development
        • Mike Beedle
          ... To understand the past, present and future of software development? The manufacturing-like paradigm imposed into software we mostly lived for the last 30
          Message 4 of 23 , Dec 6, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Andrey Khavryuchenko wrote:
            > So, before discussing XP vs CMM, I'd ask "Why you need CMM?"

            To understand the past, present and future of
            software development?

            The manufacturing-like paradigm imposed into software we
            mostly lived for the last 30 years is being threatened
            and is crumbling.

            The new paradigm is software as NEW product, following an
            R&D-like process that is best exemplified by Scrum, XP and
            other agile methods,

            - Mike
            http://www.mikebeedle.com

            e-Architects Inc. http://www.e-architects.com
            Hipaa Accelerator http://www.hipaaccelerator.com

            XBreed http://www.xbreed.net
            Agile Scrum http://www.agilescrum.com

            Agile Alliance http://www.agilealliance.org
            Living Metaphor http://www.livingmetaphor.org
          • Andrey Khavryuchenko
            Michael, MB == Mike Beedle wrote: ... MB To understand the past, present and future of MB software development? I d better rephrase my question: Why do
            Message 5 of 23 , Dec 6, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Michael,

              "MB" == Mike Beedle wrote:

              MB> Andrey Khavryuchenko wrote:
              >> So, before discussing XP vs CMM, I'd ask "Why you need CMM?"

              MB> To understand the past, present and future of
              MB> software development?

              I'd better rephrase my question: "Why do you think you need implementing
              CMM in your organization?"

              Exploratory is good, but that wasn't the aim of my posting.

              --
              Andrey V Khavryuchenko http://www.kds.com.ua/
              Offshore Software Development
            • Mike Beedle
              ... Andrey: I think I am on the same side you are: I am trying to convince others to do something more agile i.e. I don t believe the CMM should be used. -
              Message 6 of 23 , Dec 6, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Andrey V Khavryuchenko wrote:
                > Michael,
                >
                > "MB" == Mike Beedle wrote:
                >
                > MB> Andrey Khavryuchenko wrote:
                > >> So, before discussing XP vs CMM, I'd ask "Why you need CMM?"
                >
                > MB> To understand the past, present and future of
                > MB> software development?
                >
                > I'd better rephrase my question: "Why do you think you
                > need implementing CMM in your organization?"
                >
                > Exploratory is good, but that wasn't the aim of my posting.

                Andrey:

                I think I am on the same side you are:

                I am trying to convince others to do something
                more agile i.e. I don't believe the CMM should
                be used.

                - Mike

                Mike Beedle http://www.mikebeedle.com

                e-Architects Inc. http://www.e-architects.com
                Hipaa Accelerator http://www.hipaaccelerator.com

                XBreed http://www.xbreed.net
                Agile Scrum http://www.agilescrum.com

                Agile Alliance http://www.agilealliance.org
                Living Metaphor http://www.livingmetaphor.org
              • Andrey Khavryuchenko
                Michael, MB == Mike Beedle wrote: MB Andrey: MB I think I am on the same side you are: MB I am trying to convince others to do something more agile i.e. I
                Message 7 of 23 , Dec 6, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Michael,

                  "MB" == Mike Beedle wrote:

                  MB> Andrey:

                  MB> I think I am on the same side you are:

                  MB> I am trying to convince others to do something more agile i.e. I don't
                  MB> believe the CMM should be used.

                  Great!

                  Do you think there's lots of people on this forum that had to be convinced
                  in this? :)


                  --
                  Andrey V Khavryuchenko http://www.kds.com.ua/
                  Offshore Software Development
                • Lowell Lindstrom
                  ... I don t see teams making decisions between CMM and XP/Agile. I have encountered a few, but they were still in the very early learning stages about methods
                  Message 8 of 23 , Dec 6, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > I see efforts to make things like Scrum and XP CMM compliant,
                    > or efforts to make the CMM agile, as complete nonsense because
                    > these approaches are _fundamentally different_.
                    >
                    > So beware: until processes are described as emergent and
                    > self-organizing by the CMM, there is no overlap and no point
                    > of comparison,

                    I don't see teams making decisions between CMM and XP/Agile. I have
                    encountered a few, but they were still in the very early learning stages
                    about methods and process.

