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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Valid uses of this list (was: RUP and Agile)

Expand Messages
  • Ken Schwaber
    Jeff . understanding the difference in the underpinnings between RUP and Agile would help you understand why they are incompatible. It is like the difference
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

      Jeff … understanding the difference in the underpinnings between RUP and Agile would help you understand why they are incompatible. It is like the difference between lean and traditional manufacturing. When you try to accommodate one to the other’s vocabulary, etc. what happens is the entire change of philosophy and resultant change in action is undercut. Mapping Scrum to RUP helps nobody using Scrum and helps RUP stay alive far longer than its track record would otherwise support. RUP has done enough damage on its own without us providing it additional legs.

       

      Ken

       


      From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jeff Langr
      Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 12:56 PM
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Valid uses of this list (was: RUP and Agile)

       

      Quoting Clinton Keith <ckeith@highmoonstud ios.com>:

      > I support it. The explosion of religious discussions that arise from
      > things like RUP, AUP, WTF, etc create noise with respect to the scope of
      > this list:
      > "For updates and interchange between the users of Scrum and those
      just
      > beginning to use Scrum. Restricted to those who want to build products
      > and software using Scrum. For discussion on how to do so. Not for
      > methodologists, but for practitioners. "
      >
      > I joined for this narrow focus. There are plenty of lists where one can
      > hear the debates in full.

      I too joined it to figure out how to "build products and software
      using Scrum," and "discussion on how to do so." Unfortunately, since
      Scrum answers only part of the challenge, such discussion would
      necessarily need to involve other process. Not religious debate, mind
      you, but open discussion about techniques.

      As an example, I appreciated Ambler's posting of an article where
      someone discussed how they were able to mesh Scrum and RUP ideas--a
      potential practical solution. That was a response to Mr Schwaber's
      statement that that RUP and Scrum are contrary, not mappable. Which I
      think is an emphatic and religious methodologist' s stance, not one of
      someone trying to figure out how to make things work.

      Jeff Langr
      http://langrsoft. com
      Agile Java, Crafting Code With Test-Driven Development

    • David Morash
      I know I just said I wouldn t comment anymore, but shouldn t Jeff get to decide that?
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I know I just said I wouldn't comment anymore, but shouldn't Jeff get
        to decide that?

        Ken Schwaber wrote:
        > Jeff … understanding the difference in the underpinnings between RUP and
        > Agile would help you understand why they are incompatible. It is like
        > the difference between lean and traditional manufacturing. When you try
        > to accommodate one to the other’s vocabulary, etc. what happens is the
        > entire change of philosophy and resultant change in action is undercut.
        > Mapping Scrum to RUP helps nobody using Scrum and helps RUP stay alive
        > far longer than its track record would otherwise support. RUP has done
        > enough damage on its own without us providing it additional legs.
        >
        >
        >
        > Ken
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > *From:* scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Langr
        > *Sent:* Friday, December 01, 2006 12:56 PM
        > *To:* scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        > *Subject:* RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Valid uses of this list (was: RUP
        > and Agile)
        >
        >
        >
        > Quoting Clinton Keith <ckeith@...
        > <mailto:ckeith%40highmoonstudios.com>>:
        >> I support it. The explosion of religious discussions that arise from
        >> things like RUP, AUP, WTF, etc create noise with respect to the scope of
        >> this list:
        >> "For updates and interchange between the users of Scrum and those just
        >> beginning to use Scrum. Restricted to those who want to build products
        >> and software using Scrum. For discussion on how to do so. Not for
        >> methodologists, but for practitioners."
        >>
        >> I joined for this narrow focus. There are plenty of lists where one can
        >> hear the debates in full.
        >
        > I too joined it to figure out how to "build products and software
        > using Scrum," and "discussion on how to do so." Unfortunately, since
        > Scrum answers only part of the challenge, such discussion would
        > necessarily need to involve other process. Not religious debate, mind
        > you, but open discussion about techniques.
        >
        > As an example, I appreciated Ambler's posting of an article where
        > someone discussed how they were able to mesh Scrum and RUP ideas--a
        > potential practical solution. That was a response to Mr Schwaber's
        > statement that that RUP and Scrum are contrary, not mappable. Which I
        > think is an emphatic and religious methodologist's stance, not one of
        > someone trying to figure out how to make things work.
        >
        > Jeff Langr
        > http://langrsoft.com <http://langrsoft.com>
        > Agile Java, Crafting Code With Test-Driven Development
        >
        >
        >
      • Ilja Preuss
        ... Ken, I have a rough gut feel that you are right in that RUP and Agile don t mix well, and that trying to do so might do more harm than good. When I look
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Ken Schwaber schrieb:
          > Jeff … understanding the difference in the underpinnings between RUP and
          > Agile would help you understand why they are incompatible. It is like
          > the difference between lean and traditional manufacturing. When you try
          > to accommodate one to the other’s vocabulary, etc. what happens is the
          > entire change of philosophy and resultant change in action is undercut.
          > Mapping Scrum to RUP helps nobody using Scrum and helps RUP stay alive
          > far longer than its track record would otherwise support. RUP has done
          > enough damage on its own without us providing it additional legs.

