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

Re: Sprints vs RUP Phases

Expand Messages
  • rodrigoyoshima
    I m talking about architecture risk, not financial risk... Maybe a complex story, or an integration with external system... Rodrigo Y. ... quite ... your ...
    Message 1 of 12 , May 22, 2007
      I'm talking about architecture risk, not financial risk...

      Maybe a complex story, or an integration with external system...

      Rodrigo Y.

      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "dnicolet99" <dnicolet@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Are you taking about a business (financial) risk or a "we're not
      quite
      > sure how to architect this yet" technical risk?
      >
      > Dave
      >
      >
      > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "rodrigoyoshima"
      > <rodrigoy@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Thanks Peter, I guess you addressed many of my question sharing
      your
      > > point of view. But...
      > >
      > > The point is that some people on my teams have doubts about scope
      and
      > > architectural risks mitigation. Let me give you an example:
      Imagine
      > > that you have a backlog item that your P.O. classifies as low
      priority
      > > (planned for sprint 3) but you see an architectural risk on this
      item.
      > > After some discussion, the P.O. says "I understand, but I'd like
      to
      > > see other items implemented first on sprints 1 and 2".
      > >
      > > What is more important: the P.O. drive the project or
      architectural
      > > risk mitigation?
      > >
      > > I don't know if you have got the big picture. Is this scope and
      > > architecture focus still valid these days?
      > >
      > > Rodrigo
      > >
      > > ps. I also agree that RUP roles make some people confused. Here in
      > > Brazil is very common high specialization and division of labor.
      > > Multi-funcional people are rare. I'm trying to change this. ;)
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Hundermark"
      > > <peterh@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "rodrigoyoshima"
      > > > <rodrigoy@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > I'm implementing SCRUM on several teams based on OpenUP. I
      see that
      > > > > some pratices on OpenUP Project Management Discipline are
      based on
      > > > > SCRUM, but OpenUP also works with RUP Phases (inception,
      > elaboration,
      > > > > construction, transition).
      > > > >
      > > > > As far as I know, SCRUM milestones are based only on
      Potentially
      > > > > Shippable Funcionality implemented in the order defined by
      Product
      > > > > Owner.
      > > > >
      > > > > Do you agree that RUP Milestones for Phases are "weak"? Do you
      > agree
      > > > > that SCRUM milestones difer from RUP vision of project status?
      > > > >
      > > > > Rodrigo Yoshima
      > > > > CSM
      > > > > ASPERCOM - Brazil
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > Hi Rodrigo,
      > > >
      > > > We implemented RUP a few years ago and have been using Scrum
      for 6
      > > > months. So far I can offer the following thoughts:
      > > >
      > > > 1. We no longer bother with the RUP phases or their milestones.
      At
      > best
      > > > they simply a 'flavour' or 'colour' to a group of iterations.
      > > >
      > > > 2. RUP does not emphasise sufficiently that each iteration
      should
      > > > result in potentially shippable software. Rather it appears
      that the
      > > > first shipment occurs at the end of Construction. This is simply
      > wrong
      > > > as it stands directly in the way of the empirical inepct and
      adapt
      > > > model.
      > > >
      > > > 3. RUP does well in terms of emphasising the importance of good
      > > > architecture and (technical) risk mitigation. (No surprise
      here -
      > > > Phillipe Kruchten is a software architect!) However it is
      > important to
      > > > find the right balance between BUFD and nothing.
      > > >
      > > > 4. RUP is trying to position itself more and more as an agile
      > > > framework. For my money, Scrum in combination with XP
      engineering
      > > > practices make much more sense. For example, RUP's role
      emphasis
      > > > effectively conflicts with Scrum's collaboration emphasis.
      > > >
      > > > 5. When all is set and done, I hope we'll reach the point where
      we no
      > > > longer need to bother with labelling one
      > methodology/process/framework
      > > > and rather ensure we are living up to the values and principles
      of
      > the
      > > > Agile Manifesto.
      > > >
      > > > Not sure if I've answered your question, though!
      > > >
      > > > Regards,
      > > >
      > > > Peter
      > > >
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.