Uh, Standardization? Uniformity? Common architecture? Reuse?
Developers able to move around because everything is built off a
solid, common platform?
Seriously, I must have missed the tour of the company that forced
complete crap on everyone.
We have a decent set of tools. They're not perfect, but they get the
job done. We could spend all of our time evaluating the latest and
greatest. Instead, we have feature that need to be implemented.
I seem to be the odd man out here. Is there something in the
definition of empirical process that I'm missing? Isn't the whole
point to demonstrate that something doesn't work, and then change and
measure again? You assume a standard won't work before clearly
demonstrating that it doesn't work.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, Ron Jeffries
> Hello, woynam. On Monday, June 30, 2008, at 5:06:00 PM, you wrote:
> > However, it sounds like you're suggesting that the team is free to
> > choose any tool or approach they like without first demonstrating that
> > the "company standard" is in fact an impediment to success.
> > I find that quite odd. We warn people about piling too many features
> > into a product before knowing that the features are actually useful.
> > We say that they should prioritize, and only build the highest
> > priority features.
> > Shouldn't it be the team's responsibility to demonstrate that an
> > existing approach is deficient? Just because something is a standard
> > doesn't mean it's not good. Sure, there may be something technically
> > better, but is it really better from a business value standpoint?
> > What's the cost associated with purchasing, training, and supporting
> > multiple tools/frameworks? It doesn't come for free.
> > By focusing on optimizing *your* project, you may be guilty of
> > suboptimizing the whole organization. You can't look at things in
> > isolation, at least not in a large enterprise.
> You seem to think that there is some automatic benefit to a company
> standard. Is that the case? If so, what is that benefit?
> If a team is familiar with the company standard, and still wishes to
> use some other tools, that seems quite significant, doesn't it?
> If they are not familiar with the company standard, and are familiar
> with the tools they want to use, that seems efficient, doesn't it?
> What's really trying to be accomplished with the company standard?
> Ron Jeffries
> It's easier to act your way into a new way of thinking
> than to think your way into a new way of acting. --Millard Fuller