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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

Expand Messages
  • Mike Cohn
    According to http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/ $5 million in 1970 is $23M today and Ken should be making $55,515 a year. --Mike ... From:
    Message 1 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      According to http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/

      $5 million in 1970 is $23M today
      and
      Ken should be making $55,515 a year.

      --Mike

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]
      Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:18 PM
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

      Let's see. In 1970 I was being paid $12,000 a year by the University of
      Chicago. At the same markup (factor of 30), I should be making $360,000
      per
      year. Who wants to contribute to the cause??
      Ken

      -----Original Message-----
      From: David J. Anderson [mailto:netherby_uk@...]
      Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:12 PM
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce


      What would $5MM be in today's money? My guess is
      around $150MM.

      I'd say a 1000 page specification for a $150MM project
      would be decidedly agile.

      David
      --
      David Anderson
      http://www.uidesign.net/
      The Webzine for Interaction Designers

      --- "Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@...>"
      <ken.schwaber@...> wrote:

      Documentation - Dr. Royce, "My own view is quite a
      lot...the first
      rule of managing software development is ruthless
      enforcement of
      documentation requirements ... Management of software
      is simply
      impossible without a very high degree of
      documentation." Dr. Royce
      indicates that a 1000 page spec document is
      appropriate for a $5m
      project, mostly because "a verbal record is too
      intangible."



      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
      http://mailplus.yahoo.com

      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/



      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
      Great. Where do I apply? Ken ... From: Mike Cohn [mailto:mike@mountaingoatsoftware.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:54 PM To:
      Message 2 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Great. Where do I apply?
        Ken

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mike Cohn [mailto:mike@...]
        Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:54 PM
        To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce


        According to http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/

        $5 million in 1970 is $23M today
        and
        Ken should be making $55,515 a year.

        --Mike

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]
        Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:18 PM
        To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

        Let's see. In 1970 I was being paid $12,000 a year by the University of
        Chicago. At the same markup (factor of 30), I should be making $360,000
        per
        year. Who wants to contribute to the cause??
        Ken

        -----Original Message-----
        From: David J. Anderson [mailto:netherby_uk@...]
        Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:12 PM
        To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce


        What would $5MM be in today's money? My guess is
        around $150MM.

        I'd say a 1000 page specification for a $150MM project
        would be decidedly agile.

        David
        --
        David Anderson
        http://www.uidesign.net/
        The Webzine for Interaction Designers

        --- "Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@...>"
        <ken.schwaber@...> wrote:

        Documentation - Dr. Royce, "My own view is quite a
        lot...the first
        rule of managing software development is ruthless
        enforcement of
        documentation requirements ... Management of software
        is simply
        impossible without a very high degree of
        documentation." Dr. Royce
        indicates that a 1000 page spec document is
        appropriate for a $5m
        project, mostly because "a verbal record is too
        intangible."



        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
        http://mailplus.yahoo.com

        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/



        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/





        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/
      • Paul
        Kidding aside, what is the real take on the 1000 page spec? Dr. Royce said a 1000 page spec is appropriate and David said it s reasonable, but isn t this
        Message 3 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Kidding aside, what is the real take on the 1000 page
          spec?
          Dr. Royce said a 1000 page spec is appropriate and
          David said it's reasonable, but isn't this totally
          wrong approach to agile?
          Why spec so much?
          I loathe the waterfall methodology. We have one
          manager trying to push it at my company. He's winning
          the battle.

          --- Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@...> wrote:
          > Great. Where do I apply?
          > Ken
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Mike Cohn
          > [mailto:mike@...]
          > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:54 PM
          > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr.
          > Winston Royce
          >
          >
          > According to
          >
          http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/
          >
          > $5 million in 1970 is $23M today
          > and
          > Ken should be making $55,515 a year.
          >
          > --Mike
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]
          > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:18 PM
          > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr.
          > Winston Royce
          >
          > Let's see. In 1970 I was being paid $12,000 a year
          > by the University of
          > Chicago. At the same markup (factor of 30), I should
          > be making $360,000
          > per
          > year. Who wants to contribute to the cause??
          > Ken
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: David J. Anderson
          > [mailto:netherby_uk@...]
          > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:12 PM
          > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr.
          > Winston Royce
          >
          >
          > What would $5MM be in today's money? My guess is
          > around $150MM.
          >
          > I'd say a 1000 page specification for a $150MM
          > project
          > would be decidedly agile.
          >
          > David
          > --
          > David Anderson
          > http://www.uidesign.net/
          > The Webzine for Interaction Designers
          >
          > --- "Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@...>"
          > <ken.schwaber@...> wrote:
          >
          > Documentation - Dr. Royce, "My own view is quite a
          > lot...the first
          > rule of managing software development is ruthless
          > enforcement of
          > documentation requirements ... Management of
          > software
          > is simply
          > impossible without a very high degree of
          > documentation." Dr. Royce
          > indicates that a 1000 page spec document is
          > appropriate for a $5m
          > project, mostly because "a verbal record is too
          > intangible."
          >
          >
          >
          > __________________________________________________
          > Do you Yahoo!?
          > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
          > now.
          > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
          >
          > 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/
          >
          >
          >
          > 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/
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > 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/
          >
          >
          >

          =====
          ==Paul

          __________________________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
          http://mailplus.yahoo.com
        • Ken Schwaber
          Whenever documentation is used instead of face-to-face communication, it is a chance for misunderstanding and failure to communicate. Nobody writes or models
          Message 4 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Whenever documentation is used instead of face-to-face communication, it is
            a chance for misunderstanding and failure to communicate. Nobody writes or
            models precisely enough to include all possible details, and there is the
            chance for moving forward incorrectly. Not to mention the wasted effort
            writing something that is going to go out of date the moment the first
            change comes in (unless you prohibit changes, not always a good idea with
            changing requirements and complex technology). So the only documentation
            that I like is work-in-progress, used to think through an idea,
            documentation UNLESS the documentation will be used by others to create a
            vision (marketing), operate the system, or user documentation. 1000 pages of
            spec is just asking for trouble.
            Ken

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Paul [mailto:horked_noodle@...]
            Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 6:03 PM
            To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce


            Kidding aside, what is the real take on the 1000 page
            spec?
            Dr. Royce said a 1000 page spec is appropriate and
            David said it's reasonable, but isn't this totally
            wrong approach to agile?
            Why spec so much?
            I loathe the waterfall methodology. We have one
            manager trying to push it at my company. He's winning
            the battle.

            --- Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@...> wrote:
            > Great. Where do I apply?
            > Ken
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Mike Cohn
            > [mailto:mike@...]
            > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:54 PM
            > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr.
            > Winston Royce
            >
            >
            > According to
            >
            http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/
            >
            > $5 million in 1970 is $23M today
            > and
            > Ken should be making $55,515 a year.
            >
            > --Mike
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]
            > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:18 PM
            > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr.
            > Winston Royce
            >
            > Let's see. In 1970 I was being paid $12,000 a year
            > by the University of
            > Chicago. At the same markup (factor of 30), I should
            > be making $360,000
            > per
            > year. Who wants to contribute to the cause??
            > Ken
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: David J. Anderson
            > [mailto:netherby_uk@...]
            > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:12 PM
            > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr.
            > Winston Royce
            >
            >
            > What would $5MM be in today's money? My guess is
            > around $150MM.
            >
            > I'd say a 1000 page specification for a $150MM
            > project
            > would be decidedly agile.
            >
            > David
            > --
            > David Anderson
            > http://www.uidesign.net/
            > The Webzine for Interaction Designers
            >
            > --- "Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@...>"
            > <ken.schwaber@...> wrote:
            >
            > Documentation - Dr. Royce, "My own view is quite a
            > lot...the first
            > rule of managing software development is ruthless
            > enforcement of
            > documentation requirements ... Management of
            > software
            > is simply
            > impossible without a very high degree of
            > documentation." Dr. Royce
            > indicates that a 1000 page spec document is
            > appropriate for a $5m
            > project, mostly because "a verbal record is too
            > intangible."
            >
            >
            >
            > __________________________________________________
            > Do you Yahoo!?
            > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
            > now.
            > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
            >
            > 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/
            >
            >
            >
            > 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/
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > 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/
            >
            >
            >

            =====
            ==Paul

            __________________________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
            http://mailplus.yahoo.com

            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/
          • David J. Anderson
            Still kidding for a moment - 1000 pages for a $23MM project would still be OK. Now to deal with the real beast of Waterfall and why it remains popular. I think
            Message 5 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Still kidding for a moment - 1000 pages for a $23MM
              project would still be OK.

              Now to deal with the real beast of Waterfall and why
              it remains popular.

              I think it is to do with two things - a tangible way
              to declare progress - and related to this a way for
              accounts to show added value - some countries allow
              the capitalization of development work in their
              standard and acceptable accounting practices.

              The 2nd one creates a macro problem for managers -
              they can have financial constraints or controls
              imposed which make Waterfall optimal for solving the
              problem of meeting their numbers. This would be hard
              to overcome - maybe impossible in a big company -
              Fortune 500.