          Ken, I have a rough gut feel that you are right in that RUP and Agile
          don't mix well, and that trying to do so might do more harm than good.
          When I look into my copy of "Agility and Discipline made easy", I don't
          see much that feels Agile to me.

          Therefore, what I'd like to see is me getting a better understanding of
          what's happening, and us getting the message across to the masses. And
          to that avail, I feel that telling people that they just don't
          understand Agile, blaming them of plagiarism, and getting them to stop
          discuss with us - well, it feels rather counterproductive to me.

          Your mileage may vary, of course.

          Regards, Ilja
        • dnicolet99
          I agree with Ken s assessment that Scrum and RUP are incompatible. They both do the same job, but approach it in different ways. They aren t complementary in
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            I agree with Ken's assessment that Scrum and RUP are incompatible.
            They both do the same job, but approach it in different ways. They
            aren't complementary in the same sense as, say, Scrum and XP are
            complementary, because Scrum and XP do different jobs, and they do
            those jobs in a compatible way.

            I also agree with Jeff Langr that it's not unreasonable to look for
            useful ideas from multiple sources in order to deliver the most value
            possible in a given situation. However, having worked with both RUP
            and Scrum, I don't think we can mix and match elements of the two very
            successfully. There are just too many ways in which they go against
            one another's grain. RUP is definitely process-centric while Scrum is
            explicitly and fundamentally people-centric. The cultural emphasis of
            people-over-process or process-over-people will tend to pull things in
            either a Scrum-ish or RUP-ish direction anyway, no matter what labels
            we apply. At best, you'd be mixing oil and water; at worst, compounds
            of a more explosive nature.

            The original post that prompted all this was a question by one Nam
            about a customer who had requested agile methods be used on his
            project. Nam is familiar with RUP but not with Scrum. It's only
            natural he would try to understand the unfamiliar in terms of the
            familiar, at least in the beginning. This sort of question seems to be
            exactly in line with the theme of this group - the practical
            application of Scrum, both for experienced practitioners and newcomers.

            With respect to digressions about methodology, it's hard to know where
            a digression may lead until you let it play itself out for a while. A
            practical answer for Nam may have resulted from the discussion of RUP
            and Scrum. The point where it became clear that it was just a circular
            argument was the proper time to stop it.

            Was it necessary to ban a participant who often offers good insights
            just to stop a digression? I guess that's a judgment call for the
            moderator of the group. I'm old enough to know that people sometimes
            make snap judgments, and that few decisions are truly irreversible.

            Did anyone notice that no one ever got around to helping Nam with his
            question?

            --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Schwaber"
            <ken.schwaber@...> wrote:
            >
            > Jeff . understanding the difference in the underpinnings between RUP and
            > Agile would help you understand why they are incompatible. It is
            like the
            > difference between lean and traditional manufacturing. When you try to
            > accommodate one to the other's vocabulary, etc. what happens is the
            entire
            > change of philosophy and resultant change in action is undercut. Mapping
            > Scrum to RUP helps nobody using Scrum and helps RUP stay alive far
            longer
            > than its track record would otherwise support. RUP has done enough
            damage on
            > its own without us providing it additional legs.
            >
            >
            >
            > Ken
            >
            >
            >
            > _____
            >
            > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
            > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Langr
            > Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 12:56 PM
            > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Valid uses of this list (was:
            RUP and
            > Agile)
            >
            >
            >
            > Quoting Clinton Keith <ckeith@highmoonstud
            > <mailto:ckeith%40highmoonstudios.com> ios.com>:
            > > I support it. The explosion of religious discussions that arise from
            > > things like RUP, AUP, WTF, etc create noise with respect to the
            scope of
            > > this list:
            > > "For updates and interchange between the users of Scrum and those just
            > > beginning to use Scrum. Restricted to those who want to build products
            > > and software using Scrum. For discussion on how to do so. Not for
            > > methodologists, but for practitioners."
            > >
            > > I joined for this narrow focus. There are plenty of lists where
            one can
            > > hear the debates in full.
            >
            > I too joined it to figure out how to "build products and software
            > using Scrum," and "discussion on how to do so." Unfortunately, since
            > Scrum answers only part of the challenge, such discussion would
            > necessarily need to involve other process. Not religious debate, mind
            > you, but open discussion about techniques.
            >
            > As an example, I appreciated Ambler's posting of an article where
            > someone discussed how they were able to mesh Scrum and RUP ideas--a
            > potential practical solution. That was a response to Mr Schwaber's
            > statement that that RUP and Scrum are contrary, not mappable. Which I
            > think is an emphatic and religious methodologist's stance, not one of
            > someone trying to figure out how to make things work.
            >
            > Jeff Langr
            > http://langrsoft. <http://langrsoft.com> com
            > Agile Java, Crafting Code With Test-Driven Development
            >
          • Graeme Matthew
            I think this topic / action is getting a bit out of control, remember the best thing about a mailing list is that every item has a subject you can choose to
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              I think this topic / action is getting a bit out of control, remember
              the best thing about a mailing list is that every item has a subject you
              can choose to read it or ignore it, if there was a legitimate
              methodologist sales move for other practices then fine i understand if
              not then simply ignore the thread .... easy, that way everyone and
              anyone can participate in a friendly environment

