Home » Archived » EPF » Roles
|
| Re: Roles [message #40834 is a reply to message #40587] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 21:22  |
 Ricardo Balduino
Messages: 191
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Roman,
OpenUP emphasizes the importance of collaboration between all the parties
involved: team, PM, stakeholders.
For example, all the tasks where the PM is the primary performer, all the
other roles participate as additional performers (I'm using the meta-model
terms here, but in other words it means the PM is responsible for leading
the tasks and creating the artifacts, but things are accomplished due to the
PM collaboration with the team and stakeholders, who help the PM to make
decisions). You see this kind of collaboration pattern in other tasks
performed by other roles too.
The main responsibility of the PM in OpenUP is to coach the team and drive
(thus the correlation with accountability) the outcome of the project.
Again, driving, being accountable for and taking the lead (by coaching) do
not mean doing by himself/herself - it assumes a collaborative approach is
in place.
I hope it clarifies. Any comments?
Ricardo Balduino.
"Roman Smirak" <roman.smirak@tietoenator.com> wrote in message
news:fcg34k$gjk$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hi,
>
> OpenUP defines roles in traditional fashion, so to say. E.g. PM:
> accountable for the outcome of the project. There is a conflict with an
> intent of Agile methods like Scrum to avoid traditional solo-guy pushing
> the others (you know the story), isn't there?
>
> Could you please share the "train of though" behind your decision to
> stick to traditional way? (It doesn't work in Scrum, I missed something,
> It is easier to transition from traditional to agile, ...?)
>
>
> Thanks a lot,
>
> Roman
>
|
|
|
| Re: Roles [message #583343 is a reply to message #40587] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 21:22 |
Ricardo Balduino
Messages: 191
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Roman,
OpenUP emphasizes the importance of collaboration between all the parties
involved: team, PM, stakeholders.
For example, all the tasks where the PM is the primary performer, all the
other roles participate as additional performers (I'm using the meta-model
terms here, but in other words it means the PM is responsible for leading
the tasks and creating the artifacts, but things are accomplished due to the
PM collaboration with the team and stakeholders, who help the PM to make
decisions). You see this kind of collaboration pattern in other tasks
performed by other roles too.
The main responsibility of the PM in OpenUP is to coach the team and drive
(thus the correlation with accountability) the outcome of the project.
Again, driving, being accountable for and taking the lead (by coaching) do
not mean doing by himself/herself - it assumes a collaborative approach is
in place.
I hope it clarifies. Any comments?
Ricardo Balduino.
"Roman Smirak" <roman.smirak@tietoenator.com> wrote in message
news:fcg34k$gjk$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hi,
>
> OpenUP defines roles in traditional fashion, so to say. E.g. PM:
> accountable for the outcome of the project. There is a conflict with an
> intent of Agile methods like Scrum to avoid traditional solo-guy pushing
> the others (you know the story), isn't there?
>
> Could you please share the "train of though" behind your decision to
> stick to traditional way? (It doesn't work in Scrum, I missed something,
> It is easier to transition from traditional to agile, ...?)
>
>
> Thanks a lot,
>
> Roman
>
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 26 16:41:12 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03762 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
