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

RE: [XP] Re: Agile and CMM are contradictory

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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.