R: [scrumdevelopment] RUP vs. Scrum
> Da: Mike BeedleYes. This configuration takes place at the organizational level, usually in
> Inviato: lunedi 15 luglio 2002 18.04
> But if you want to do RUP-ISO9K, RUP-self-organizing,
> RUP-CMM5, RUP-XP, etc.; don't you also need a lot of
> configuration upfront? I don't think you can get
> away from that upfront stuff in a configurable process
the form of a customization project, that is driven by company cultural
values, by company needs and constraints. The results, as you know, may be
(in different companies) very different processes. And it takes some time
(much more than introducing Scrum, for what I can say), and a lot of
> Yes, I agree with you, in theory, the environment getsAt the project level, at the start of the project, the customization (the
> changed as needed. I'll even say that in theory, the
> environment gets tweaked to match the best interests
> of the configuration you had selected and configured
> upfront. That will certainly be more agile because
> it would reflect feedback cycles of:
> inspection --> adaptation
"development case") is usually very quick, but it needs experience, of
course. And the adaptation of the process, during the whole project, needs
> However, in practice, and again speaking from my experience,Yes, it happens. The transfer of knowledge related to the process, the
> I always see the configuration or RUP up-front and
> very little or none tweaking thereafter. In fact,
> very many times companies hire Rational or other
> consultants to configure RUP for a project or for
> an organization -- but these resources hardly ever
> stay throughout the lifecycle of the projects.
customization at the organizational level is the "easy" part (even if
boring, at least for me), the hard part (the critical part) is to help
projects to be successful. But don't you think the same is true for Scrum
Without _care_ , without the help of someone who knows how to do the things
that are to be done, it is difficult that new approaches are used in an
effective and efficient way.
I have read your posts about self-organization (I've also read the excellent
book about Scrum you wrote with Ken Schwaber), but I think the right amount
of experience is needed also to determine what space has to be left to the
self-organization of the team, which activities have to be self-organized.
And I think the ability of the coach (Scrum Master) is very critical for the
building of the team, the relation with the customer, and the success of the
> (I don't argue that somebody can and does do it right,Adriano Comai
> i.e. adjust the environment, but I just don't see
> it in the trenches.)
> - Mike
> As such, any meaningful method has to "embrace change" but perhapsControlled by whom ? Aye, there's the rub.
> where we differ is that I would add "and do so in a controlled manner."
> if you are building a high rise, it would be infinitely stupid to startAgreed. Here and now, given our skill and knowledge, it would be
> with a pile of lumber and some hand tools and expect to be successful.
stupid. Do remember, though, that fairly simple biological organisms
routinely build, with their bare appendages, constructions which are
to them as a highrise is to us. Termites. Wasps.
Conclusion : it is not stupid to expect that we might *develop* the
knowledge and skill to build a highrise starting with a pile of
lumber and some hand tools.
Now. Metaphor is nice, but we are not, in fact, building highrises.
We are building software, a different kind of thing. What transposes
there from the metaphor, and what doesn't ?
> To be clear as well, I have problems with the pseudoscientific soundI don't see where you get that. Could be a language problem - as a
> bites in your statement: "embracing change" strikes me too much like
> the pop business edits of the 80's and 90's. I mean, what's the
> alternative? "I'm a Luddite."
freakin' furriner I always double-check this kind of thing.
Dictionary.com says : "embrace, to take up willingly or eagerly", or
more interestingly, "to avail oneself of". Thus the alternatives are:
"to accept change reluctantly", or even "not to avail oneself of the
possibilities offered by change". Which is where you're leading with
your "embrace change in a controlled manner".
Dictionary.com says Luddite is "One who opposes technical or
technological change". I think one could legitimately oppose some
kinds of technical change - human cloning is routinely opposed by
some people who, perhaps, might object to being labeled Luddites.
I definitely don't think "embrace change" is vacuous. On the
contrary, reading some Roberto Unger, who in the domain of social
science says the same thing under the slogan "Plasticity into Power",
I found more content in the position than I would have expected from
a principle of software development.
The greatest obstacle to transforming the world is that we lack the
clarity and imagination to conceive that it could be different.
Roberto Mangabeira Unger