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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

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      writing something that is going to go out of date the moment the first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

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


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

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

      =====
      ==Paul

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

      To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • David J. Anderson
      Still kidding for a moment - 1000 pages for a $23MM project would still be OK. Now to deal with the real beast of Waterfall and why it remains popular. I think
      Message 2 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Still kidding for a moment - 1000 pages for a $23MM
        project would still be OK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        David


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

        <HR>
        <html><body>


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


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

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

        </body></html>



        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
        http://mailplus.yahoo.com
      • Mike Cohn
        I suspect documentation would be critical to a $23M project and that it s easy to see how 1000 pages of *documents* get produced. However, I m talking about
        Message 3 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I suspect documentation would be critical to a $23M project and that
          it's easy to see how 1000 pages of *documents* get produced. However,
          I'm talking about after-the-fact documents not upfront specs. On a
          project of that size there are going to be many groups each proceeding
          in their own agile way (we hope) but all the work of all teams (and all
          500 programmers) will not get "continuously integrated" into one unit.
          There will be some after the fact documents written ("here's how to use
          the API we discussed") and such.

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

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

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

          -Mike

          1 page x 100 x 12



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

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

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


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

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

          =====
          ==Paul

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

          To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
          To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




          To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
          To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • Paul
          Well, I plan to attempt it. I ll definatly need help from you guys. I do work for a fortune 500 company. Our ways are bad for the new economy. My last
          Message 4 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Well, I plan to attempt it. I'll definatly need help
            from you guys. I do work for a fortune 500 company.
            Our ways are bad for the new economy.
            My last position there the manager had a waterfall
            dream, and just kept pushing more documenting and more
            docmenting until I got fed up and left. There had to
            be documentation for HTML web pages. I really like
            the point of documentation as a tool for the team to
            do it's work, and nothing more. But the QA dept.
            wanted to put them in nice binders on the shelf so
            that any time a program was changed, the corresponding
            documentation would also need changed and refiled in
            the binders. After pulling out most of my hair, I had
            to leave the department.

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

            -- Paul


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

            =====
            ==Paul

            __________________________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
            http://mailplus.yahoo.com
          • Mike Cohn
            Good luck with the change, Paul. There is a lot of material at www.agilealliance.com/articles that can help. There are articles on transitioning and there are
            Message 5 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Good luck with the change, Paul.

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

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

              -Mike

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

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

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

              -- Paul


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

              =====
              ==Paul

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

              To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
              To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • Ken Schwaber
              Paul, Let the group know where you re located and maybe someone can come in and help you, such as give a presentation, talk throught the benefits and
              Message 6 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Paul,
                Let the group know where you're located and maybe someone can come in and
                help you, such as give a presentation, talk throught the benefits and
                implementation details, minimize the disruption. For instance, management
                reporting. Absolutely a difficult item to tackle. I usually recommend that
                existing management reporting be kept totally intact, overhead and all, and
                that Scrum reporting be added to it. During review meetings, review the
                "real" progress on the Scrum reports. Eventually, management gets
                comfortable with these reports AND the actual progress demonstrated at the
                Sprint reviews. But this is a "win them over" not "kill them with how right
                I am" approach. Management is threatened enough by ScrumMaster and them
                "helping" the teams rather than telling the teams what to do. And then we
                turn them out of their offices and turn the office into a team design room.
                Wow! That's difficult change!
                Ken

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


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

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

                -- Paul


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

                =====
                ==Paul

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

                To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • Mike Beedle
                ... Mike Cohn wrote: Here s an interesting bit of math though that shows that if the $23 million project was managed via Scrum it could end up with 1000
                Message 7 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- Mike Cohn <mike@...> wrote:
                  Mike Cohn wrote:
                  Here's an interesting bit of math though that shows
                  that if the $23<BR>
                  million project was managed via Scrum it could end up
                  with 1000 pages.<BR>
                  Let's assume 200 people on the project for 12 months.
                  200 people would<BR>
                  be roughly 25 scrum teams. Each month each scrum team
                  produces a sprint<BR>
                  backlog (a list of "requirements" they'll
                  fulfill that sprint). That's<BR>
                  13 sprints/year times 25 teams or 325 individual
                  sprints. If each sprint<BR>
                  kept it's sprint backlog (for any of a variety of
                  reasons) and one page<BR>
                  summarizing the results of the sprint and one other
                  page we'd have 975<BR>
                  pages!!<BR>
                  <BR>
                  -Mike<BR>
                  <BR>
                  1 page x 100 x 12<BR>
                  <BR>


                  Mike:

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

                  To be able to do that you need:

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

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

                  - Mike
                • Mike Cohn
                  Absolutely, Absolutly! And even using the example I gave we d only get 75 pages of paper per month for a 200 person team. -Mike ... From: Mike Beedle
                  Message 8 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Absolutely, Absolutly!

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

                    -Mike

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


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


                    Mike:

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

                    To be able to do that you need:

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

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

                    - Mike








                    To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                    scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • Mary Poppendieck
                    Ken, Although I agree that Winston Royce s paper doesn t describe an Agile process of today, I think it is not such a bad paper if you take into consideration
                    Message 9 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Ken,

                       

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

                       

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

                       

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

                       

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

                       

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

                       

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

                       

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

                       

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

                       

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

                       

                      Mary Poppendieck

                      www.poppendieck.com

                      952-934-7998

                       

                       

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

                      Subject: Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

                       

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

                      community were taken to task for not learning from history.