              The first one is really to do with how acceptable the
              management finds reporting methods. I think that
              getting out of the waterfall model can be overcome
              with learning. For example, if in Scrum you could
              build consensus that reporting on the burn down chart
              of tasks for a project (or as Ken does in the book)
              report the hours remaining then this may be
              acceptable.

              It occurs to me that the hours remaining against the
              hours spent may be a suitable solution to the
              financial problem too.

              Developers get asked to fill out timesheets becuase of
              management accounting methods such as Activity Based
              Costing. If Scrum's time remaining (and time spent)
              charts were enough for management then the Waterfall
              thinking would be broken.

              In my experience, getting people to buy-off on new
              ways of reporting progress is very hard - very hard
              indeed.

              David


              --- Paul <horked_noodle@...> wrote:

              <HR>
              <html><body>


              <tt>
              Kidding aside, what is the real take on the 1000
              page<BR>
              spec?<BR>
              Dr. Royce said a 1000 page spec is appropriate and<BR>
              David said it's reasonable, but isn't this totally<BR>
              wrong approach to agile?<BR>
              Why spec so much?<BR>
              I loathe the waterfall methodology.  We have
              one<BR>
              manager trying to push it at my company.  He's
              winning<BR>
              the battle.<BR>
              <BR>
              --- Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@...>
              wrote:<BR>
              > Great. Where do I apply?<BR>
              > Ken<BR>
              > <BR>
              > -----Original Message-----<BR>
              > From: Mike Cohn<BR>
              > [mailto:mike@...]<BR>
              > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:54 PM<BR>
              > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com<BR>
              > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
              Dr.<BR>
              > Winston Royce<BR>
              > <BR>
              > <BR>
              > According to<BR>
              ><BR>
              <a
              href="http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/">http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/</a><BR>
              > <BR>
              > $5 million in 1970 is $23M today<BR>
              > and<BR>
              > Ken should be making $55,515 a year.<BR>
              > <BR>
              > --Mike<BR>
              > <BR>
              > -----Original Message-----<BR>
              > From: Ken Schwaber
              [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]<BR>
              > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:18 PM<BR>
              > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com<BR>
              > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
              Dr.<BR>
              > Winston Royce<BR>
              > <BR>
              > Let's see. In 1970 I was being paid $12,000 a
              year<BR>
              > by the University of<BR>
              > Chicago. At the same markup (factor of 30), I
              should<BR>
              > be making $360,000<BR>
              > per<BR>
              > year. Who wants to contribute to the cause??<BR>
              > Ken<BR>
              > <BR>
              > -----Original Message-----<BR>
              > From: David J. Anderson<BR>
              > [mailto:netherby_uk@...]<BR>
              > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:12 PM<BR>
              > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com<BR>
              > Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
              Dr.<BR>
              > Winston Royce<BR>
              > <BR>
              > <BR>
              > What would $5MM be in today's money? My guess
              is<BR>
              > around $150MM.<BR>
              > <BR>
              > I'd say a 1000 page specification for a
              $150MM<BR>
              > project<BR>
              > would be decidedly agile.<BR>
              > <BR>
              > David<BR>
              > --<BR>
              > David Anderson<BR>
              > <a
              href="http://www.uidesign.net/">http://www.uidesign.net/</a><BR>
              > The Webzine for Interaction Designers<BR>
              > <BR>
              > --- "Ken Schwaber
              <ken.schwaber@...>"<BR>
              > <ken.schwaber@...> wrote:<BR>
              > <BR>
              > Documentation - Dr. Royce, "My own view is
              quite a<BR>
              > lot...the first<BR>
              > rule of managing software development is
              ruthless<BR>
              > enforcement of<BR>
              > documentation requirements ... Management of<BR>
              > software<BR>
              > is simply<BR>
              > impossible without a very high degree of<BR>
              > documentation." Dr. Royce<BR>
              > indicates that a 1000 page spec document is<BR>
              > appropriate for a $5m<BR>
              > project, mostly because "a verbal record is
              too<BR>
              > intangible."<BR>
              > <BR>
              > <BR>
              > <BR>
              >
              __________________________________________________<BR>
              > Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
              > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign
              up<BR>
              > now.<BR>
              > <a
              href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
              > <BR>
              > To Post a message, send it to:  <BR>
              > scrumdevelopment@...<BR>
              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:<BR>
              > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...<BR>
              > <BR>
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to<BR>
              > <a
              href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a><BR>
              > <BR>
              > <BR>
              > <BR>
              > To Post a message, send it to:  <BR>
              > scrumdevelopment@...<BR>
              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:<BR>
              > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...<BR>
              > <BR>
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to<BR>
              > <a
              href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a><BR>
              > <BR>
              > <BR>
              > <BR>
              > <BR>
              > <BR>
              > To Post a message, send it to:  <BR>
              > scrumdevelopment@...<BR>
              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:<BR>
              > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...<BR>
              > <BR>
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to<BR>
              > <a
              href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a><BR>
              > <BR>
              > <BR>
              > <BR>
              <BR>
              =====<BR>
              ==Paul<BR>
              <BR>
              __________________________________________________<BR>
              Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
              Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
              now.<BR>
              <a
              href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
              </tt>


              <br>
              <tt>
              To Post a message, send it to:  
              scrumdevelopment@...<BR>
              To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...</tt>
              <br>

              <br>
              <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
              href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
              of Service</a>.</tt>
              </br>

              </body></html>



              __________________________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
              http://mailplus.yahoo.com
            • Mike Cohn
              I suspect documentation would be critical to a $23M project and that it s easy to see how 1000 pages of *documents* get produced. However, I m talking about
              Message 6 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I suspect documentation would be critical to a $23M project and that
                it's easy to see how 1000 pages of *documents* get produced. However,
                I'm talking about after-the-fact documents not upfront specs. On a
                project of that size there are going to be many groups each proceeding
                in their own agile way (we hope) but all the work of all teams (and all
                500 programmers) will not get "continuously integrated" into one unit.
                There will be some after the fact documents written ("here's how to use
                the API we discussed") and such.

                Alistair Cockburn really helped me see the light about Ken's point below
                that face-to-face communication is so much better than written. I
                actually like written communication--it's nice and safe, easy to archive
                and prove what was agreed to. However, face to face communication is
                multi-modal: you've got the words, the person's body language, the tone
                of voice, timing, etc. It's also bidirectional--You are giving me
                feedback as I speak (should I speed up because you get my point? Go over
                it in more detail? Etc) I think about the first distributed team I
                managed and how I had to beg them to stop sending email and pick up the
                phone because things were getting misinterpreted. The two groups came
                together via an acquisition and they hated each other (prior companies
                were competitors). The slight misstep in an email turned ugly fast. That
                never happened when the individuals met in person or even via phone.
                Think about how hard it is to get across things like sarcasm in an email
                (or any written document) and you want to stick with face-to-face after
                that.

                I don't think there's a hard number of pages we can point to and say
                "that's no longer agile".

                Here's an interesting bit of math though that shows that if the $23
                million project was managed via Scrum it could end up with 1000 pages.
                Let's assume 200 people on the project for 12 months. 200 people would
                be roughly 25 scrum teams. Each month each scrum team produces a sprint
                backlog (a list of "requirements" they'll fulfill that sprint). That's
                13 sprints/year times 25 teams or 325 individual sprints. If each sprint
                kept it's sprint backlog (for any of a variety of reasons) and one page
                summarizing the results of the sprint and one other page we'd have 975
                pages!!

                -Mike

                1 page x 100 x 12



                -----Original Message-----
                From: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]
                Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 4:10 PM
                To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

                Whenever documentation is used instead of face-to-face communication, it
                is
                a chance for misunderstanding and failure to communicate. Nobody writes
                or
                models precisely enough to include all possible details, and there is
                the
                chance for moving forward incorrectly. Not to mention the wasted effort
                writing something that is going to go out of date the moment the first
                change comes in (unless you prohibit changes, not always a good idea
                with
                changing requirements and complex technology). So the only documentation
                that I like is work-in-progress, used to think through an idea,
                documentation UNLESS the documentation will be used by others to create
                a
                vision (marketing), operate the system, or user documentation. 1000
                pages of
                spec is just asking for trouble.
                Ken

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Paul [mailto:horked_noodle@...]
                Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 6:03 PM
                To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce


                Kidding aside, what is the real take on the 1000 page
                spec?
                Dr. Royce said a 1000 page spec is appropriate and
                David said it's reasonable, but isn't this totally
                wrong approach to agile?
                Why spec so much?
                I loathe the waterfall methodology. We have one
                manager trying to push it at my company. He's winning
                the battle.