                    Rather, things like CMM, ISO, and other standards are typically constraints
                    to which teams must conform. Across the spectrum of implementations that
                    can qualify for various CMM levels, there will be some that are more Agile
                    than others. The more agile the compliant implementation the better. It is
                    not about conformance to an Agile standard, just as is it not about
                    conformance to CMM. If is about better satisfying our customers.

                    So, I disagree that this is nonsense. I believe the mission is to make all
                    teams better, whatever their constraints. If exploring Agile CMM or
                    attempting the make variants of Scrum or XP compliant leads to CMM teams
                    that are more agile, then more power to those that are making the effort.

                    Lowell

                    ==================================
                    Lowell Lindstrom
                    lindstrom@...
                    Object Mentor, Inc. | www.objectmentor.com
                  • Mike Beedle
                    ... Lowell: There is only one minor problem. True agile teams will rely on cycles of inspection, adaptation and self-organization but to conform to the CMM
                    Message 9 of 23 , Dec 6, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > > I see efforts to make things like Scrum and XP CMM compliant,
                      > > or efforts to make the CMM agile, as complete nonsense because
                      > > these approaches are _fundamentally different_.
                      > >
                      > > So beware: until processes are described as emergent and
                      > > self-organizing by the CMM, there is no overlap and no point
                      > > of comparison,
                      >
                      > I don't see teams making decisions between CMM and XP/Agile. I have
                      > encountered a few, but they were still in the very early learning stages
                      > about methods and process.
                      >
                      > Rather, things like CMM, ISO, and other standards are typically
                      > constraints
                      > to which teams must conform. Across the spectrum of implementations that
                      > can qualify for various CMM levels, there will be some that are more Agile
                      > than others. The more agile the compliant implementation the
                      > better. It is
                      > not about conformance to an Agile standard, just as is it not about
                      > conformance to CMM. If is about better satisfying our customers.
                      >
                      > So, I disagree that this is nonsense. I believe the mission is
                      > to make all
                      > teams better, whatever their constraints. If exploring Agile CMM or
                      > attempting the make variants of Scrum or XP compliant leads to CMM teams
                      > that are more agile, then more power to those that are making the effort.

                      Lowell:

                      There is only one minor problem.

                      True agile teams will rely on cycles of inspection, adaptation
                      and self-organization but to conform to the CMM process framework
                      one _must_ conform to an ETVX process description format.

                      This makes it impossible to be on both sides of the fence.

                      Until the CMM is allows processes to be self-organized
                      and emergent, we will have two clearly distinct sides,

                      - Mike

                      Mike Beedle http://www.mikebeedle.com

                      e-Architects Inc. http://www.e-architects.com
                      Hipaa Accelerator http://www.hipaaccelerator.com

                      XBreed http://www.xbreed.net
                      Agile Scrum http://www.agilescrum.com

                      Agile Alliance http://www.agilealliance.org
                      Living Metaphor http://www.livingmetaphor.org
                    • Lowell Lindstrom
                      ... I agree that teams that have the constraint of CMM will have a very difficult, if not impossible, time reaching what you describe as true agile. But
                      Message 10 of 23 , Dec 6, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > True agile teams will rely on cycles of inspection, adaptation
                        > and self-organization but to conform to the CMM process framework
                        > one _must_ conform to an ETVX process description format.
                        >

                        I agree that teams that have the constraint of CMM will have a very
                        difficult, if not impossible, time reaching what you describe as "true
                        agile." But again, that is not the decision that people are confronted
                        with. All projects have constraints of all sorts. Those constraints will
                        affect the team's ability to achieve "true agile."

                        >
                        > This makes it impossible to be on both sides of the fence.
                        >

                        I don't agree that it is a 2 sided fence. It is helpful to polarize things
                        to clarify what we mean, but in practice the world is not that clean. Teams
                        deal with spectrums of how far they can take something like agile. In
                        practice, there is no end point or side of the fence that is agile, there
                        are only relative positions closer to one extreme or the other. Although I
                        agree that the closer to "true agile" the better, I disagree that a project
                        that has constraints that push to the other end of the spectrum should not
                        explore how they can get as close to "true agile" as possible within their
                        constraints.

