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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

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

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

      -- Paul


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

      =====
      ==Paul

      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
      http://mailplus.yahoo.com
    • Mike Cohn
      Good luck with the change, Paul. There is a lot of material at www.agilealliance.com/articles that can help. There are articles on transitioning and there are
      Message 2 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
        Good luck with the change, Paul.

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

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

        -Mike

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

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

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

        -- Paul


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

        =====
        ==Paul

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

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

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • Ken Schwaber
        Paul, Let the group know where you re located and maybe someone can come in and help you, such as give a presentation, talk throught the benefits and
        Message 3 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
          Paul,
          Let the group know where you're located and maybe someone can come in and
          help you, such as give a presentation, talk throught the benefits and
          implementation details, minimize the disruption. For instance, management
          reporting. Absolutely a difficult item to tackle. I usually recommend that
          existing management reporting be kept totally intact, overhead and all, and
          that Scrum reporting be added to it. During review meetings, review the
          "real" progress on the Scrum reports. Eventually, management gets
          comfortable with these reports AND the actual progress demonstrated at the
          Sprint reviews. But this is a "win them over" not "kill them with how right
          I am" approach. Management is threatened enough by ScrumMaster and them
          "helping" the teams rather than telling the teams what to do. And then we
          turn them out of their offices and turn the office into a team design room.
          Wow! That's difficult change!
          Ken

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


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

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

          -- Paul


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

          =====
          ==Paul

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

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

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • Mike Beedle
          ... Mike Cohn wrote: Here s an interesting bit of math though that shows that if the $23 million project was managed via Scrum it could end up with 1000
          Message 4 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
            --- Mike Cohn <mike@...> wrote:
            Mike Cohn wrote:
            Here's an interesting bit of math though that shows
            that if the $23<BR>
            million project was managed via Scrum it could end up
            with 1000 pages.<BR>
            Let's assume 200 people on the project for 12 months.
            200 people would<BR>
            be roughly 25 scrum teams. Each month each scrum team
            produces a sprint<BR>
            backlog (a list of "requirements" they'll
            fulfill that sprint). That's<BR>
            13 sprints/year times 25 teams or 325 individual
            sprints. If each sprint<BR>
            kept it's sprint backlog (for any of a variety of
            reasons) and one page<BR>
            summarizing the results of the sprint and one other
            page we'd have 975<BR>
            pages!!<BR>
            <BR>
            -Mike<BR>
            <BR>
            1 page x 100 x 12<BR>
            <BR>


            Mike:

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

            To be able to do that you need:

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

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

            - Mike
          • Mike Cohn
            Absolutely, Absolutly! And even using the example I gave we d only get 75 pages of paper per month for a 200 person team. -Mike ... From: Mike Beedle
            Message 5 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002
              Absolutely, Absolutly!

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

              -Mike

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


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


              Mike:

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

              To be able to do that you need:

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

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

              - Mike








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

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • Mary Poppendieck
              Ken, Although I agree that Winston Royce s paper doesn t describe an Agile process of today, I think it is not such a bad paper if you take into consideration
              Message 6 of 24 , Dec 12, 2002

                Ken,

                 

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

                 

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

                 

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

                 

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

                 

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

                 

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

                 

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

                 

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

                 

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

                 

                Mary Poppendieck

                www.poppendieck.com

                952-934-7998

                 

                 

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

                Subject: Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce

                 

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

                community were taken to task for not learning from history.

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

                between prior delopment processes and agile processes. We were

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

                since the previous efforts contained many of the elements and,

                perhaps, even the essence of agility.

                 

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

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

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

                emergence, collaboration were important supports, but without the

                creativity, agile

                loses its heart.

                 

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

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

                implemented numerous waterfall methodologies, including SADM, SSDM,

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

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

                these were improper implementations of the paper that Dr. Winston

                Royce published in 1970, which included such agile mechanisms as

                iterations and complete freedom to move up and down within the

                waterfall.

                 

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

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

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

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

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

                to an development effort "which involve genuinely creative work which

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

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

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

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

                 

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

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

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

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

                design proceeds the change process is scope DOWN to manageable

                limits."

                 

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

                rule of managing software development is ruthless enforcement of

                documentation requirements ... Management of software is simply

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

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

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

                 

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

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

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

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

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

                applications that I know about at this time.

                 

                Ken

                 

                 

                 

              • Adriano Comai
                Ken, this is a concrete example of what I mean for agile . In my opinion, agile means not only small releases and timeboxing, not only frequent feedback, not
                Message 7 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                  Ken,

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

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

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

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

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

                  Adriano Comai
                  www.analisi-disegno.com

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

                  [...]
                  > minimize the disruption. For instance, management
                  > reporting. Absolutely a difficult item to tackle. I usually recommend that
                  > existing management reporting be kept totally intact, overhead
                  > and all, and
                  > that Scrum reporting be added to it. During review meetings, review the
                  > "real" progress on the Scrum reports. Eventually, management gets
                  > comfortable with these reports AND the actual progress demonstrated at the
                  > Sprint reviews. But this is a "win them over" not "kill them with
                  > how right
                  > I am" approach. Management is threatened enough by ScrumMaster and them
                  > "helping" the teams rather than telling the teams what to do. And then we
                  > turn them out of their offices and turn the office into a team
                  > design room.
                  > Wow! That's difficult change!
                  > Ken
                • Adriano Comai
                  Mary, thank you for this great post. You are able to put new lights upon things. Adriano Comai www.analisi-disegno.com ... Da: Mary Poppendieck
                  Message 8 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                    Mary,
                     
                    thank you for this great post. You are able to put new lights upon things.
                     