                --- Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@...> wrote:
                > Great. Where do I apply?
                > Ken
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Mike Cohn
                > [mailto:mike@...]
                > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:54 PM
                > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr.
                > Winston Royce
                >
                >
                > According to
                >
                http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/
                >
                > $5 million in 1970 is $23M today
                > and
                > Ken should be making $55,515 a year.
                >
                > --Mike
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]
                > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:18 PM
                > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr.
                > Winston Royce
                >
                > Let's see. In 1970 I was being paid $12,000 a year
                > by the University of
                > Chicago. At the same markup (factor of 30), I should
                > be making $360,000
                > per
                > year. Who wants to contribute to the cause??
                > Ken
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: David J. Anderson
                > [mailto:netherby_uk@...]
                > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:12 PM
                > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr.
                > Winston Royce
                >
                >
                > What would $5MM be in today's money? My guess is
                > around $150MM.
                >
                > I'd say a 1000 page specification for a $150MM
                > project
                > would be decidedly agile.
                >
                > David
                > --
                > David Anderson
                > http://www.uidesign.net/
                > The Webzine for Interaction Designers
                >
                > --- "Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@...>"
                > <ken.schwaber@...> wrote:
                >
                > Documentation - Dr. Royce, "My own view is quite a
                > lot...the first
                > rule of managing software development is ruthless
                > enforcement of
                > documentation requirements ... Management of
                > software
                > is simply
                > impossible without a very high degree of
                > documentation." Dr. Royce
                > indicates that a 1000 page spec document is
                > appropriate for a $5m
                > project, mostly because "a verbal record is too
                > intangible."
                >
                >
                >
                > __________________________________________________
                > Do you Yahoo!?
                > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
                > now.
                > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                >
                > 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/
                >
                >
                >
                > 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/
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > 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/
                >
                >
                >

                =====
                ==Paul

                __________________________________________________
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                http://mailplus.yahoo.com

                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/




                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/
              • Paul
                Well, I plan to attempt it. I ll definatly need help from you guys. I do work for a fortune 500 company. Our ways are bad for the new economy. My last
                Message 7 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Well, I plan to attempt it. I'll definatly need help
                  from you guys. I do work for a fortune 500 company.
                  Our ways are bad for the new economy.
                  My last position there the manager had a waterfall
                  dream, and just kept pushing more documenting and more
                  docmenting until I got fed up and left. There had to
                  be documentation for HTML web pages. I really like
                  the point of documentation as a tool for the team to
                  do it's work, and nothing more. But the QA dept.
                  wanted to put them in nice binders on the shelf so
                  that any time a program was changed, the corresponding
                  documentation would also need changed and refiled in
                  the binders. After pulling out most of my hair, I had
                  to leave the department.

                  I think agile is the way and I am aiming at using it
                  or being fired.

                  -- Paul


                  --- "David J. Anderson" <netherby_uk@...>
                  wrote:
                  > Still kidding for a moment - 1000 pages for a $23MM
                  > project would still be OK.
                  >
                  > Now to deal with the real beast of Waterfall and why
                  > it remains popular.
                  >
                  > I think it is to do with two things - a tangible way
                  > to declare progress - and related to this a way for
                  > accounts to show added value - some countries allow
                  > the capitalization of development work in their
                  > standard and acceptable accounting practices.
                  >
                  > The 2nd one creates a macro problem for managers -
                  > they can have financial constraints or controls
                  > imposed which make Waterfall optimal for solving the
                  > problem of meeting their numbers. This would be hard
                  > to overcome - maybe impossible in a big company -
                  > Fortune 500.
                  >
                  > The first one is really to do with how acceptable
                  > the
                  > management finds reporting methods. I think that
                  > getting out of the waterfall model can be overcome
                  > with learning. For example, if in Scrum you could
                  > build consensus that reporting on the burn down
                  > chart
                  > of tasks for a project (or as Ken does in the book)
                  > report the hours remaining then this may be
                  > acceptable.
                  >
                  > It occurs to me that the hours remaining against the
                  > hours spent may be a suitable solution to the
                  > financial problem too.
                  >
                  > Developers get asked to fill out timesheets becuase
                  > of
                  > management accounting methods such as Activity Based
                  > Costing. If Scrum's time remaining (and time spent)
                  > charts were enough for management then the Waterfall
                  > thinking would be broken.
                  >
                  > In my experience, getting people to buy-off on new
                  > ways of reporting progress is very hard - very hard
                  > indeed.
                  >
                  > David
                  >
                  >
                  > --- Paul <horked_noodle@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > <HR>
                  > <html><body>
                  >
                  >
                  > <tt>
                  > Kidding aside, what is the real take on the 1000
                  > page<BR>
                  > spec?<BR>
                  > Dr. Royce said a 1000 page spec is appropriate
                  > and<BR>
                  > David said it's reasonable, but isn't this
                  > totally<BR>
                  > wrong approach to agile?<BR>
                  > Why spec so much?<BR>
                  > I loathe the waterfall methodology.  We have
                  > one<BR>
                  > manager trying to push it at my company.  He's
                  > winning<BR>
                  > the battle.<BR>
                  > <BR>
                  > --- Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@...>
                  > wrote:<BR>
                  > > Great. Where do I apply?<BR>
                  > > Ken<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > -----Original Message-----<BR>
                  > > From: Mike Cohn<BR>
                  > > [mailto:mike@...]<BR>
                  > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:54 PM<BR>
                  > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                  > > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
                  > Dr.<BR>
                  > > Winston Royce<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > According to<BR>
                  > ><BR>
                  > <a
                  >
                  href="http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/">http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/</a><BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > $5 million in 1970 is $23M today<BR>
                  > > and<BR>
                  > > Ken should be making $55,515 a year.<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > --Mike<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > -----Original Message-----<BR>
                  > > From: Ken Schwaber
                  > [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]<BR>
                  > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:18 PM<BR>
                  > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                  > > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
                  > Dr.<BR>
                  > > Winston Royce<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > Let's see. In 1970 I was being paid $12,000 a
                  > year<BR>
                  > > by the University of<BR>
                  > > Chicago. At the same markup (factor of 30), I
                  > should<BR>
                  > > be making $360,000<BR>
                  > > per<BR>
                  > > year. Who wants to contribute to the
                  > cause??<BR>
                  > > Ken<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > -----Original Message-----<BR>
                  > > From: David J. Anderson<BR>
                  > > [mailto:netherby_uk@...]<BR>
                  > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:12 PM<BR>
                  > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                  > > Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
                  > Dr.<BR>
                  > > Winston Royce<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > What would $5MM be in today's money? My guess
                  > is<BR>
                  > > around $150MM.<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > I'd say a 1000 page specification for a
                  > $150MM<BR>
                  > > project<BR>
                  > > would be decidedly agile.<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > David<BR>
                  > > --<BR>
                  > > David Anderson<BR>
                  > > <a
                  >
                  href="http://www.uidesign.net/">http://www.uidesign.net/</a><BR>
                  > > The Webzine for Interaction Designers<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > --- "Ken Schwaber
                  > <ken.schwaber@...>"<BR>
                  > > <ken.schwaber@...> wrote:<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > Documentation - Dr. Royce, "My own view is
                  > quite a<BR>
                  > > lot...the first<BR>
                  > > rule of managing software development is
                  > ruthless<BR>
                  > > enforcement of<BR>
                  > > documentation requirements ... Management
                  > of<BR>
                  > > software<BR>
                  > > is simply<BR>
                  > > impossible without a very high degree of<BR>
                  > > documentation." Dr. Royce<BR>
                  > > indicates that a 1000 page spec document is<BR>
                  > > appropriate for a $5m<BR>
                  > > project, mostly because "a verbal record
                  > is
                  > too<BR>
                  > > intangible."<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > >
                  >
                  __________________________________________________<BR>
                  > > Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
                  > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign
                  > up<BR>
                  > > now.<BR>
                  > > <a
                  >
                  href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > To Post a message, send it to:  <BR>
                  > > scrumdevelopment@...<BR>
                  > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:<BR>
                  > > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to<BR>
                  > > <a
                  >
                  href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a><BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > To Post a message, send it to:  <BR>
                  > > scrumdevelopment@...<BR>
                  > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:<BR>
                  > > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...<BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to<BR>
                  > > <a
                  >
                  href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a><BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > <BR>
                  > > To Post a message, send it to:  <BR>
                  >
                  === message truncated ===

                  =====
                  ==Paul

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                  http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                • Mike Cohn
                  Good luck with the change, Paul. There is a lot of material at www.agilealliance.com/articles that can help. There are articles on transitioning and there are
                  Message 8 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Good luck with the change, Paul.

                    There is a lot of material at www.agilealliance.com/articles that can
                    help. There are articles on transitioning and there are case studies and
                    background materials on all the agile processes. Naturally, my
                    preference is Scrum but the other processes are sometimes a better fit
                    (e.g., FDD if you're group likes UML, DSDM if they're prototyping fans).

                    There are plenty of others pushing for similar changes within their
                    organizations. Just let us know of anything specific we can do to help
                    you sell the change and make the transition.

                    -Mike

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Paul [mailto:horked_noodle@...]
                    Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:11 PM
                    To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

                    Well, I plan to attempt it. I'll definatly need help
                    from you guys. I do work for a fortune 500 company.
                    Our ways are bad for the new economy.
                    My last position there the manager had a waterfall
                    dream, and just kept pushing more documenting and more
                    docmenting until I got fed up and left. There had to
                    be documentation for HTML web pages. I really like
                    the point of documentation as a tool for the team to
                    do it's work, and nothing more. But the QA dept.
                    wanted to put them in nice binders on the shelf so
                    that any time a program was changed, the corresponding
                    documentation would also need changed and refiled in
                    the binders. After pulling out most of my hair, I had
                    to leave the department.

                    I think agile is the way and I am aiming at using it
                    or being fired.