                        > Until the CMM is allows processes to be self-organized
                        > and emergent, we will have two clearly distinct sides,
                        >

                        In theory, yes. But in practice, there are CMM level 3 teams that are more
                        agile (i.e. self-organizing and emergent) than others. The more agile they
                        are the better, regardless of the closeness to "true." We should encourage
                        them to push their boundary, wherever it is.
                      • Laurent Bossavit
                        ... Playing Devil s advocate for a moment : I m not sure I see where the dichotomy comes from. Is it not possible to be agile and still promote reuse,
                        Message 11 of 23 , Dec 6, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > The manufacturing-like paradigm imposed into software we mostly lived
                          > for the last 30 years is being threatened and is crumbling. The new
                          > paradigm is software as NEW product, following an R&D-like process
                          > that is best exemplified by Scrum, XP and other agile methods,

                          Playing Devil's advocate for a moment : I'm not sure I see where the
                          dichotomy comes from. Is it not possible to be agile and still promote reuse,
                          assembling software from components, and suchlike ? Being agile means we
                          like working software. If you can get working software by slapping together a
                          bunch of COTS, why should that be a problem ?

                          Or do you mean something different by "software as NEW product" ?

                          -[Morendil]-
                          On a clear disk you can seek forever
                        • vze2k2j6@verizon.net
                          Agile and Scrum principles work for any type of new development.
                          Message 12 of 23 , Dec 6, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Agile and Scrum principles work for any type of new development.
                            >
                            > From: "Laurent Bossavit" <morendil@...>
                            > Date: 2001/12/06 Thu PM 04:25:04 CST
                            > To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                            > CC: <scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com>
                            > Subject: [scrumdevelopment] RE: [XP] Re: Agile and CMM are contradictory
                            >
                            > > The manufacturing-like paradigm imposed into software we mostly lived
                            > > for the last 30 years is being threatened and is crumbling. The new
                            > > paradigm is software as NEW product, following an R&D-like process
                            > > that is best exemplified by Scrum, XP and other agile methods,
                            >
                            > Playing Devil's advocate for a moment : I'm not sure I see where the
                            > dichotomy comes from. Is it not possible to be agile and still promote reuse,
                            > assembling software from components, and suchlike ? Being agile means we
                            > like working software. If you can get working software by slapping together a
                            > bunch of COTS, why should that be a problem ?
                            >
                            > Or do you mean something different by "software as NEW product" ?
                            >
                            > -[Morendil]-
                            > On a clear disk you can seek forever
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                            > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • Mike Beedle
                            ... Lowell: I agree with the notion you explain above. _In practice_ there is a spectrum -- I have always thought of software methods that way. In fact, Ken
                            Message 13 of 23 , Dec 6, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Lowell Lindstrom wrote:
                              > > This makes it impossible to be on both sides of the fence.
                              >
                              > I don't agree that it is a 2 sided fence. It is helpful to
                              > polarize things to clarify what we mean, but in
                              > practice the world is not that clean. Teams deal with
                              > spectrums of how far they can take something like agile. In
                              > practice, there is no end point or side of the fence that is agile,
                              > there are only relative positions closer to one extreme
                              > or the other. Although I agree that the closer to "true
                              > agile" the better, I disagree that a project that has
                              > constraints that push to the other end of the spectrum
                              > should not explore how they can get as close to "true agile"
                              > as possible within their constraints.

                              Lowell:

                              I agree with the notion you explain above. _In practice_
                              there is a spectrum -- I have always thought of software
                              methods that way. In fact, Ken Schwaber actually developed
                              an "agility scale", and I think this is a useful measure.

                              However, the concept itself, to be agile, does depend
                              on cycles of inspection, adaptation and self-organization.

                              And the CMM does require, in its goals, in its capabilities,
                              and in its activates a detailed "defined software process".

                              What I am saying is that whether they are practiced as
                              more or less agile, or more or less "defined in detail",
                              their _definition_, and their underlying paradigm is
                              fundamentally different.

