Home » Archived » EPF » OpenUP Construction/Transition Phases
| OpenUP Construction/Transition Phases [message #22660] |
Tue, 07 November 2006 22:52  |
 Jim Ruehlin
Messages: 73
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
What should the state of the software be at the end of the OpenUP
Construction phase? This is currently a gray area in OpenUP. There are a
couple of different schools of thought:
* The software should be code complete, with the possible exception
of some trivial stuff that doesn't affect the beta version. In
this scenario, Transition is used to stabilize and deploy the
complete system (including training, documentation, etc).
* The software should be stable, but there can still be features to
implement. In this scenario, Transition is a way to get usable
software incrementally delivered to the customer. One place this
might be particularly useful is in lower ceremony organizations
where there's little overhead required to deploy.
An observation is that OpenUP encourages getting stable functionality
out to customers. This could just be a demo, but it could also be a
partial working system that the customer is using. If this is the case,
what's the difference between Construction and Transition? Do we
restrict deployment to Transition and declare that Construction should
only show functionality ("look but don't touch")? Or maybe Transition
can be just like Construction except that we include tasks in Transition
like writing the end-user documentation and creating training materials.
If this is the case, we need to define a milestone for Construction that
allows us to objectively measure progress.
Does anyone have any preferences or other insights?
Jim Ruehlin
jruehlin@us.ibm.com
|
|
|
| Re: OpenUP Construction/Transition Phases [message #23236 is a reply to message #22660] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 08:43  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: user.domain.invalid
I think that Teststrategy must be included in this problem.
The software needs to be ADI'd but ALSO tested so that deployment and
acceptance testing can be executed in an orderly manner. In my
experience there seldom is practical to have acceptancetesting on
"partially implemented" systems. It always ends up in a tester -
developer - manager discussion that should be avoided at all costs.
To see Construction as a staffing phase and leave ADI issues to
Transition is in my book dead wrong. A phase is a statement of
achievment. I also often hear that Construction as a phase means that no
"construction" can take place in Transition, which of course is a
misconception.
So I always recommend the first bullet as the best approach. The second
bullet should be avoided at all costs. But as ever, there are situations
where this anyway is the best practical solution.
So have first bullet as recommend and the second as deviations as
examples where the first can be tampered with.
:) Göran Rehnlund
Jim Ruehlin wrote:
> What should the state of the software be at the end of the OpenUP
> Construction phase? This is currently a gray area in OpenUP. There are a
> couple of different schools of thought:
>
> * The software should be code complete, with the possible exception
> of some trivial stuff that doesn't affect the beta version. In
> this scenario, Transition is used to stabilize and deploy the
> complete system (including training, documentation, etc).
> * The software should be stable, but there can still be features to
> implement. In this scenario, Transition is a way to get usable
> software incrementally delivered to the customer. One place this
> might be particularly useful is in lower ceremony organizations
> where there's little overhead required to deploy.
>
> An observation is that OpenUP encourages getting stable functionality
> out to customers. This could just be a demo, but it could also be a
> partial working system that the customer is using. If this is the case,
> what's the difference between Construction and Transition? Do we
> restrict deployment to Transition and declare that Construction should
> only show functionality ("look but don't touch")? Or maybe Transition
> can be just like Construction except that we include tasks in Transition
> like writing the end-user documentation and creating training materials.
> If this is the case, we need to define a milestone for Construction that
> allows us to objectively measure progress.
>
> Does anyone have any preferences or other insights?
>
> Jim Ruehlin
> jruehlin@us.ibm.com
|
|
|
| Re: OpenUP Construction/Transition Phases [message #23398 is a reply to message #22660] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 09:56 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: markjdickson.googlemail.com
Hi Jim
Good question.
I see the two choices on offer as complementary.
We can look at Transition as a stabilisation and deliver-to-customer phase.
It's also possible to have more than one Transition Iteration on a project
though, as we can go round cycles of Construction / Transition (or even
Elaboration / Construction / Transition) to introduce new features and
release further versions of the product to the user community.
We can view the amount of ceremony required as a seperate issue, more driven
by the needs of the specific project. I think OpenUP/Basic should tackle
this as a low-ceremony scenario (in keeping with the general approach in
OpenUP/Basic) and scalable through plugins.
Cheers
Mark Dickson
"Jim Ruehlin" <jruehlin@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:eir2nv$acf$1@utils.eclipse.org...
> What should the state of the software be at the end of the OpenUP
> Construction phase? This is currently a gray area in OpenUP. There are a
> couple of different schools of thought:
>
> * The software should be code complete, with the possible exception
> of some trivial stuff that doesn't affect the beta version. In
> this scenario, Transition is used to stabilize and deploy the
> complete system (including training, documentation, etc).
> * The software should be stable, but there can still be features to
> implement. In this scenario, Transition is a way to get usable
> software incrementally delivered to the customer. One place this
> might be particularly useful is in lower ceremony organizations
> where there's little overhead required to deploy.