                    -- Paul


                    --- "David J. Anderson" <netherby_uk@...>
                    wrote:
                    > Still kidding for a moment - 1000 pages for a $23MM
                    > project would still be OK.
                    >
                    > Now to deal with the real beast of Waterfall and why
                    > it remains popular.
                    >
                    > I think it is to do with two things - a tangible way
                    > to declare progress - and related to this a way for
                    > accounts to show added value - some countries allow
                    > the capitalization of development work in their
                    > standard and acceptable accounting practices.
                    >
                    > The 2nd one creates a macro problem for managers -
                    > they can have financial constraints or controls
                    > imposed which make Waterfall optimal for solving the
                    > problem of meeting their numbers. This would be hard
                    > to overcome - maybe impossible in a big company -
                    > Fortune 500.
                    >
                    > The first one is really to do with how acceptable
                    > the
                    > management finds reporting methods. I think that
                    > getting out of the waterfall model can be overcome
                    > with learning. For example, if in Scrum you could
                    > build consensus that reporting on the burn down
                    > chart
                    > of tasks for a project (or as Ken does in the book)
                    > report the hours remaining then this may be
                    > acceptable.
                    >
                    > It occurs to me that the hours remaining against the
                    > hours spent may be a suitable solution to the
                    > financial problem too.
                    >
                    > Developers get asked to fill out timesheets becuase
                    > of
                    > management accounting methods such as Activity Based
                    > Costing. If Scrum's time remaining (and time spent)
                    > charts were enough for management then the Waterfall
                    > thinking would be broken.
                    >
                    > In my experience, getting people to buy-off on new
                    > ways of reporting progress is very hard - very hard
                    > indeed.
                    >
                    > David
                    >
                    >
                    > --- Paul <horked_noodle@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > <HR>
                    > <html><body>
                    >
                    >
                    > <tt>
                    > Kidding aside, what is the real take on the 1000
                    > page<BR>
                    > spec?<BR>
                    > Dr. Royce said a 1000 page spec is appropriate
                    > and<BR>
                    > David said it's reasonable, but isn't this
                    > totally<BR>
                    > wrong approach to agile?<BR>
                    > Why spec so much?<BR>
                    > I loathe the waterfall methodology.  We have
                    > one<BR>
                    > manager trying to push it at my company.  He's
                    > winning<BR>
                    > the battle.<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > --- Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@...>
                    > wrote:<BR>
                    > > Great. Where do I apply?<BR>
                    > > Ken<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > -----Original Message-----<BR>
                    > > From: Mike Cohn<BR>
                    > > [mailto:mike@...]<BR>
                    > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:54 PM<BR>
                    > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                    > > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
                    > Dr.<BR>
                    > > Winston Royce<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > According to<BR>
                    > ><BR>
                    > <a
                    >
                    href="http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/">http://wood
                    row.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/</a><BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > $5 million in 1970 is $23M today<BR>
                    > > and<BR>
                    > > Ken should be making $55,515 a year.<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > --Mike<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > -----Original Message-----<BR>
                    > > From: Ken Schwaber
                    > [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]<BR>
                    > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:18 PM<BR>
                    > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                    > > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
                    > Dr.<BR>
                    > > Winston Royce<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > Let's see. In 1970 I was being paid $12,000 a
                    > year<BR>
                    > > by the University of<BR>
                    > > Chicago. At the same markup (factor of 30), I
                    > should<BR>
                    > > be making $360,000<BR>
                    > > per<BR>
                    > > year. Who wants to contribute to the
                    > cause??<BR>
                    > > Ken<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > -----Original Message-----<BR>
                    > > From: David J. Anderson<BR>
                    > > [mailto:netherby_uk@...]<BR>
                    > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:12 PM<BR>
                    > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                    > > Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
                    > Dr.<BR>
                    > > Winston Royce<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > What would $5MM be in today's money? My guess
                    > is<BR>
                    > > around $150MM.<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > I'd say a 1000 page specification for a
                    > $150MM<BR>
                    > > project<BR>
                    > > would be decidedly agile.<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > David<BR>
                    > > --<BR>
                    > > David Anderson<BR>
                    > > <a
                    >
                    href="http://www.uidesign.net/">http://www.uidesign.net/</a><BR>
                    > > The Webzine for Interaction Designers<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > --- "Ken Schwaber
                    > <ken.schwaber@...>"<BR>
                    > > <ken.schwaber@...> wrote:<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > Documentation - Dr. Royce, "My own view is
                    > quite a<BR>
                    > > lot...the first<BR>
                    > > rule of managing software development is
                    > ruthless<BR>
                    > > enforcement of<BR>
                    > > documentation requirements ... Management
                    > of<BR>
                    > > software<BR>
                    > > is simply<BR>
                    > > impossible without a very high degree of<BR>
                    > > documentation." Dr. Royce<BR>
                    > > indicates that a 1000 page spec document is<BR>
                    > > appropriate for a $5m<BR>
                    > > project, mostly because "a verbal record
                    > is
                    > too<BR>
                    > > intangible."<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > >
                    >
                    __________________________________________________<BR>
                    > > Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
                    > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign
                    > up<BR>
                    > > now.<BR>
                    > > <a
                    >
                    href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > To Post a message, send it to:  <BR>
                    > > scrumdevelopment@...<BR>
                    > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:<BR>
                    > > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to<BR>
                    > > <a
                    >
                    href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/term
                    s/</a><BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > To Post a message, send it to:  <BR>
                    > > scrumdevelopment@...<BR>
                    > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:<BR>
                    > > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...<BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to<BR>
                    > > <a
                    >
                    href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/term
                    s/</a><BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > To Post a message, send it to:  <BR>
                    >
                    === message truncated ===

                    =====
                    ==Paul

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                    http://mailplus.yahoo.com

                    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
                    Paul, Let the group know where you re located and maybe someone can come in and help you, such as give a presentation, talk throught the benefits and
                    Message 9 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Paul,
                      Let the group know where you're located and maybe someone can come in and
                      help you, such as give a presentation, talk throught the benefits and
                      implementation details, minimize the disruption. For instance, management
                      reporting. Absolutely a difficult item to tackle. I usually recommend that
                      existing management reporting be kept totally intact, overhead and all, and
                      that Scrum reporting be added to it. During review meetings, review the
                      "real" progress on the Scrum reports. Eventually, management gets
                      comfortable with these reports AND the actual progress demonstrated at the
                      Sprint reviews. But this is a "win them over" not "kill them with how right
                      I am" approach. Management is threatened enough by ScrumMaster and them
                      "helping" the teams rather than telling the teams what to do. And then we
                      turn them out of their offices and turn the office into a team design room.
                      Wow! That's difficult change!
                      Ken

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Paul [mailto:horked_noodle@...]
                      Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 7:11 PM
                      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce


                      Well, I plan to attempt it. I'll definatly need help
                      from you guys. I do work for a fortune 500 company.
                      Our ways are bad for the new economy.
                      My last position there the manager had a waterfall
                      dream, and just kept pushing more documenting and more
                      docmenting until I got fed up and left. There had to
                      be documentation for HTML web pages. I really like
                      the point of documentation as a tool for the team to
                      do it's work, and nothing more. But the QA dept.
                      wanted to put them in nice binders on the shelf so
                      that any time a program was changed, the corresponding
                      documentation would also need changed and refiled in
                      the binders. After pulling out most of my hair, I had
                      to leave the department.

                      I think agile is the way and I am aiming at using it
                      or being fired.

