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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.