                              Lowell Lindstrom wrote:
                              > > Until the CMM is allows processes to be self-organized
                              > > and emergent, we will have two clearly distinct sides,
                              > >
                              >
                              > In theory, yes. But in practice, there are CMM level 3
                              > teams that are more agile (i.e. self-organizing and
                              > emergent) than others. The more agile they are
                              > the better, regardless of the closeness to "true." We should
                              > encourage them to push their boundary, wherever it is.

                              I agree again. In fact, there are stories about
                              many certified CMM level 3 teams that break the
                              "process rules" and start acting more
                              "self-organized" to actually be successful at level 3.

                              Unfortunately, that's not what they were supposed to do
                              according to their process definition ;-)

                              - Mike
                            • Mike Beedle
                              ... Laurent: I think I mean something different. By software as NEW product I mean software that gets _used_ differently. For example. We do a lot of
                              Message 14 of 23 , Dec 6, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Laurent Bossavit wrote:
                                >> The manufacturing-like paradigm imposed into software
                                >> we mostly lived for the last 30 years is being
                                >> threatened and is crumbling. The new paradigm is
                                >> software as NEW product, following an R&D-like process
                                >> that is best exemplified by Scrum, XP and other
                                >> agile methods,
                                >
                                > Playing Devil's advocate for a moment : I'm not sure I
                                > see where the dichotomy comes from. Is it not possible to
                                > be agile and still promote reuse, assembling software
                                > from components, and suchlike ? Being agile means we
                                > like working software. If you can get working software
                                > by slapping together a bunch of COTS, why should
                                > that be a problem ?
                                >
                                > Or do you mean something different by "software as NEW product" ?

                                Laurent:

                                I think I mean something different. By "software as
                                NEW product" I mean software that gets _used_
                                differently.

                                For example. We do a lot of enterprise development,
                                where many teams reuse anything from:

                                workflows
                                visual business components
                                non-visual business components
                                services
                                transactions
                                business objects
                                architectural services
                                etc.

                                (Note: this btw, is the inspiration of XBreed:
                                http://www.xbreed.net)

                                However, we find that the teams use things like
                                visual business components differently because:

                                - what is created with them is different all
                                the time. For example, our "Find Patient"
                                component, is in several screens for different
                                applications playing different roles and
                                creating NEW and different functionality.

                                - they are configured differently i.e. they
                                are passed different configuration parameters
                                at init time

                                - even though they talk with defined interfaces,
                                they play different roles in the overall
                                protocol. For example, our "Comments"
                                component is used by some teams as a visual
                                component, but some other teams use it
                                for reports, as a non-visual component.

                                - the components sometimes have overridden
                                behaviors. Like different JSPs for display,
                                different subclasses of state beans, or
                                even invoke similar but different services
                                and transactions for the back-end. This
                                is the case of our "Find Drug" component --
                                it displays the same component, but
                                it actually is configured to call different
                                services in the back-end for different
                                applications,


                                So, no I don't see a problem with being agile and promote:

                                reuse and
                                assembling software from components
                                etc.

                                - Mike
                              • mpoppendieck
                                Mike, I am in agreement with you that Software Development will benefit most from applying New Product Development paradigms to it. However, I don t agree that
                                Message 15 of 23 , Dec 8, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Mike,

                                  I am in agreement with you that Software Development will benefit
                                  most from applying New Product Development paradigms to it.
                                  However, I don't agree that all Manufacturing paradigms are
                                  inappropriate for software development. Interestingly, I found
                                  that manufacturing has been as adversely impacted by an overemphasis
                                  on ISO standards as software development has been adversely impacted
                                  by an overemphasis on CMM.

                                  I propose that Lean Manufacturing has a host of good things to teach
                                  the software development industry. But note that the operative word
                                  in here is `Lean'. Lean means :

                                  1. Eliminating Waste – which is to say doing only those things
                                  which add value. It is amazing how many things you do not have to
                                  do if you aggressively eliminate things which do not add value.

                                  2. Streamlining Flow – Which means using the shortest possible
                                  path and the most rapid time. In manufacturing, this is applied to
                                  materials. In software development, this is applied to information
                                  flow. XP has a very rapid flow: from customer to developer to
                                  working code. No waste in handoffs.