                      -- Paul


                      --- "David J. Anderson" <netherby_uk@...>
                      wrote:
                      > Still kidding for a moment - 1000 pages for a $23MM
                      > project would still be OK.
                      >
                      > Now to deal with the real beast of Waterfall and why
                      > it remains popular.
                      >
                      > I think it is to do with two things - a tangible way
                      > to declare progress - and related to this a way for
                      > accounts to show added value - some countries allow
                      > the capitalization of development work in their
                      > standard and acceptable accounting practices.
                      >
                      > The 2nd one creates a macro problem for managers -
                      > they can have financial constraints or controls
                      > imposed which make Waterfall optimal for solving the
                      > problem of meeting their numbers. This would be hard
                      > to overcome - maybe impossible in a big company -
                      > Fortune 500.
                      >
                      > The first one is really to do with how acceptable
                      > the
                      > management finds reporting methods. I think that
                      > getting out of the waterfall model can be overcome
                      > with learning. For example, if in Scrum you could
                      > build consensus that reporting on the burn down
                      > chart
                      > of tasks for a project (or as Ken does in the book)
                      > report the hours remaining then this may be
                      > acceptable.
                      >
                      > It occurs to me that the hours remaining against the
                      > hours spent may be a suitable solution to the
                      > financial problem too.
                      >
                      > Developers get asked to fill out timesheets becuase
                      > of
                      > management accounting methods such as Activity Based
                      > Costing. If Scrum's time remaining (and time spent)
                      > charts were enough for management then the Waterfall
                      > thinking would be broken.
                      >
                      > In my experience, getting people to buy-off on new
                      > ways of reporting progress is very hard - very hard
                      > indeed.
                      >
                      > David
                      >
                      >
                      > --- Paul <horked_noodle@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > <HR>
                      > <html><body>
                      >
                      >
                      > <tt>
                      > Kidding aside, what is the real take on the 1000
                      > page<BR>
                      > spec?<BR>
                      > Dr. Royce said a 1000 page spec is appropriate
                      > and<BR>
                      > David said it's reasonable, but isn't this
                      > totally<BR>
                      > wrong approach to agile?<BR>
                      > Why spec so much?<BR>
                      > I loathe the waterfall methodology.  We have
                      > one<BR>
                      > manager trying to push it at my company.  He's
                      > winning<BR>
                      > the battle.<BR>
                      > <BR>
                      > --- Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@...>
                      > wrote:<BR>
                      > > Great. Where do I apply?<BR>
                      > > Ken<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > -----Original Message-----<BR>
                      > > From: Mike Cohn<BR>
                      > > [mailto:mike@...]<BR>
                      > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:54 PM<BR>
                      > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                      > > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
                      > Dr.<BR>
                      > > Winston Royce<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > According to<BR>
                      > ><BR>
                      > <a
                      >
                      href="http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/">http://woodrow.
                      mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/</a><BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > $5 million in 1970 is $23M today<BR>
                      > > and<BR>
                      > > Ken should be making $55,515 a year.<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > --Mike<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > -----Original Message-----<BR>
                      > > From: Ken Schwaber
                      > [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]<BR>
                      > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:18 PM<BR>
                      > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                      > > Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
                      > Dr.<BR>
                      > > Winston Royce<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > Let's see. In 1970 I was being paid $12,000 a
                      > year<BR>
                      > > by the University of<BR>
                      > > Chicago. At the same markup (factor of 30), I
                      > should<BR>
                      > > be making $360,000<BR>
                      > > per<BR>
                      > > year. Who wants to contribute to the
                      > cause??<BR>
                      > > Ken<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > -----Original Message-----<BR>
                      > > From: David J. Anderson<BR>
                      > > [mailto:netherby_uk@...]<BR>
                      > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:12 PM<BR>
                      > > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                      > > Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
                      > Dr.<BR>
                      > > Winston Royce<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > What would $5MM be in today's money? My guess
                      > is<BR>
                      > > around $150MM.<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > I'd say a 1000 page specification for a
                      > $150MM<BR>
                      > > project<BR>
                      > > would be decidedly agile.<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > David<BR>
                      > > --<BR>
                      > > David Anderson<BR>
                      > > <a
                      >
                      href="http://www.uidesign.net/">http://www.uidesign.net/</a><BR>
                      > > The Webzine for Interaction Designers<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > --- "Ken Schwaber
                      > <ken.schwaber@...>"<BR>
                      > > <ken.schwaber@...> wrote:<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > Documentation - Dr. Royce, "My own view is
                      > quite a<BR>
                      > > lot...the first<BR>
                      > > rule of managing software development is
                      > ruthless<BR>
                      > > enforcement of<BR>
                      > > documentation requirements ... Management
                      > of<BR>
                      > > software<BR>
                      > > is simply<BR>
                      > > impossible without a very high degree of<BR>
                      > > documentation." Dr. Royce<BR>
                      > > indicates that a 1000 page spec document is<BR>
                      > > appropriate for a $5m<BR>
                      > > project, mostly because "a verbal record
                      > is
                      > too<BR>
                      > > intangible."<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > >
                      >
                      __________________________________________________<BR>
                      > > Do you Yahoo!?<BR>
                      > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign
                      > up<BR>
                      > > now.<BR>
                      > > <a
                      >
                      href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com">http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a><BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > To Post a message, send it to:  <BR>
                      > > scrumdevelopment@...<BR>
                      > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:<BR>
                      > > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to<BR>
                      > > <a
                      >
                      href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</
                      a><BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > To Post a message, send it to:  <BR>
                      > > scrumdevelopment@...<BR>
                      > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:<BR>
                      > > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...<BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to<BR>
                      > > <a
                      >
                      href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</
                      a><BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > To Post a message, send it to:  <BR>
                      >
                      === message truncated ===

                      =====
                      ==Paul

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                      http://mailplus.yahoo.com

                      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
                      ... Mike Cohn wrote: Here s an interesting bit of math though that shows that if the $23 million project was managed via Scrum it could end up with 1000
                      Message 10 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- Mike Cohn <mike@...> wrote:
                        Mike Cohn wrote:
                        Here's an interesting bit of math though that shows
                        that if the $23<BR>
                        million project was managed via Scrum it could end up
                        with 1000 pages.<BR>
                        Let's assume 200 people on the project for 12 months.
                        200 people would<BR>
                        be roughly 25 scrum teams. Each month each scrum team
                        produces a sprint<BR>
                        backlog (a list of "requirements" they'll
                        fulfill that sprint). That's<BR>
                        13 sprints/year times 25 teams or 325 individual
                        sprints. If each sprint<BR>
                        kept it's sprint backlog (for any of a variety of
                        reasons) and one page<BR>
                        summarizing the results of the sprint and one other
                        page we'd have 975<BR>
                        pages!!<BR>
                        <BR>
                        -Mike<BR>
                        <BR>
                        1 page x 100 x 12<BR>
                        <BR>


                        Mike:

                        Ah, but there is a difference on _how_ the "Scrum
                        1000 page requirements document" was put together;
                        and in turn, _how_ the software was put togehter;
                        because it was as _evolved_, _reprioritized_,
                        _tested_, _integrated_, and _developed iteratively_
                        through customer feedback while ensuring the comfort
                        of the developers.

                        To be able to do that you need:

                        - short time-boxing
                        - constant people interactions
                        - shared values than promote cooperation
                        - self-organizing behavior
                        - constant learning
                        - knowledge sharing
                        - a license to do research and be creative
                        - etc.
                        - (and all of the other things that synergistically
                        contribute to create a true agile environment)

                        Yes, I know -- I am preaching to the choir, I just
                        want
                        to underline that the _how_ is perhaps very important,

                        - Mike
                      • Mike Cohn
                        Absolutely, Absolutly! And even using the example I gave we d only get 75 pages of paper per month for a 200 person team. -Mike ... From: Mike Beedle
                        Message 11 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Absolutely, Absolutly!

                          And even using the example I gave we'd only get 75 pages of paper per
                          month for a 200 person "team."

                          -Mike

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Mike Beedle [mailto:beedlem@...]
                          Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 6:28 PM
                          To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce


                          --- Mike Cohn <mike@...> wrote:
                          Mike Cohn wrote:
                          Here's an interesting bit of math though that shows
                          that if the $23<BR>
                          million project was managed via Scrum it could end up
                          with 1000 pages.<BR>
                          Let's assume 200 people on the project for 12 months.
                          200 people would<BR>
                          be roughly 25 scrum teams. Each month each scrum team
                          produces a sprint<BR>
                          backlog (a list of "requirements" they'll
                          fulfill that sprint). That's<BR>
                          13 sprints/year times 25 teams or 325 individual
                          sprints. If each sprint<BR>
                          kept it's sprint backlog (for any of a variety of
                          reasons) and one page<BR>
                          summarizing the results of the sprint and one other
                          page we'd have 975<BR>
                          pages!!<BR>
                          <BR>
                          -Mike<BR>
                          <BR>
                          1 page x 100 x 12<BR>
                          <BR>


                          Mike:

                          Ah, but there is a difference on _how_ the "Scrum
                          1000 page requirements document" was put together;
                          and in turn, _how_ the software was put togehter;
                          because it was as _evolved_, _reprioritized_,
                          _tested_, _integrated_, and _developed iteratively_
                          through customer feedback while ensuring the comfort
                          of the developers.

                          To be able to do that you need:

                          - short time-boxing
                          - constant people interactions
                          - shared values than promote cooperation
                          - self-organizing behavior
                          - constant learning
                          - knowledge sharing
                          - a license to do research and be creative
                          - etc.
                          - (and all of the other things that synergistically
                          contribute to create a true agile environment)

                          Yes, I know -- I am preaching to the choir, I just
                          want
                          to underline that the _how_ is perhaps very important,

                          - Mike








                          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/
                        • Mary Poppendieck
                          Ken, Although I agree that Winston Royce s paper doesn t describe an Agile process of today, I think it is not such a bad paper if you take into consideration
                          Message 12 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Ken,

                             

                            Although I agree that Winston Royce’s paper doesn’t describe an Agile process of today, I think it is not such a bad paper if you take into consideration the following:

                             

                            1.       In figure 7, Royce proposes an early ‘simulation’ done by a small skilled team, to prove the concept.  Thus he says that a complete iteration through, testing and usage, is the most appropriate form of feedback.  He notes that going only one level up is not adequate.

                             

                            2.       I certainly disagree with Royce on the usefulness of the extensive documentation he recommends.  But note – you can substitute tests for most of Royce’s documentation, and if you do this, the paper is not so bad.  Royce didn’t have access to the testing capability we do today, but if he did, I’ll bet most of his documentation would be changed tests in a 2003 paper.

                             

                            3.       At least Royce admits that everything besides analysis and coding is waste. How many people have been insulted when I called all that other stuff waste!  Now I can quote Royce at them and have someone with real credibility back me up.