              have a good weekend

              cheers

              Graeme


              dnicolet99 wrote:
              >
              > I agree with Ken's assessment that Scrum and RUP are incompatible.
              > They both do the same job, but approach it in different ways. They
              > aren't complementary in the same sense as, say, Scrum and XP are
              > complementary, because Scrum and XP do different jobs, and they do
              > those jobs in a compatible way.
              >
              > I also agree with Jeff Langr that it's not unreasonable to look for
              > useful ideas from multiple sources in order to deliver the most value
              > possible in a given situation. However, having worked with both RUP
              > and Scrum, I don't think we can mix and match elements of the two very
              > successfully. There are just too many ways in which they go against
              > one another's grain. RUP is definitely process-centric while Scrum is
              > explicitly and fundamentally people-centric. The cultural emphasis of
              > people-over-process or process-over-people will tend to pull things in
              > either a Scrum-ish or RUP-ish direction anyway, no matter what labels
              > we apply. At best, you'd be mixing oil and water; at worst, compounds
              > of a more explosive nature.
              >
              > The original post that prompted all this was a question by one Nam
              > about a customer who had requested agile methods be used on his
              > project. Nam is familiar with RUP but not with Scrum. It's only
              > natural he would try to understand the unfamiliar in terms of the
              > familiar, at least in the beginning. This sort of question seems to be
              > exactly in line with the theme of this group - the practical
              > application of Scrum, both for experienced practitioners and newcomers.
              >
              > With respect to digressions about methodology, it's hard to know where
              > a digression may lead until you let it play itself out for a while. A
              > practical answer for Nam may have resulted from the discussion of RUP
              > and Scrum. The point where it became clear that it was just a circular
              > argument was the proper time to stop it.
              >
              > Was it necessary to ban a participant who often offers good insights
              > just to stop a digression? I guess that's a judgment call for the
              > moderator of the group. I'm old enough to know that people sometimes
              > make snap judgments, and that few decisions are truly irreversible.
              >
              > Did anyone notice that no one ever got around to helping Nam with his
              > question?
              >
              > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:scrumdevelopment%40yahoogroups.com>, "Ken Schwaber"
              > <ken.schwaber@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Jeff . understanding the difference in the underpinnings between RUP and
              > > Agile would help you understand why they are incompatible. It is
              > like the
              > > difference between lean and traditional manufacturing. When you try to
              > > accommodate one to the other's vocabulary, etc. what happens is the
              > entire
              > > change of philosophy and resultant change in action is undercut. Mapping
              > > Scrum to RUP helps nobody using Scrum and helps RUP stay alive far
              > longer
              > > than its track record would otherwise support. RUP has done enough
              > damage on
              > > its own without us providing it additional legs.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Ken
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > _____
              > >
              > > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:scrumdevelopment%40yahoogroups.com>
              > > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:scrumdevelopment%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Jeff Langr
              > > Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 12:56 PM
              > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:scrumdevelopment%40yahoogroups.com>
              > > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Valid uses of this list (was:
              > RUP and
              > > Agile)
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Quoting Clinton Keith <ckeith@highmoonstud
              > > <mailto:ckeith%40highmoonstudios.com> ios.com>:
              > > > I support it. The explosion of religious discussions that arise from
              > > > things like RUP, AUP, WTF, etc create noise with respect to the
              > scope of
              > > > this list:
              > > > "For updates and interchange between the users of Scrum and those just
              > > > beginning to use Scrum. Restricted to those who want to build products
              > > > and software using Scrum. For discussion on how to do so. Not for
              > > > methodologists, but for practitioners."
              > > >
              > > > I joined for this narrow focus. There are plenty of lists where
              > one can
              > > > hear the debates in full.
              > >
              > > I too joined it to figure out how to "build products and software
              > > using Scrum," and "discussion on how to do so." Unfortunately, since
              > > Scrum answers only part of the challenge, such discussion would
              > > necessarily need to involve other process. Not religious debate, mind
              > > you, but open discussion about techniques.
              > >
              > > As an example, I appreciated Ambler's posting of an article where
              > > someone discussed how they were able to mesh Scrum and RUP ideas--a
              > > potential practical solution. That was a response to Mr Schwaber's
              > > statement that that RUP and Scrum are contrary, not mappable. Which I
              > > think is an emphatic and religious methodologist's stance, not one of
              > > someone trying to figure out how to make things work.
              > >
              > > Jeff Langr
              > > http://langrsoft. <http://langrsoft.com <http://langrsoft.com>> com
              > > Agile Java, Crafting Code With Test-Driven Development
              > >
              >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.