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

Re: Agile and CMM are contradictory

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 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:

              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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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.