                             

                            I have a suggestion that comes from product development.  In the 1980’s, product development in the US was decidedly sequential.  Nobody had a clue how to do it any other way.  You’ve got to excuse the software development writers of the time for their sequential bias – it was everywhere (in this country anyway).

                             

                            In the late 1980’s, Kim Clark studied the product development practices of automakers world-wide.  The results are in his book “Product Development Performance” (1991) and Womack’s book “The Machine that Changed the World,” (1990). They noted that Japanese product development practices saved 1/3 in development time and 1/2 the development effort, and resulted in better products – consistently, across the industry.  They called Japanese practices concurrent development.  Most US automobile companies have moved from sequential to concurrent product development, as have many other companies.

                             

                            Clark points out that the fundamental difference between sequential and concurrent development is the information flow between people.  It is high bandwidth, bi-directional, and concurrent (ie, information gets transferred as soon as design starts, not when its done).  The feedback provided by this approach is enormous, and accounts for the large, consistent improvement in performance.

                             

                            I vote for a redefinition of terms:  Waterfall becomes sequential.  Agile becomes concurrent. 

                             

                            Sequential is a true description of what is considered traditional software development, and is not a pejorative.  Concurrent captures the essential difference of Agile, especially since it requires broad communication and feedback.  (I know you said the heart of agile is creativity, but who’s to say that a sequential process has no creativity?)

                             

                            Mary Poppendieck

                            www.poppendieck.com

                            952-934-7998

                             

                             

                               From: "Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@...>" <ken.schwaber@...>

                            Subject: Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

                             

                            At recent conferences, especially OOPSLA, I and others in the agile

                            community were taken to task for not learning from history.

                            Specifically, we were castigated for creating a them/us divide

                            between prior delopment processes and agile processes. We were

                            advised that we could only have done this division through ignorance,

                            since the previous efforts contained many of the elements and,

                            perhaps, even the essence of agility.

                             

                            At OOPSLA, we defined the essence of agility as the ability to be

                            creative, to determine the right thing to do and then do it. Other

                            aspects, such as iterations, increments, self-organization,

                            emergence, collaboration were important supports, but without the

                            creativity, agile

                            loses its heart.

                             

                            So, when I was directed to the seminal papers on waterfall, I was

                            quite hopeful to learn from my mistakes. After all, I had

                            implemented numerous waterfall methodologies, including SADM, SSDM,

                            SDM, Navigator, ForeFront, Method/1, and Summit. And none of them

                            were agile or had the attributes of agile. But, I was advised that

                            these were improper implementations of the paper that Dr. Winston

                            Royce published in 1970, which included such agile mechanisms as

                            iterations and complete freedom to move up and down within the

                            waterfall.

                             

                            So I read the paper, "Managing The Development of Large Software

                            Systems" which is available in the Session 9 ISCE ACM archives. Dr.

                            Royce wrote the paper based on his 9 years of experience in

                            spacecraft planning, command and post-flight analysis systems. His

                            first comment was that "analysis and coding" are the essential steps

                            to an development effort "which involve genuinely creative work which

                            directly contributes to the usefulness of the final product." He then

                            goes on to undercut this by saying "Many additional development steps

                            are required, none contribute as directly to the final product as

                            analysis and coding, and all drive up the development costs."

                             

                            Dr. Royce then goes on to describe a very extensive waterfall model

                            for development. Iteration is allowed, but only "iteration with the

                            preceding and succeeding steps (phases) but rarely with more remote

                            steps in the sequence. The virtue of all of this is that as the

                            design proceeds the change process is scope DOWN to manageable

                            limits."

                             

                            Documentation - Dr. Royce, "My own view is quite a lot...the first

                            rule of managing software development is ruthless enforcement of

                            documentation requirements ... Management of software is simply

                            impossible without a very high degree of documentation." Dr. Royce

                            indicates that a 1000 page spec document is appropriate for a $5m

                            project, mostly because "a verbal record is too intangible."

                             

                            Dr Royce's paper brings forth many sound concepts, such as get a

                            formal structure, clear delineration of types of work, and roles.

                            However, his paper is the mother of all waterfalls and the mother of

                            all of the things which agile is intended to remedy. Great for the

                            time, an important step forward, but not appropriate for most

                            applications that I know about at this time.

                             

                            Ken

                             

                             

                             

                          • Adriano Comai
                            Ken, this is a concrete example of what I mean for agile . In my opinion, agile means not only small releases and timeboxing, not only frequent feedback, not
                            Message 13 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Ken,

                              this is a concrete example of what I mean for "agile".

                              In my opinion, agile means not only small releases and timeboxing, not only
                              frequent feedback, not only creativity and self organization.
                              Yes, in most cases direct communication is better than documentation (to
                              simplify a complex problem).

                              But the core of agility is: given a concrete situation, with concrete
                              constraints (as the presence of existing management reporting practices in
                              an organization), which is the best way to effectiveness, to achieve the
                              success of the project? How to overcome those constraints?

                              We are seldom in ideal situations, where all the agile practices can be used
                              without any constraint (Paul's is certainly one of these non ideal
                              situations). But we must deal with them, in the best realistic way.

                              I think most of "agile" comes simply after "experience". Of what works, of
                              what does not work.
                              Waterfall is simple, and sounds effective to those who have not had the
                              experience of its drawbacks. Now we know it's not effective, after
                              experience. After the experience of 32 years of software development, and of
                              waterfall problems, I guess Winston Royce in 2002 would not write the same
                              paper. (You are anyway right, it's nonsense to say that the 1970 paper from
                              Royce "contained many of the elements and, perhaps, even the essence of
                              agility").

                              Adriano Comai
                              www.analisi-disegno.com

                              > -----Messaggio originale-----
                              > Da: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]
                              > Inviato: venerdi 13 dicembre 2002 1.30
                              > A: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                              > Oggetto: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

                              [...]
                              > minimize the disruption. For instance, management
                              > reporting. Absolutely a difficult item to tackle. I usually recommend that
                              > existing management reporting be kept totally intact, overhead
                              > and all, and
                              > that Scrum reporting be added to it. During review meetings, review the
                              > "real" progress on the Scrum reports. Eventually, management gets
                              > comfortable with these reports AND the actual progress demonstrated at the
                              > Sprint reviews. But this is a "win them over" not "kill them with
                              > how right
                              > I am" approach. Management is threatened enough by ScrumMaster and them
                              > "helping" the teams rather than telling the teams what to do. And then we
                              > turn them out of their offices and turn the office into a team
                              > design room.
                              > Wow! That's difficult change!
                              > Ken
                            • Adriano Comai
                              Mary, thank you for this great post. You are able to put new lights upon things. Adriano Comai www.analisi-disegno.com ... Da: Mary Poppendieck
                              Message 14 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Mary,
                                 
                                thank you for this great post. You are able to put new lights upon things.
                                 

                                Adriano Comai
                                www.analisi-disegno.com

                                 
                                -----Messaggio originale-----
                                Da: Mary Poppendieck [mailto:mary@...]
                                Inviato: venerdì 13 dicembre 2002 4.50
                                A: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                Oggetto: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

                                Ken,

                                 

                                Although I agree that Winston Royce’s paper doesn’t describe an Agile process of today, I think it is not such a bad paper if you take into consideration the following:

                                 

                                1.       In figure 7, Royce proposes an early ‘simulation’ done by a small skilled team, to prove the concept.  Thus he says that a complete iteration through, testing and usage, is the most appropriate form of feedback.  He notes that going only one level up is not adequate.

                                 

                                2.       I certainly disagree with Royce on the usefulness of the extensive documentation he recommends.  But note – you can substitute tests for most of Royce’s documentation, and if you do this, the paper is not so bad.  Royce didn’t have access to the testing capability we do today, but if he did, I’ll bet most of his documentation would be changed tests in a 2003 paper.

                                 

                                3.       At least Royce admits that everything besides analysis and coding is waste. How many people have been insulted when I called all that other stuff waste!  Now I can quote Royce at them and have someone with real credibility back me up.

                                 

                                I have a suggestion that comes from product development.  In the 1980’s, product development in the US was decidedly sequential.  Nobody had a clue how to do it any other way.  You’ve got to excuse the software development writers of the time for their sequential bias – it was everywhere (in this country anyway).

                                 

                                In the late 1980’s, Kim Clark studied the product development practices of automakers world-wide.  The results are in his book “Product Development Performance” (1991) and Womack’s book “The Machine that Changed the World,” (1990). They noted that Japanese product development practices saved 1/3 in development time and 1/2 the development effort, and resulted in better products – consistently, across the industry.  They called Japanese practices concurrent development.  Most US automobile companies have moved from sequential to concurrent product development, as have many other companies.

                                 

                                Clark points out that the fundamental difference between sequential and concurrent development is the information flow between people.  It is high bandwidth, bi-directional, and concurrent (ie, information gets transferred as soon as design starts, not when its done).  The feedback provided by this approach is enormous, and accounts for the large, consistent improvement in performance.

                                 

                                I vote for a redefinition of terms:  Waterfall becomes sequential.  Agile becomes concurrent. 

