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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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.