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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
      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 2 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
        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 3 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
          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 4 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
            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 5 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
              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 6 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
                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 7 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
                  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 8 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
                    --- 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 9 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
                      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 10 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002

                        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 11 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                          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 12 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                            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 13 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                              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 14 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                                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 15 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                                  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 16 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                                    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 17 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                                      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 18 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                                        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 19 of 24 , Dec 15, 2002
                                          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.