                                 

                                Sequential is a true description of what is considered traditional software development, and is not a pejorative.  Concurrent captures the essential difference of Agile, especially since it requires broad communication and feedback.  (I know you said the heart of agile is creativity, but who’s to say that a sequential process has no creativity?)

                                 

                                Mary Poppendieck

                                www.poppendieck.com

                                952-934-7998

                              • Mike Cohn
                                I think the popularity of waterfall is that everything degrades into waterfall model to some extent. I ve only got one brain (and it only works half the time)
                                Message 15 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I think the popularity of waterfall is that everything degrades into
                                  waterfall model to some extent.

                                  I've only got one brain (and it only works half the time) and I've only
                                  got two hands so I just half to do things sequentially.

                                  When Boehm first introduced the spiral model (a big step toward agility
                                  at the time) it was criticized because one could "unroll the spiral" and
                                  be back at waterfall. At an extreme (perhaps at the level of a day or
                                  more likely hours) we could say Scrum is a series of waterfall
                                  activities:

                                  -Meet in the morning and chose work
                                  --talk to Product Owner and fill in missing knowledge
                                  --design it (in your head perhaps)
                                  --code it
                                  --unit test
                                  --etc.

                                  Depending on how you think about it and do it, though, these steps
                                  happen hourly, daily, or maybe month-long (the full sprint).

                                  Even a fairly extreme shift like Kent Beck's Test-Driven Development is
                                  a waterfall to some extent: find a requirement, write a test (that
                                  fails), write the code, retest, refactor. All repeated on a scale of
                                  minutes.

                                  Waterfall retains its popularity because at some level ALL other
                                  processes look like a waterfall. I hate the over-used "paradigm shift"
                                  but there really is a shift in one's thinking that has to occur before
                                  really seeing that yes, of course, things happen "sequentially" but they
                                  are also happening all at once. And the feedback from the chaotic events
                                  are influencing the activities you're just starting. I've talked with a
                                  number of managers about Scrum and they claim to get it and then
                                  implement it as a series of waterfall steps. For example, spend the
                                  first week of a sprint "refining requirements", then two weeks coding
                                  then one week testing.

                                  I've actually used this to my advantage in introducing Scrum to groups.
                                  If I have a group that thinks they "get it" but are still thinking a
                                  little too sequentially I phase Scrum in. We'll start with a
                                  "Requirements Capture Sprint" (2-4 weeks). This is just like a regular
                                  sprint but we're really after finding out more about requirements. Then
                                  we do an "Analysis and Design Sprint" (2-4 weeks). By now the team is
                                  getting into the rhythm of sprints and are starting to see
                                  self-organization and a little bit of emergence. I stress that they
                                  don't need to "finish" requirements capturing or analysis/design during
                                  those sprints, just get enough done that they're ready to code. I
                                  promise we'll do another Requirements Capture or Analysis and Design
                                  sprint later if necessary (it almost never is!). Then we start an
                                  Implementation Sprint. Finally, that's the real thing and is pretty much
                                  what Scrum is meant to be. By now the team is usually very accustomed to
                                  this way of working and the project rhythm is established. We plan to do
                                  a couple of Implementation Sprints and then another Analysis & Design
                                  Sprint and that gives them comfort. But when something comes up the team
                                  usually decides they can handle the analysis/design work within the
                                  context of an Implementation (normal) Sprint.

                                  This all works because it starts out feeling like there's a waterfall or
                                  sequentiality to the work that makes many managers feel comfortable. By
                                  the time they notice though the rug is pulled out and they're doing a
                                  little requirements, a little design, a little coding, all together at
                                  once.

                                  --Mike

                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Adriano Comai [mailto:comai@...]
                                  Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 1:51 AM
                                  To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: R: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

                                  Ken,

                                  this is a concrete example of what I mean for "agile".

                                  In my opinion, agile means not only small releases and timeboxing, not
                                  only
                                  frequent feedback, not only creativity and self organization.
                                  Yes, in most cases direct communication is better than documentation (to
                                  simplify a complex problem).

                                  But the core of agility is: given a concrete situation, with concrete
                                  constraints (as the presence of existing management reporting practices
                                  in
                                  an organization), which is the best way to effectiveness, to achieve the
                                  success of the project? How to overcome those constraints?

                                  We are seldom in ideal situations, where all the agile practices can be
                                  used
                                  without any constraint (Paul's is certainly one of these non ideal
                                  situations). But we must deal with them, in the best realistic way.

                                  I think most of "agile" comes simply after "experience". Of what works,
                                  of
                                  what does not work.
                                  Waterfall is simple, and sounds effective to those who have not had the
                                  experience of its drawbacks. Now we know it's not effective, after
                                  experience. After the experience of 32 years of software development,
                                  and of
                                  waterfall problems, I guess Winston Royce in 2002 would not write the
                                  same
                                  paper. (You are anyway right, it's nonsense to say that the 1970 paper
                                  from
                                  Royce "contained many of the elements and, perhaps, even the essence of
                                  agility").

                                  Adriano Comai
                                  www.analisi-disegno.com

                                  > -----Messaggio originale-----
                                  > Da: Ken Schwaber [mailto:ken.schwaber@...]
                                  > Inviato: venerdi 13 dicembre 2002 1.30
                                  > A: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Oggetto: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

                                  [...]
                                  > minimize the disruption. For instance, management
                                  > reporting. Absolutely a difficult item to tackle. I usually recommend
                                  that
                                  > existing management reporting be kept totally intact, overhead
                                  > and all, and
                                  > that Scrum reporting be added to it. During review meetings, review
                                  the
                                  > "real" progress on the Scrum reports. Eventually, management gets
                                  > comfortable with these reports AND the actual progress demonstrated at
                                  the
                                  > Sprint reviews. But this is a "win them over" not "kill them with
                                  > how right
                                  > I am" approach. Management is threatened enough by ScrumMaster and
                                  them
                                  > "helping" the teams rather than telling the teams what to do. And then
                                  we
                                  > turn them out of their offices and turn the office into a team
                                  > design room.
                                  > Wow! That's difficult change!
                                  > Ken



                                  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/
                                • Adriano Comai
                                  Mike, your Scrum introduction strategy is another great example of what I mean for agile . A tangible, out-of-experience way to overcome obstacles and
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Mike,

                                    your Scrum introduction strategy is another great example of what I mean for
                                    "agile". A tangible, out-of-experience way to overcome obstacles and
                                    constraints (organizational, cultural) to be effective, to avoid risks and
                                    achieve success.

                                    But. Even if it's true that every iterative process can be unrolled to seem
                                    sequential (if you look at a portion of it with a microscope), obviously the
                                    real difference with waterfall thinking is in that little statement of
                                    yours: "I stress that they don't need to "finish" requirements capturing or
                                    analysis/design during those sprints, just get enough done that they're
                                    ready to code".

                                    Adriano Comai
                                    www.analisi-disegno.com

                                    > -----Messaggio originale-----
                                    > Da: Mike Cohn [mailto:mike@...]
                                    > Inviato: sabato 14 dicembre 2002 20.48
                                    > A: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                    > Oggetto: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > I think the popularity of waterfall is that everything degrades into
                                    > waterfall model to some extent.
                                    >
                                    > I've only got one brain (and it only works half the time) and I've only
                                    > got two hands so I just half to do things sequentially.
                                    >
                                    > When Boehm first introduced the spiral model (a big step toward agility
                                    > at the time) it was criticized because one could "unroll the spiral" and
                                    > be back at waterfall. At an extreme (perhaps at the level of a day or
                                    > more likely hours) we could say Scrum is a series of waterfall
                                    > activities:
                                    >
                                    > -Meet in the morning and chose work
                                    > --talk to Product Owner and fill in missing knowledge
                                    > --design it (in your head perhaps)
                                    > --code it
                                    > --unit test
                                    > --etc.
                                    >
                                    > Depending on how you think about it and do it, though, these steps
                                    > happen hourly, daily, or maybe month-long (the full sprint).
                                    >
                                    > Even a fairly extreme shift like Kent Beck's Test-Driven Development is
                                    > a waterfall to some extent: find a requirement, write a test (that
                                    > fails), write the code, retest, refactor. All repeated on a scale of
                                    > minutes.
                                    >
                                    > Waterfall retains its popularity because at some level ALL other
                                    > processes look like a waterfall. I hate the over-used "paradigm shift"
                                    > but there really is a shift in one's thinking that has to occur before
                                    > really seeing that yes, of course, things happen "sequentially" but they
                                    > are also happening all at once. And the feedback from the chaotic events
                                    > are influencing the activities you're just starting. I've talked with a
                                    > number of managers about Scrum and they claim to get it and then
                                    > implement it as a series of waterfall steps. For example, spend the
                                    > first week of a sprint "refining requirements", then two weeks coding
                                    > then one week testing.
                                    >
                                    > I've actually used this to my advantage in introducing Scrum to groups.
                                    > If I have a group that thinks they "get it" but are still thinking a
                                    > little too sequentially I phase Scrum in. We'll start with a
                                    > "Requirements Capture Sprint" (2-4 weeks). This is just like a regular
                                    > sprint but we're really after finding out more about requirements. Then
                                    > we do an "Analysis and Design Sprint" (2-4 weeks). By now the team is
                                    > getting into the rhythm of sprints and are starting to see
                                    > self-organization and a little bit of emergence. I stress that they
                                    > don't need to "finish" requirements capturing or analysis/design during
                                    > those sprints, just get enough done that they're ready to code. I
                                    > promise we'll do another Requirements Capture or Analysis and Design
                                    > sprint later if necessary (it almost never is!). Then we start an
                                    > Implementation Sprint. Finally, that's the real thing and is pretty much
                                    > what Scrum is meant to be. By now the team is usually very accustomed to
                                    > this way of working and the project rhythm is established. We plan to do
                                    > a couple of Implementation Sprints and then another Analysis & Design
                                    > Sprint and that gives them comfort. But when something comes up the team
                                    > usually decides they can handle the analysis/design work within the
                                    > context of an Implementation (normal) Sprint.
                                    >
                                    > This all works because it starts out feeling like there's a waterfall or
                                    > sequentiality to the work that makes many managers feel comfortable. By
                                    > the time they notice though the rug is pulled out and they're doing a
                                    > little requirements, a little design, a little coding, all together at
                                    > once.
                                    >
                                    > --Mike
                                  • Mike Cohn
                                    Absolutely, Adriano. A problem though is that many people are so used to thinking that they do need to finish (or get 90% finished) that they are uncomfortable
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Absolutely, Adriano. A problem though is that many people are so used to
                                      thinking that they do need to finish (or get 90% finished) that they are
                                      uncomfortable making a conscious decision to change that way of working.
                                      I used the sprint types to subtly show them that they can move more
                                      toward doing it all simultaneously.

