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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 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:

            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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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.