                                  I think of CMM more like ISO 900X – relatively process-neutral and
                                  occasionally necessary. I observe that some companies benefit from
                                  such programs, but more companies waste time on them. I don't see a
                                  large correlation between high maturity and high business success.
                                  This is researched in the book by Robert Austin, `Measuring and
                                  Managing Performance in Organizations'.

                                  I recall that a local company, Zeos, was a finalist for the Malcolm
                                  Baldrige quality award one year, but soon faltered and was purchased
                                  by Micron. Meanwhile, Dell was focusing on becoming `Lean'. Few
                                  companies understand `Lean' better than Dell, and they are one of
                                  the few survivors in their field. One can argue that the time spent
                                  on ISO or CMM tasks do not always add value, and if they don't, they
                                  would be waste.

                                  I agree that software development is more akin to New Product
                                  Development than Manufacturing. One of the world class new product
                                  development organizations is Toyota, the birthplace of Lean
                                  Manufacturing. I theorize that if one looks at how Toyota develops
                                  new products, then perhaps one could find some good software
                                  development practices.

                                  Toyota uses a concept called `set-based design'. Check out this
                                  link: http://mitsloan.mit.edu/smr/past/1999/smr4025.html

                                  The fundamental concept of set-based design is something I
                                  call "Decide as Late as Possible." I propose that allowing
                                  decisions to be made at the last possible moment is one of the
                                  foundations of good product design, and good software architecture.

                                  Mary
                                • Ken Schwaber
                                  Self-organization arising from inspection is right on. Another disconnect with CMM is that CMM desires to increase the level of definition, through increasing
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Dec 8, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Self-organization arising from inspection is right on. Another disconnect
                                    with CMM is that CMM desires to increase the level of definition, through
                                    increasing level of detail. For agile and Scrum, more detail removes the
                                    self-organization inherent to agile.
                                    Ken

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: Mike Beedle [mailto:beedlem@...]
                                    Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 6:14 PM
                                    To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com; extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Agile and CMM are contradictory



                                    Lately there have been a lot of claims that it is possible to
                                    do agile development and call it CMM-complaint or that is possible
                                    to do agile development and be within the requirements of the CMM.

                                    My position is that this is nonsense. Let me explain.

                                    The CMM comes from Crosby's MMM (Manufacturing Maturity Model), and
                                    it was therefore defined in the context of a manufacturing-like model
                                    for software development. For manufacturing it makes more sense to
                                    require "repeatable and completely defined low-level processes" because
                                    manufacturing is about building a predefined identical objects in
                                    an assembly line i.e. a Ford Model T, a VCR model, or a jet engine.
                                    Even when you add customization, you can still apply a manufacturing
                                    framework that overrides some of the sub-process in order to
                                    change parts of the finished product, but they are still defined
                                    and repeatable processes with pre-defined overrides.

                                    However, software is different: it requires research and creativity,
                                    even for trivial projects. Even if components or frameworks are
                                    used, which will lessen the requirements on research and creativity,
                                    they are assembled in _different_ ways to create different
                                    applications, so they are not used like in a manufactured
                                    assembly i.e. always in the same way.

                                    The acts of finding requirements, designing, and building a prototype
                                    of a component are different than executing the assembly instructions
                                    of a well-known component. Compare solving a jig-saw puzzle with
                                    building an assembly-required book shelf. The former requires
                                    research and creativity, the latter follows a recipe. Well,
                                    software development is like a jig-saw puzzle where in most cases
                                    both the jig-saw puzzle pieces and the picture they compose
                                    are being defined simultaneously.

                                    On the other hand, agile methods _are_ defined, repeatable and
                                    predictable but only in statistical ways -- not in detail steps
                                    because it is impossible to predict how many times one will have
                                    to talk to the customer, how many times one will refactor a
                                    piece of code, or how many times one will need to retest. To know
                                    what to do next in an agile method, one depends simply has to
                                    determine the current context by constantly being aware of
                                    what is going on and then do whatever makes sense
                                    at that time. In agile methods what is repeatable are
                                    the practices that you can use to do software development but
                                    certainly not the _detailed process_. In other words, there
                                    is not much process definition beyond than partitioning a project
                                    in iterations and following a set of practices.