                                      --Mike

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Adriano Comai [mailto:comai@...]
                                      Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 1:31 PM
                                      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: R: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

                                      Mike,

                                      your Scrum introduction strategy is another great example of what I mean
                                      for
                                      "agile". A tangible, out-of-experience way to overcome obstacles and
                                      constraints (organizational, cultural) to be effective, to avoid risks
                                      and
                                      achieve success.

                                      But. Even if it's true that every iterative process can be unrolled to
                                      seem
                                      sequential (if you look at a portion of it with a microscope), obviously
                                      the
                                      real difference with waterfall thinking is in that little statement of
                                      yours: "I stress that they don't need to "finish" requirements capturing
                                      or
                                      analysis/design during those sprints, just get enough done that they're
                                      ready to code".

                                      Adriano Comai
                                      www.analisi-disegno.com

                                      > -----Messaggio originale-----
                                      > Da: Mike Cohn [mailto:mike@...]
                                      > Inviato: sabato 14 dicembre 2002 20.48
                                      > A: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                      > Oggetto: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > I think the popularity of waterfall is that everything degrades into
                                      > waterfall model to some extent.
                                      >
                                      > I've only got one brain (and it only works half the time) and I've
                                      only
                                      > got two hands so I just half to do things sequentially.
                                      >
                                      > When Boehm first introduced the spiral model (a big step toward
                                      agility
                                      > at the time) it was criticized because one could "unroll the spiral"
                                      and
                                      > be back at waterfall. At an extreme (perhaps at the level of a day or
                                      > more likely hours) we could say Scrum is a series of waterfall
                                      > activities:
                                      >
                                      > -Meet in the morning and chose work
                                      > --talk to Product Owner and fill in missing knowledge
                                      > --design it (in your head perhaps)
                                      > --code it
                                      > --unit test
                                      > --etc.
                                      >
                                      > Depending on how you think about it and do it, though, these steps
                                      > happen hourly, daily, or maybe month-long (the full sprint).
                                      >
                                      > Even a fairly extreme shift like Kent Beck's Test-Driven Development
                                      is
                                      > a waterfall to some extent: find a requirement, write a test (that
                                      > fails), write the code, retest, refactor. All repeated on a scale of
                                      > minutes.
                                      >
                                      > Waterfall retains its popularity because at some level ALL other
                                      > processes look like a waterfall. I hate the over-used "paradigm shift"
                                      > but there really is a shift in one's thinking that has to occur before
                                      > really seeing that yes, of course, things happen "sequentially" but
                                      they
                                      > are also happening all at once. And the feedback from the chaotic
                                      events
                                      > are influencing the activities you're just starting. I've talked with
                                      a
                                      > number of managers about Scrum and they claim to get it and then
                                      > implement it as a series of waterfall steps. For example, spend the
                                      > first week of a sprint "refining requirements", then two weeks coding
                                      > then one week testing.
                                      >
                                      > I've actually used this to my advantage in introducing Scrum to
                                      groups.
                                      > If I have a group that thinks they "get it" but are still thinking a
                                      > little too sequentially I phase Scrum in. We'll start with a
                                      > "Requirements Capture Sprint" (2-4 weeks). This is just like a regular
                                      > sprint but we're really after finding out more about requirements.
                                      Then
                                      > we do an "Analysis and Design Sprint" (2-4 weeks). By now the team is
                                      > getting into the rhythm of sprints and are starting to see
                                      > self-organization and a little bit of emergence. I stress that they
                                      > don't need to "finish" requirements capturing or analysis/design
                                      during
                                      > those sprints, just get enough done that they're ready to code. I
                                      > promise we'll do another Requirements Capture or Analysis and Design
                                      > sprint later if necessary (it almost never is!). Then we start an
                                      > Implementation Sprint. Finally, that's the real thing and is pretty
                                      much
                                      > what Scrum is meant to be. By now the team is usually very accustomed
                                      to
                                      > this way of working and the project rhythm is established. We plan to
                                      do
                                      > a couple of Implementation Sprints and then another Analysis & Design
                                      > Sprint and that gives them comfort. But when something comes up the
                                      team
                                      > usually decides they can handle the analysis/design work within the
                                      > context of an Implementation (normal) Sprint.
                                      >
                                      > This all works because it starts out feeling like there's a waterfall
                                      or
                                      > sequentiality to the work that makes many managers feel comfortable.
                                      By
                                      > the time they notice though the rug is pulled out and they're doing a
                                      > little requirements, a little design, a little coding, all together at
                                      > once.
                                      >
                                      > --Mike


                                      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/
                                    • Martin Fowler
                                      ... I often say that the only problem with waterfalls is when they are too large. It s reasonable to kayak the Rogue River, it isn t wise to Kayak over Niagara
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Mike Cohn wrote:
                                        > I think the popularity of waterfall is that everything degrades into
                                        > waterfall model to some extent.

                                        > Even a fairly extreme shift like Kent Beck's Test-Driven Development is
                                        > a waterfall to some extent: find a requirement, write a test (that
                                        > fails), write the code, retest, refactor. All repeated on a scale of
                                        > minutes.
                                        >

                                        I often say that the only problem with waterfalls is when they are too
                                        large. It's reasonable to kayak the Rogue River, it isn't wise to Kayak
                                        over Niagara Falls

                                        Martin
                                      • Mike Cohn
                                        Great example! -Mike ... From: Martin Fowler [mailto:mfowlerlists@thoughtworks.net] Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:24 PM To:
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Great example!

                                          -Mike

                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: Martin Fowler [mailto:mfowlerlists@...]
                                          Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:24 PM
                                          To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce



                                          Mike Cohn wrote:
                                          > I think the popularity of waterfall is that everything degrades into
                                          > waterfall model to some extent.

                                          > Even a fairly extreme shift like Kent Beck's Test-Driven Development
                                          is
                                          > a waterfall to some extent: find a requirement, write a test (that
                                          > fails), write the code, retest, refactor. All repeated on a scale of
                                          > minutes.
                                          >

                                          I often say that the only problem with waterfalls is when they are too
                                          large. It's reasonable to kayak the Rogue River, it isn't wise to Kayak
                                          over Niagara Falls

                                          Martin


                                          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/
                                        • Robert Henley
                                          ... Which is exactly the point of lean production: small lot sizes work better. And an excellent example; I laughed out loud. Thank you! Robert Henley Software
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Martin Fowler wrote:

                                            > I often say that the only problem with waterfalls is when they are too
                                            > large. It's reasonable to kayak the Rogue River, it isn't wise to Kayak
                                            > over Niagara Falls

                                            Which is exactly the point of lean production: small lot sizes work better.
                                            And an excellent example; I laughed out loud. Thank you!
                                            Robert Henley
                                            Software Architect & Engineer
                                          • Kevin McIntosh
                                            I m sure you couldn t convince this guy that going over Niagara Falls is such a bad idea... http://www.taoberman.com/
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Dec 15, 2002
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I'm sure you couldn't convince this guy that going over Niagara Falls is such a bad idea...
                                               
                                              http://www.taoberman.com/ <---- Nothing to do with PM.
                                               
                                              -Kevin.
                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: Robert Henley [mailto:rhenley@...]
                                              Sent: Sunday, 15 December 2002 2:44 PM
                                              To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

                                              Martin Fowler wrote:

                                              > I often say that the only problem with waterfalls is when they are too
                                              > large. It's reasonable to kayak the Rogue River, it isn't wise to Kayak
                                              > over Niagara Falls

                                              Which is exactly the point of lean production: small lot sizes work better.
                                              And an excellent example; I laughed out loud. Thank you!
                                              Robert Henley
                                              Software Architect & Engineer


                                              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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.