Eclipse Community Forums: EPF » Reference to EPF & OpenUP in Forrester Teleconference

Home » Archived » EPF » Reference to EPF & OpenUP in Forrester Teleconference

Reference to EPF & OpenUP in Forrester Teleconference [message #24264]

Tue, 21 November 2006 09:48

Eclipse User

hiho,

I was just foraging around in the Forrester site and I came across this
(free) PowerPoint presentation that goes with a teleconference that was
done in September, 2006:
http://www.forrester.com/Teleconference/Previous/Overview/1, 5158,1548,00.html

It is entitled "What's New In Application Development Processes And
Methodologies" and it mentions EPF and OpenUP.

There are some interesting nuances, though I happen to take issue with a
few parts. The author of the presentation characterizes OpenUP as being
under the RUP framework and then characterizes the RUP framework
processes as not fully agile in part because they don’t “belong to the
family of Agile processes or fully embody the principles of Agile
development”. Then there is a reference to the fact that OpenUP/Basic
is meant to be Agile, but is not because it is “tooled”.

I like to clearly describe OpenUP as conforming to the Unified Process
framework rather than any vendor branded version of the UP (i.e. UP
rather than RUP). I am not interested in whether the process belongs to
any “family”. I disagree that OpenUP does not fully embody the
principles of Agile development. I don’t believe the fact that OpenUP
can be applied by people and also viewed in HTML and tailored with EPF
Composer causes it to be any less Agile. But that’s just me.

In part I am pleased to see EPF getting visibility in the analyst
community. But I see that we have a problem in the way we are
presenting OpenUP such that people have a difficult time separating out
the process from the usage of technology for rendering or tailoring its
description. I guess we should have written a book first (or a couple
dozen books as can be found for some of the other Agile processes), and
then afterward created the downloadable web page and a tool to tailor
it. Then maybe <poof> OpenUP/Basic would be Agile.

---------------- b

Re: Reference to EPF & OpenUP in Forrester Teleconference [message #24308 is a reply to message #24264]

Tue, 21 November 2006 18:38

Eclipse User

Originally posted by: markjdickson.googlemail.com

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C70DC6.2A910020
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Brian

I share your frustration. I guess the short answer must be that we need =
to provide more material that asserts and demonstrates OpenUP's Agile =
credentials.=20

As it currently stands, Forrester's analysis of OpenUP/Basic is arguably =
quite fair. The OpenUP/Basic Vision says

"The OpenUP/Basic is an iterative software development process that is =
minimal, complete, and extensible."

Maybe it should say "The OpenUP/Basic is an agile, iterative software =
development process that is minimal, complete, and extensible." That =
would at least be a start ;-)

We could also sign up to the Agile Manifesto and the Agile Alliance. =
These small steps would at least show that OpenUP/Basic flies the Agile =
flag very clearly.

We don't agree with the "OpenUP/Basic is RUP for small projects" =
argument but that's because we are involved closely enough to understand =
the difference. So maybe our message isn't getting across clearly =
enough.

At the Cupertino meeting in April I recall suggesting that the team =
produce a short paper describing how OpenUP/Basic supports the Agile =
Manifesto and Agile Principles. I was pleasantly surprised when recently =
grazing OpenUP-related writings to find that someone has indeed written =
something along those lines. I can't seem to find it now though...

Maybe it's time we figured out what the heck those guys in Marketing do? =
:-)

cheers

Mark

"Brian Lyons" <blyons@numbersix.com> wrote in message =
news:ejv3l1$fka$1@utils.eclipse.org...
> hiho,
>=20
> I was just foraging around in the Forrester site and I came across =
this=20
> (free) PowerPoint presentation that goes with a teleconference that =
was=20
> done in September, 2006:
> =
http://www.forrester.com/Teleconference/Previous/Overview/1, 5158,1548,00.=
html=20
>=20
> It is entitled "What's New In Application Development Processes And=20
> Methodologies" and it mentions EPF and OpenUP.
>=20
> There are some interesting nuances, though I happen to take issue with =
a=20
> few parts. The author of the presentation characterizes OpenUP as =
being=20
> under the RUP framework and then characterizes the RUP framework=20
> processes as not fully agile in part because they don=92t =93belong to =
the=20
> family of Agile processes or fully embody the principles of Agile=20
> development=94. Then there is a reference to the fact that =
OpenUP/Basic=20
> is meant to be Agile, but is not because it is =93tooled=94.
>=20
> I like to clearly describe OpenUP as conforming to the Unified Process =

> framework rather than any vendor branded version of the UP (i.e. UP=20
> rather than RUP). I am not interested in whether the process belongs =
to=20
> any =93family=94. I disagree that OpenUP does not fully embody the=20
> principles of Agile development. I don=92t believe the fact that =
OpenUP=20
> can be applied by people and also viewed in HTML and tailored with EPF =