                                    This is the heart of agility:

                                    constant inspection that leads to self-organization

                                    as opposed to cookbook like recipes or assembly instructions.
                                    Inspection on the other hand can take several forms: customer
                                    feedback, developer feedback, testing feedback, iteration
                                    reviews, code reviews, etc.

                                    Scrum for example, is based on a model used by American and Japanese
                                    companies for creating NEW products, not manufactured products,
                                    that strongly relies on feedback loops throughout the development
                                    lifecycle:

                                    Takeuchi, Hirotaka and Nonaka, Ikujiro. January-February 1986.
                                    "The New New Product Development Game." Harvard Business Review.

                                    This is fundamental because the act of software construction
                                    requires a Gestalt-like, Do-All-At-Once, self-consistent,
                                    iterative solution, that is _emergent_ in nature i.e. cannot
                                    be prescribed.

                                    Although the agile movement doesn't make the connection with
                                    creating NEW products explicitly:
                                    http://www.agilealliance.org
                                    its values and principles reinforce these beliefs:

                                    Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
                                    Working software over comprehensive documentation
                                    Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
                                    Responding to change over following a plan

                                    And these values are in direct conflict with the unadulterated
                                    spirit of the CMM.

                                    I see efforts to make things like Scrum and XP CMM compliant,
                                    or efforts to make the CMM agile, as complete nonsense because
                                    these approaches are _fundamentally different_.

                                    So beware: until processes are described as emergent and
                                    self-organizing by the CMM, there is no overlap and no point
                                    of comparison,

                                    Mike Beedle
                                    http://www.mikebeedle.com

                                    e-Architects Inc. http://www.e-architects.com
                                    Hipaa Accelerator http://www.hipaaccelerator.com

                                    XBreed http://www.xbreed.net
                                    Agile Scrum http://www.agilescrum.com

                                    Agile Alliance http://www.agilealliance.org
                                    Living Metaphor http://www.livingmetaphor.org

                                    To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                                    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                    scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                  • Ken Schwaber
                                    agile isn t an adjective, like agile RUP. Agile has particular theoretical characteristics (www.controlchaos.com/excerpt.pdf) and mannerisms that arise
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Dec 8, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      "agile" isn't an adjective, like "agile RUP." Agile has particular
                                      theoretical characteristics (www.controlchaos.com/excerpt.pdf) and
                                      mannerisms that arise from this theoretical base, like frequent inspection,
                                      self-organization, and emergence.
                                      Ken

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Lowell Lindstrom [mailto:lindstrom@...]
                                      Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 11:45 AM
                                      To: 'scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com';
                                      extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: RE: [XP] RE: [scrumdevelopment] Agile and CMM are contradictory


                                      > True agile teams will rely on cycles of inspection, adaptation
                                      > and self-organization but to conform to the CMM process framework
                                      > one _must_ conform to an ETVX process description format.
                                      >

                                      I agree that teams that have the constraint of CMM will have a very
                                      difficult, if not impossible, time reaching what you describe as "true
                                      agile." But again, that is not the decision that people are confronted
                                      with. All projects have constraints of all sorts. Those constraints will
                                      affect the team's ability to achieve "true agile."

                                      >
                                      > This makes it impossible to be on both sides of the fence.
                                      >

                                      I don't agree that it is a 2 sided fence. It is helpful to polarize things
                                      to clarify what we mean, but in practice the world is not that clean. Teams
                                      deal with spectrums of how far they can take something like agile. In
                                      practice, there is no end point or side of the fence that is agile, there
                                      are only relative positions closer to one extreme or the other. Although I
                                      agree that the closer to "true agile" the better, I disagree that a project
                                      that has constraints that push to the other end of the spectrum should not
                                      explore how they can get as close to "true agile" as possible within their
                                      constraints.

                                      > Until the CMM is allows processes to be self-organized
                                      > and emergent, we will have two clearly distinct sides,
                                      >

                                      In theory, yes. But in practice, there are CMM level 3 teams that are more
                                      agile (i.e. self-organizing and emergent) than others. The more agile they
                                      are the better, regardless of the closeness to "true." We should encourage
                                      them to push their boundary, wherever it is.

