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

Re: [XP] Agile and CMM are contradictory

Expand Messages
  • Eric Hodges
    I agree with most of what you say, but I can t help thinking of Edison. His greatest invention was a repeatable process for inventing things. Menlo Park has
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree with most of what you say, but I can't help thinking of Edison. His
      greatest invention was a repeatable process for inventing things. Menlo
      Park has been a successful model for something approaching the continuous
      invention of software development ever since.

      Perhaps a model like CMM but based on industrial R&D would be more useful to
      us.
    • Mike Beedle
      ... Eric: Scrum and XP are identical in nature to Edison s invention process. They are repeatable but only at a high level, because they always break a
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Eric Hodges writes:
        > I agree with most of what you say, but I can't help thinking
        > of Edison. His greatest invention was a repeatable process
        > for inventing things. Menlo Park has been a successful
        > model for something approaching the continuous invention
        > of software development ever since.

        Eric:

        Scrum and XP are identical in nature to Edison's invention
        process. They are repeatable but only at a high level, because
        they always break a project in iterations. However, they
        are not repeatable or defined at the low-level. At that level
        they are just a set of practices working together.

        Contrast this with the CMM requirements to document detailed
        "sequenced steps".

        Could Edison predict always what the goal and result of an
        invention, the time spent doing prototypes, or even the
        sources of inspiration?

        I doubt it. Yet he could still break the _high-level_ process.

        We do the same in agile development i.e. Scrum or XP.

        Eric Hodges writes:
        > Perhaps a model like CMM but based on industrial R&D would
        > be more useful to us.

        This is exactly what Takeuchi and Nonaka argued -- that
        successful R&D companies were doing something different and
        that the ones following this model were much more successful.

        And that's what we need to do to move the software industry
        out of the tar pit:

        to make the realization that we need a different paradigm
        -- one that better fits our needs,

        - Mike
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.