Re: R: R: [scrumdevelopment] Scrum and RUP
- I was very surprised when I read Krutchen's Rational Unified Process
and continued my surprise with Larman's Applying UML and Patterns.
When you read these books it sounds like RUP (or UP) applied
correctly _is_ iterative and non-linear. Given all the heads down,
high ceremony RUP implementations I have seen I almost couldn't
believe they were talking about the Unified Process. But they are.
Furthermore, talk to some Rational folks, and they'll mostly tell
you RUP should be done in an agile way.
Why it doesn't seem to happen isn't a myster either - just need to
step back and think. RUP is expensive so it's adoption is usually
mandated from above. "Here, buy these tools and use them." Now,
we're no longer low ceremony because we have a lot of tools we've
been mandated to use. Also, it's more acceptable to over-use in
this culture than underuse -- "I used the tools and it didn't work"
(like that makes any difference).
I'm not saying I like RUP over Scrum or XP, but there are almost 2
different kinds of RUP - 1) high ceremony, linear RUP that doesn't
work and 2) agile, iterative RUP that can work.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Adriano Comai"
> > But RUP is an iterative process articulated in a well definedSEQUENCE of
> > activities.defined
> that's simply not true, believe me. Or, please, show me this well
> sequence. I've never found it. In RUP there are only _examples_ ofidea worth
> workflows, and it is explicitly written that they are _examples_.
> Adriano Comai
> > -----Messaggio originale-----
> > Da: Marco Abis [mailto:abis@a...]
> > Inviato: martedi 14 gennaio 2003 10.39
> > A: email@example.com
> > Oggetto: RE: R: [scrumdevelopment] Scrum and RUP
> > Dear Raul,
> > I think we need to remember what Ken wrote in the first
> > mail of this thread:
> > "Let us hypothesize that having a Scrum plug-in for RUP is an
> > pursuing. Then I have the following questions:it's "soul?"
> > 1. How good was the effort at the XP plug-in. Does it help or
> > hurt? Did the
> > greater distribution cause the essence of XP to be more widely
> > distributed,
> > or did the translation of XP into RUP cause XP to lose
> > 2. Given the meta model of a process within Rose, that is usedto generate
> > RUP, how can an agile process be effectively described? Themodels of
> > processes that we used in our process management software alwaysrevolved
> > around hierarchies or tasks, with the lowest level tasks havingestimates,
> > roles, inputs, outputs, techniques and task descriptions. And,of course,
> > each of the roles, techniques, inputs, and outputs were furtherdescribed.
> > Is this type of metaphor appropriate for agile processes, or doesproject,for "hands-off"
> > this level
> > of delineation lead to them being fodder for M/S
> > management, and for robotic tracking of plans while ignoringrealities?
> > 3. If the first two questions are adequately addressed, what iscommercial
> > our best way
> > to proceed with the effort?"
> > It seems to me you are identifing RUP and UML. RUP is the
> > implementation of the Unified Process by Rational (it's acourse
> > product) while UML,
> > you know, is 'just' a language used to represent (mainly)
> > software systems.
> > Drawing an UML diagram doesn't mean using RUP (neither UP). Of
> > implementing RUP imply the use of UML.SEQUENCE of
> > If you find a UML diagram useful to add some sort of value to
> > your effort then
> > use it! :-)
> > But RUP is an iterative process articulated in a well defined
> > activities.accept the
> > This is the point IMHO: RUP is a flow while agile approaches
> > non-linearity and unpredictability of the events. They are basedScrum
> > on different
> > principles and practices are instantiation of these principles.
> > Ken question was about the usefulness (or not) of a Scrum plug-in
> > for RUP (the
> > 'RUP product' is a web-site full of guidelines, templates, etc,
> > etc you can
> > customize).
> > IMHO you can of course write a Scrum Plug-in for RUP and it will
> > help those
> > using it (as Adriano wrote: 'Scrum does not need RUP. RUP needs
> > practices to be effective') but I think 'the translation ofScrum into RUP
> > will cause Scrum to lose it's "soul?"'discipline in
> > Best regards :-)
> > > I think Scrum practices can replace the Project Management
> > > RUP and at least in this sense can drive the other disciplinesin the
> > > right way, not only more effective, more light ( including inthe
> > > backlog sprint only the activities that adds value) but moreagile too.
> > > If we really think we must draw a UML diagram, because itreally adds
> > > value for this sprint or for documenting the system, we followthis in
> > > the scrum meetings, making the team collaborative withcompleting the
> > > artifact. I do not understand why we cannot say it is moreagile.
> > >
> > > Raul Fernandez
> > Marco Abis - CEO & Chairman
> > Agility SPI: Software Process Improvement
> > abis@a... - abis@a...
> > http://agilemovement.it