                                      To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                                      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                      scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

                                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    • Lowell Lindstrom
                                      ... Please elaborate. It is used as an adjective in every context I have seen it, including Agile software development. ... (www.controlchaos.com/excerpt.pdf)
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Dec 8, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > "agile" isn't an adjective, like "agile RUP."

                                        Please elaborate. It is used as an adjective in every context I have seen
                                        it, including Agile software development.

                                        > Agile has particular theoretical characteristics
                                        (www.controlchaos.com/excerpt.pdf) and mannerisms
                                        > that arise from this theoretical base, like frequent inspection,
                                        self-organization, and emergence.

                                        I don't see what the excerpt has to do with this thread. In practice, there
                                        are degrees of self-organization, etc. Perhaps we are discussing from
                                        different vantage points, one theoretical and one practical.
                                      • Ken Schwaber
                                        You are quite correct. I was trying to get across the point that this is a cross-species thing. Although the idea of mating a snake and a dog is quite
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Dec 9, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          You are quite correct. I was trying to get across the point that this is a
                                          cross-species thing. Although the idea of mating a snake and a dog is quite
                                          interesting, it is impossible. We used to refer to thing like "agile rup" as
                                          a pig on roller skates; it's still a pig, just a little faster.

                                          The excerpt talks about the theoretical basis. Self-organization after a
                                          team has been give a definitive list of tasks to perform is quite different
                                          from a team that has to think up the list of tasks from scratch.
                                          Ken

                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: Lowell Lindstrom [mailto:lindstrom@...]
                                          Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 9:44 PM
                                          To: 'scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com';
                                          'extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com'
                                          Subject: RE: [XP] RE: [scrumdevelopment] Agile and CMM are contradictory


                                          > "agile" isn't an adjective, like "agile RUP."

                                          Please elaborate. It is used as an adjective in every context I have seen
                                          it, including Agile software development.

                                          > Agile has particular theoretical characteristics
                                          (www.controlchaos.com/excerpt.pdf) and mannerisms
                                          > that arise from this theoretical base, like frequent inspection,
                                          self-organization, and emergence.

                                          I don't see what the excerpt has to do with this thread. In practice, there
                                          are degrees of self-organization, etc. Perhaps we are discussing from
                                          different vantage points, one theoretical and one practical.


                                          To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                                          To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                          scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

                                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                        • Mike Beedle
                                          I propose that Lean Manufacturing has a host of good things to teach the software development industry. But note that the operative word in here
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Dec 9, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            <Mary writes>
                                            I propose that Lean Manufacturing has a host of good things to teach
                                            the software development industry. But note that the operative word
                                            in here is `Lean'. Lean means :

                                            1. Eliminating Waste – which is to say doing only those things
                                            which add value. It is amazing how many things you do not have to
                                            do if you aggressively eliminate things which do not add value.

                                            2. Streamlining Flow – Which means using the shortest possible
                                            path and the most rapid time. In manufacturing, this is applied to
                                            materials. In software development, this is applied to information
                                            flow. XP has a very rapid flow: from customer to developer to
                                            working code. No waste in handoffs.
                                            <Mary writes>

                                            Mary:

                                            I agree. Back in 1995 I wrote a pattern language to construct
                                            optimized enterprises using business patterns:
                                            http://www.mikebeedle.com/pub/bpr-papers/bpr.pdf

                                            And then I turned around and applied those same patterns to
                                            software development. In fact, I wrote a few articles on
                                            how to apply these patterns in an article with the title
                                            "Reengineering the application development process".

                                            However, these optimizations, while important, and while beneficial
                                            to software development, don't get to the core of what software
                                            is, imo. They miss the questions:

                                            "how do you enable people to do research and
                                            creativity with in high degrees of cooperation
                                            and collaboration?"

                                            and,

                                            "how do you allow software development projects to
                                            violently change plans and generate schedules, scope,
                                            determine appropriate quality, and contain cost
                                            on-the-fly?"

                                            This is only that something like Scrum brings.