>
> An observation is that OpenUP encourages getting stable functionality out
> to customers. This could just be a demo, but it could also be a partial
> working system that the customer is using. If this is the case, what's the
> difference between Construction and Transition? Do we restrict deployment
> to Transition and declare that Construction should only show functionality
> ("look but don't touch")? Or maybe Transition can be just like
> Construction except that we include tasks in Transition like writing the
> end-user documentation and creating training materials. If this is the
> case, we need to define a milestone for Construction that allows us to
> objectively measure progress.
>
> Does anyone have any preferences or other insights?
>
> Jim Ruehlin
> jruehlin@us.ibm.com
|
|
|
| Re: OpenUP Construction/Transition Phases [message #568119 is a reply to message #22660] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 08:43 |
user
Messages: 296
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I think that Teststrategy must be included in this problem.
The software needs to be ADI'd but ALSO tested so that deployment and
acceptance testing can be executed in an orderly manner. In my
experience there seldom is practical to have acceptancetesting on
"partially implemented" systems. It always ends up in a tester -
developer - manager discussion that should be avoided at all costs.
To see Construction as a staffing phase and leave ADI issues to
Transition is in my book dead wrong. A phase is a statement of
achievment. I also often hear that Construction as a phase means that no
"construction" can take place in Transition, which of course is a
misconception.
So I always recommend the first bullet as the best approach. The second
bullet should be avoided at all costs. But as ever, there are situations
where this anyway is the best practical solution.
So have first bullet as recommend and the second as deviations as
examples where the first can be tampered with.
:) Göran Rehnlund
Jim Ruehlin wrote:
> What should the state of the software be at the end of the OpenUP
> Construction phase? This is currently a gray area in OpenUP. There are a
> couple of different schools of thought:
>
> * The software should be code complete, with the possible exception
> of some trivial stuff that doesn't affect the beta version. In
> this scenario, Transition is used to stabilize and deploy the
> complete system (including training, documentation, etc).
> * The software should be stable, but there can still be features to
> implement. In this scenario, Transition is a way to get usable
> software incrementally delivered to the customer. One place this
> might be particularly useful is in lower ceremony organizations
> where there's little overhead required to deploy.
>
> An observation is that OpenUP encourages getting stable functionality
> out to customers. This could just be a demo, but it could also be a
> partial working system that the customer is using. If this is the case,
> what's the difference between Construction and Transition? Do we
> restrict deployment to Transition and declare that Construction should
> only show functionality ("look but don't touch")? Or maybe Transition
> can be just like Construction except that we include tasks in Transition
> like writing the end-user documentation and creating training materials.
> If this is the case, we need to define a milestone for Construction that
> allows us to objectively measure progress.
>
> Does anyone have any preferences or other insights?
>
> Jim Ruehlin
> jruehlin@us.ibm.com
|
|
|
| Re: OpenUP Construction/Transition Phases [message #568254 is a reply to message #22660] |
Sun, 12 November 2006 09:56 |
Mark Dickson
Messages: 12
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi Jim
Good question.
I see the two choices on offer as complementary.
We can look at Transition as a stabilisation and deliver-to-customer phase.
It's also possible to have more than one Transition Iteration on a project
though, as we can go round cycles of Construction / Transition (or even
Elaboration / Construction / Transition) to introduce new features and
release further versions of the product to the user community.
We can view the amount of ceremony required as a seperate issue, more driven
by the needs of the specific project. I think OpenUP/Basic should tackle
this as a low-ceremony scenario (in keeping with the general approach in
OpenUP/Basic) and scalable through plugins.
Cheers
Mark Dickson
"Jim Ruehlin" <jruehlin@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:eir2nv$acf$1@utils.eclipse.org...
> What should the state of the software be at the end of the OpenUP
> Construction phase? This is currently a gray area in OpenUP. There are a
> couple of different schools of thought:
>
> * The software should be code complete, with the possible exception
> of some trivial stuff that doesn't affect the beta version. In
> this scenario, Transition is used to stabilize and deploy the
> complete system (including training, documentation, etc).
> * The software should be stable, but there can still be features to
> implement. In this scenario, Transition is a way to get usable
> software incrementally delivered to the customer. One place this
> might be particularly useful is in lower ceremony organizations
> where there's little overhead required to deploy.
>
> An observation is that OpenUP encourages getting stable functionality out
> to customers. This could just be a demo, but it could also be a partial
> working system that the customer is using. If this is the case, what's the
> difference between Construction and Transition? Do we restrict deployment
> to Transition and declare that Construction should only show functionality
> ("look but don't touch")? Or maybe Transition can be just like
> Construction except that we include tasks in Transition like writing the
> end-user documentation and creating training materials. If this is the
> case, we need to define a milestone for Construction that allows us to
> objectively measure progress.
>
> Does anyone have any preferences or other insights?
>
> Jim Ruehlin
> jruehlin@us.ibm.com
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 26 09:41:02 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03947 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
