RE: [scrumdevelopment] UP was Re: [XP] Agile 2.0
Yes, I had a chance to consider it and to look at the materials. As I indicated in later postings, I view the work to be changing an organization to use the Agile principles. The particular changes are removing waterfall thinking, believing in self-management, implementing true team cross-functionality, and introducing the value and quality concepts to managing time/date/cost based project management. And more, of course.
I believe that all the rest of the process stuff is piling it on and is quite unnecessary. It only confuses everyone into believing that this is a process issue that process will solve. The fewer process people and the more change agents the better.
Inadvertently, since solving problems with abstractions is our profession, I think that those who introduce more processes and unification processes and process frameworks are absolutely missing the point. Since a good number of these people also have reputations, they go beyond missing the point and confuse those that rely on them for guidance.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Scott Ambler
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: [scrumdevelopment] UP was Re: [XP] Agile 2.0
Ken, I was wondering if you had a chance to consider the questions I
posed below. It seems fair to me that you should at least indicate
whether or not you had even read it before attacking it.
Thanks in advance.
--- In scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com, "Scott Ambler" <swa@...>
>"Ken Schwaber" wrote:
> --- In scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com,
>etc. has nothing to do with improving the
> > "Look at me, this is a great Agile
> > approach. Pay me. "
> > development profession, it has to do with making money, marketisn't
> > etc. EUP, AUP, etc. are such. They just don't get that Agile
> > prescriptive, and every step toward commercialization,charge at
> specialization is a step toward prescription.
> Ken, thank you for attacking my work publicly without bothering to
> copy me on it. Be that as it may, I have a few questions for you.
> First, regarding the AUP:
> 1. Have you even looked at it? It can be downloaded free of
> done so.commercialization
> 2. If you have, could you please explain to me the
> aspects surrounding the AUP. It is available free of charge andare
> always has been.
> 3. If you have, could you please explain to me its prescriptive
> nature? As you can see, the disciplines (e.g. Model, Implement)
> described as a collection of tips (e.g. model just in time) andthe
> suggested issues that you should consider addressing throughout
> various project phases. Granted, I suppose you could consider thesuch
> fact that I insist on a minimum of 8 deliverables (radical things
> as the system itself, tests, source code, and minimal supportingit's
> documenation) to be prescriptive, but is that really so bad?
> Second, regarding the EUP:
> 1. Have you ever read the book? An overview of it is available at
> http://www.ambysoft .com/books/ enterpriseUnifie dProcess. html
> 2. Could you please point me to where I claimed that the EUP is an
> agile process? In fact, I seem to remember clearly stating that
> typically instantiated as a prescriptive process, although perhapsI'm
> confused on this issue. Granted, in the EUP book we did try tosteer
> people towards being as agile as possible, but at the enterpriselevel
> that can be difficult at times.issues
> 3. Could you please point me towards writings about enterprise
> soch as enterprise architecture, reuse, portfolio management, andso
> on where they've managed to go into more depth regarding how tomake
> these things even more agile?issue.
> 4. Once again, I'm a bit confused about the commercialization
> At www.enterpriseunifi edprocess. com I've gone out of my way toprovide
> free information about the EUP. Granted, I am trying to motivateAUP
> people to buy the book which provides far more details.
> Thanks in advance for answering these questions. I'm a little
> confused as to why you'd make such sweeping statements about the
> and EUP without backing them up.
> - Scott
- Hello Eb,
Thank you for your email. On Wednesday, August 9, 2006, at 5:06:12
PM, you wrote:
> Courses may not be for you - after all you give 'em, and I guessWell, my point really is that I think courses don't make anyone
> you've given so many maybe it feels like they don't have the impact
> you once hoped they would? Though I'd wager that they are helpful for
> those of us in need of some guidance. I did a CSM last October and it
> was the beginning of really exciting journey for me, so far it's led
> me here (amongst other places)...
Agile. All they do -- and this certainly has value -- is offer ideas
which people might try. As you say ... the course is the beginning
of a journey. But it's the journey that matters.
Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future. -- Niels Bohr