                                            These requirements are what makes software development different
                                            than manufacturing -- any manufacturing, because
                                            manufacturing, regardless of how optimized it is, it always
                                            builds the same products once you run a production cycle i.e. like
                                            building a particular model of a VCR.

                                            Even when you have customized manufacturing, like in the delivery
                                            of automobiles, expensive machinery or PCs, there are
                                            standard process overrides to deal with customization, so the
                                            requirements are never elevated to deal with the requirements
                                            of software development.


                                            <Mary writes>
                                            I think of CMM more like ISO 900X – relatively process-neutral and
                                            occasionally necessary. I observe that some companies benefit from
                                            such programs, but more companies waste time on them. I don't see a
                                            large correlation between high maturity and high business success.
                                            This is researched in the book by Robert Austin, `Measuring and
                                            Managing Performance in Organizations'.
                                            <Mary writes>

                                            This is true, all of it, but the CMM does require at level 3
                                            to define a "detailed, step-wise process". And this is also true
                                            in manufacturing -- regardless of how much you streamline or
                                            eliminate waste, and regardless of how much JIT and Supply
                                            Chain Management one uses, manufactured products in a "production
                                            batch" are _assembled_ using a pre-defined process.

                                            In some very trivial cases you can almost do the same in
                                            software, like in CRUD type screens, but once business rules
                                            start to play a strong role, or once there is diversity in
                                            the technologies used for different functionalities, etc.;
                                            one steps into the non-liner land of "research and creativity
                                            required".

                                            - Mike


                                            Mike Beedle http://www.mikebeedle.com

                                            e-Architects Inc. http://www.e-architects.com
                                            Hipaa Accelerator http://www.hipaaccelerator.com

                                            XBreed http://www.xbreed.net
                                            Agile Scrum http://www.agilescrum.com

                                            Agile Alliance http://www.agilealliance.org
                                            Living Metaphor http://www.livingmetaphor.org
                                          • Mike Beedle
                                            I propose that Lean Manufacturing has a host of good things to teach the software development industry. But note that the operative word in
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Dec 9, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              <Mary proposed>
                                              I propose that Lean Manufacturing has a host of good things to teach
                                              the software development industry. But note that the operative word
                                              in here is `Lean'. Lean means :

                                              1. Eliminating Waste – which is to say doing only those things
                                              which add value. It is amazing how many things you do not have to
                                              do if you aggressively eliminate things which do not add value.

                                              2. Streamlining Flow – Which means using the shortest possible
                                              path and the most rapid time. In manufacturing, this is applied to
                                              materials. In software development, this is applied to information
                                              flow. XP has a very rapid flow: from customer to developer to
                                              working code. No waste in handoffs.
                                              <Mary writes>

                                              <I responded earlier>
                                              >And then I turned around and applied those same patterns to
                                              >software development. In fact, I wrote a few articles on
                                              >how to apply these patterns in an article with the title
                                              >"Reengineering the application development process".
                                              <I responded earlier>


                                              Btw, here is the "radp" paper just in case anyone want to take
                                              a look at it:
                                              http://www.mikebeedle.com/pub/radp.pdf

                                              As well as a few other related articles and a presentation
                                              here:

                                              [Beedle97] M. Beedle, Pattern Based Reengineering,
                                              Object Magazine, January (1997).
                                              http://www.mikebeedle.com/pbr.html
                                              * This paper includes an extended version of the
                                              Zachman Framework that some people found interesting
                                              since it included objects and patterns.


                                              [Beedle95] M. Beedle, Object Based Reengineering,
                                              Object Magazine 4(2), (1995).
                                              * The equivalent of IDEF only in objects -- not good for
                                              software development!!!


                                              Enterprise Architectural Patterns
                                              http://www.mikebeedle.com/pub/patterns.ppt
                                              See also at the old Bell Labs site:

                                              http://www.bell-labs.com/cgi-user/OrgPatterns/OrgPatterns?BPRPatternLanguage
                                              * This dates back to the time when I was coordinating
                                              a common pattern language to build business and
                                              software organizations. This effort has been
                                              continued at:
                                              http://i44pc48.info.uni-karlsruhe.de/cgi-bin/OrgPatterns

                                              - Mike
                                              http://www.mikebeedle.com
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.