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

                      between prior delopment processes and agile processes. We were

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

                      since the previous efforts contained many of the elements and,

                      perhaps, even the essence of agility.

                       

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

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

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

                      emergence, collaboration were important supports, but without the

                      creativity, agile

                      loses its heart.

                       

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

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

                      implemented numerous waterfall methodologies, including SADM, SSDM,

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

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

                      these were improper implementations of the paper that Dr. Winston

                      Royce published in 1970, which included such agile mechanisms as

                      iterations and complete freedom to move up and down within the

                      waterfall.

                       

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

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

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

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

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

                      to an development effort "which involve genuinely creative work which

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

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

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

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

                       

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

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

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

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

                      design proceeds the change process is scope DOWN to manageable

                      limits."

                       

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

                      rule of managing software development is ruthless enforcement of

                      documentation requirements ... Management of software is simply

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

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

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

                       

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

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

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

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

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

                      applications that I know about at this time.

                       

                      Ken

                       

                       

                       

                    • Adriano Comai
                      Ken, this is a concrete example of what I mean for agile . In my opinion, agile means not only small releases and timeboxing, not only frequent feedback, not
                      Message 10 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ken,

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

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

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

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

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

                        Adriano Comai
                        www.analisi-disegno.com

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

                        [...]
                        > minimize the disruption. For instance, management
                        > reporting. Absolutely a difficult item to tackle. I usually recommend that
                        > existing management reporting be kept totally intact, overhead
                        > and all, and
                        > that Scrum reporting be added to it. During review meetings, review the
                        > "real" progress on the Scrum reports. Eventually, management gets
                        > comfortable with these reports AND the actual progress demonstrated at the
                        > Sprint reviews. But this is a "win them over" not "kill them with
                        > how right
                        > I am" approach. Management is threatened enough by ScrumMaster and them
                        > "helping" the teams rather than telling the teams what to do. And then we
                        > turn them out of their offices and turn the office into a team
                        > design room.
                        > Wow! That's difficult change!
                        > Ken
                      • Adriano Comai
                        Mary, thank you for this great post. You are able to put new lights upon things. Adriano Comai www.analisi-disegno.com ... Da: Mary Poppendieck
                        Message 11 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mary,
                           
                          thank you for this great post. You are able to put new lights upon things.
                           

                          Adriano Comai
                          www.analisi-disegno.com

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

                          Ken,

                           

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

                           

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

                           

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

                           

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

                           

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

                           

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

                           

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

                           

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

                           

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

                           

                          Mary Poppendieck

                          www.poppendieck.com

                          952-934-7998

                        • Mike Cohn
                          I think the popularity of waterfall is that everything degrades into waterfall model to some extent. I ve only got one brain (and it only works half the time)
                          Message 12 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I think the popularity of waterfall is that everything degrades into
                            waterfall model to some extent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                            --Mike

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

                            Ken,

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

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

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

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

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

                            Adriano Comai
                            www.analisi-disegno.com

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

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



                            To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                            To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                            scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          • Adriano Comai
                            Mike, your Scrum introduction strategy is another great example of what I mean for agile . A tangible, out-of-experience way to overcome obstacles and
                            Message 13 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Mike,

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

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

                              Adriano Comai
                              www.analisi-disegno.com

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

                                --Mike

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

                                Mike,

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

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

                                Adriano Comai
                                www.analisi-disegno.com

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


                                To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                                To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              • Martin Fowler
                                ... I often say that the only problem with waterfalls is when they are too large. It s reasonable to kayak the Rogue River, it isn t wise to Kayak over Niagara
                                Message 15 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Mike Cohn wrote:
                                  > I think the popularity of waterfall is that everything degrades into
                                  > waterfall model to some extent.

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

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

                                  Martin
                                • Mike Cohn
                                  Great example! -Mike ... From: Martin Fowler [mailto:mfowlerlists@thoughtworks.net] Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:24 PM To:
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Great example!

                                    -Mike

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



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

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

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

                                    Martin


                                    To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                                    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                    scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...

                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                  • Robert Henley
                                    ... Which is exactly the point of lean production: small lot sizes work better. And an excellent example; I laughed out loud. Thank you! Robert Henley Software
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Martin Fowler wrote:

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

                                      Which is exactly the point of lean production: small lot sizes work better.
                                      And an excellent example; I laughed out loud. Thank you!
                                      Robert Henley
                                      Software Architect & Engineer
                                    • Kevin McIntosh
                                      I m sure you couldn t convince this guy that going over Niagara Falls is such a bad idea... http://www.taoberman.com/
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Dec 15, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I'm sure you couldn't convince this guy that going over Niagara Falls is such a bad idea...
                                         
                                        http://www.taoberman.com/ <---- Nothing to do with PM.
                                         
                                        -Kevin.
                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: Robert Henley [mailto:rhenley@...]
                                        Sent: Sunday, 15 December 2002 2:44 PM
                                        To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

                                        Martin Fowler wrote:

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

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


                                        To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                                        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...


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