                    Adriano Comai
                    www.analisi-disegno.com

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

                    Ken,

                     

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

                     

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

                     

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

                     

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

                     

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

                     

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

                     

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

                     

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

                     

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

                     

                    Mary Poppendieck

                    www.poppendieck.com

                    952-934-7998

                  • Mike Cohn
                    I think the popularity of waterfall is that everything degrades into waterfall model to some extent. I ve only got one brain (and it only works half the time)
                    Message 9 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                      I think the popularity of waterfall is that everything degrades into
                      waterfall model to some extent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      --Mike

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

                      Ken,

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

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

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

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

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

                      Adriano Comai
                      www.analisi-disegno.com

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

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



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

                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    • Adriano Comai
                      Mike, your Scrum introduction strategy is another great example of what I mean for agile . A tangible, out-of-experience way to overcome obstacles and
                      Message 10 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                        Mike,

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

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

                        Adriano Comai
                        www.analisi-disegno.com

                        > -----Messaggio originale-----
                        > Da: Mike Cohn [mailto:mike@...]
                        > Inviato: sabato 14 dicembre 2002 20.48
                        > A: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                        > Oggetto: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce
                        >
                        >
                        > I think the popularity of waterfall is that everything degrades into
                        > waterfall model to some extent.
                        >
                        > I've only got one brain (and it only works half the time) and I've only
                        > got two hands so I just half to do things sequentially.
                        >
                        > When Boehm first introduced the spiral model (a big step toward agility
                        > at the time) it was criticized because one could "unroll the spiral" and
                        > be back at waterfall. At an extreme (perhaps at the level of a day or
                        > more likely hours) we could say Scrum is a series of waterfall
                        > activities:
                        >
                        > -Meet in the morning and chose work
                        > --talk to Product Owner and fill in missing knowledge
                        > --design it (in your head perhaps)
                        > --code it
                        > --unit test
                        > --etc.
                        >
                        > Depending on how you think about it and do it, though, these steps
                        > happen hourly, daily, or maybe month-long (the full sprint).
                        >
                        > Even a fairly extreme shift like Kent Beck's Test-Driven Development is
                        > a waterfall to some extent: find a requirement, write a test (that
                        > fails), write the code, retest, refactor. All repeated on a scale of
                        > minutes.
                        >
                        > Waterfall retains its popularity because at some level ALL other
                        > processes look like a waterfall. I hate the over-used "paradigm shift"
                        > but there really is a shift in one's thinking that has to occur before
                        > really seeing that yes, of course, things happen "sequentially" but they
                        > are also happening all at once. And the feedback from the chaotic events
                        > are influencing the activities you're just starting. I've talked with a
                        > number of managers about Scrum and they claim to get it and then
                        > implement it as a series of waterfall steps. For example, spend the
                        > first week of a sprint "refining requirements", then two weeks coding
                        > then one week testing.
                        >
                        > I've actually used this to my advantage in introducing Scrum to groups.
                        > If I have a group that thinks they "get it" but are still thinking a
                        > little too sequentially I phase Scrum in. We'll start with a
                        > "Requirements Capture Sprint" (2-4 weeks). This is just like a regular
                        > sprint but we're really after finding out more about requirements. Then
                        > we do an "Analysis and Design Sprint" (2-4 weeks). By now the team is
                        > getting into the rhythm of sprints and are starting to see
                        > self-organization and a little bit of emergence. I stress that they
                        > don't need to "finish" requirements capturing or analysis/design during
                        > those sprints, just get enough done that they're ready to code. I
                        > promise we'll do another Requirements Capture or Analysis and Design
                        > sprint later if necessary (it almost never is!). Then we start an
                        > Implementation Sprint. Finally, that's the real thing and is pretty much
                        > what Scrum is meant to be. By now the team is usually very accustomed to
                        > this way of working and the project rhythm is established. We plan to do
                        > a couple of Implementation Sprints and then another Analysis & Design
                        > Sprint and that gives them comfort. But when something comes up the team
                        > usually decides they can handle the analysis/design work within the
                        > context of an Implementation (normal) Sprint.
                        >
                        > This all works because it starts out feeling like there's a waterfall or
                        > sequentiality to the work that makes many managers feel comfortable. By
                        > the time they notice though the rug is pulled out and they're doing a
                        > little requirements, a little design, a little coding, all together at
                        > once.
                        >
                        > --Mike
                      • Mike Cohn
                        Absolutely, Adriano. A problem though is that many people are so used to thinking that they do need to finish (or get 90% finished) that they are uncomfortable
                        Message 11 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                          Absolutely, Adriano. A problem though is that many people are so used to
                          thinking that they do need to finish (or get 90% finished) that they are
                          uncomfortable making a conscious decision to change that way of working.
                          I used the sprint types to subtly show them that they can move more
                          toward doing it all simultaneously.

                          --Mike

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

                          Mike,

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

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

                          Adriano Comai
                          www.analisi-disegno.com

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


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

                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        • Martin Fowler
                          ... I often say that the only problem with waterfalls is when they are too large. It s reasonable to kayak the Rogue River, it isn t wise to Kayak over Niagara
                          Message 12 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                            Mike Cohn wrote:
                            > I think the popularity of waterfall is that everything degrades into
                            > waterfall model to some extent.

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

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

                            Martin
                          • Mike Cohn
                            Great example! -Mike ... From: Martin Fowler [mailto:mfowlerlists@thoughtworks.net] Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:24 PM To:
                            Message 13 of 24 , Dec 14, 2002
                              Great example!

                              -Mike

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



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

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

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

                              Martin


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

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

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

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

                                  Martin Fowler wrote:

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

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


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


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