> Composer causes it to be any less Agile. But that=92s just me.
>=20
> In part I am pleased to see EPF getting visibility in the analyst=20
> community. But I see that we have a problem in the way we are=20
> presenting OpenUP such that people have a difficult time separating =
out=20
> the process from the usage of technology for rendering or tailoring =
its=20
> description. I guess we should have written a book first (or a couple =

> dozen books as can be found for some of the other Agile processes), =
and=20
> then afterward created the downloadable web page and a tool to tailor=20
> it. Then maybe <poof> OpenUP/Basic would be Agile.
>=20
> ---------------- b
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C70DC6.2A910020
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi Brian</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I share your frustration. I guess the =
short answer=20
must be that we need to provide more material that asserts and=20
demonstrates OpenUP's Agile credentials. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As it currently stands, Forrester's =
analysis of=20
OpenUP/Basic is arguably quite fair. The OpenUP/Basic <A=20
href=3D" http://www.eclipse.org/epf/openup_component/openup_vision.ph p">Vi=
sion</A>=20
says</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"The OpenUP/Basic is an iterative =
software=20
development process that is minimal, complete, and =
extensible."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Maybe it should say "The OpenUP/Basic =
is an=20
<STRONG>agile</STRONG>, iterative software development process that is =
minimal,=20
complete, and extensible." That would at least be a start =
;-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>We could also sign up to the Agile =
Manifesto and=20
the Agile Alliance. These small steps would at least show that =
OpenUP/Basic=20
flies the Agile flag very clearly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>We don't agree with the =
"OpenUP/Basic is RUP=20
for small projects" argument but that's because we are involved =
closely=20
enough to understand the difference. So maybe our message isn't getting =
across=20
clearly enough.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>At the Cupertino meeting in April I =
recall=20
suggesting that the team produce a short paper describing how =
OpenUP/Basic=20
supports the Agile Manifesto and Agile Principles. I was pleasantly =
surprised=20
when recently grazing OpenUP-related writings to find that someone =
has=20
indeed written something along those lines. I can't seem to find it now=20
though...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Maybe it's time we figured out what the =
heck those=20
guys in Marketing do? :-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>cheers</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Mark</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Brian Lyons" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:blyons@numbersix.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>blyons@numbersix.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> =
wrote in=20
message </FONT><A href=3D"news:ejv3l1$fka$1@utils.eclipse.org"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:ejv3l1$fka$1@utils.eclipse.org</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> hiho,<BR>> =
<BR>> I was=20
just foraging around in the Forrester site and I came across this =
<BR>>=20
(free) PowerPoint presentation that goes with a teleconference that was =
<BR>>=20
done in September, 2006:<BR>> </FONT><A=20
href=3D" http://www.forrester.com/Teleconference/Previous/Overview/1, 5158,=
1548,00.html"><FONT=20
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> http://www.forrester.com/Teleconference/Previous/Overview/1, 5158=
,1548,00.html</FONT></A><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2> <BR>> <BR>> It is entitled "What's New In =
Application=20
Development Processes And <BR>> Methodologies" and it mentions EPF =
and=20
OpenUP.<BR>> <BR>> There are some interesting nuances, though I =
happen to=20
take issue with a <BR>> few parts.  The author of the =
presentation=20
characterizes OpenUP as being <BR>> under the RUP framework and then=20
characterizes the RUP framework <BR>> processes as not fully agile in =
part=20
because they don=92t =93belong to the <BR>> family of Agile processes =
or fully=20
embody the principles of Agile <BR>> development=94.  Then there =
is a=20
reference to the fact that OpenUP/Basic <BR>> is meant to be Agile, =
but is=20
not because it is =93tooled=94.<BR>> <BR>> I like to clearly =
describe OpenUP=20
as conforming to the Unified Process <BR>> framework rather than any =
vendor=20
branded version of the UP (i.e. UP <BR>> rather than RUP).  I am =
not=20
interested in whether the process belongs to <BR>> any =
=93family=94.  I=20
disagree that OpenUP does not fully embody the <BR>> principles of =
Agile=20
development.  I don=92t believe the fact that OpenUP <BR>> can =
be applied=20
by people and also viewed in HTML and tailored with EPF <BR>> =
Composer causes=20
it to be any less Agile.  But that=92s just me.<BR>> <BR>> In =
part I am=20
pleased to see EPF getting visibility in the analyst <BR>> =
community. =20
But I see that we have a problem in the way we are <BR>> presenting =
OpenUP=20
such that people have a difficult time separating out <BR>> the =
process from=20
the usage of technology for rendering or tailoring its <BR>>=20
description.  I guess we should have written a book first (or a =
couple=20
<BR>> dozen books as can be found for some of the other Agile =
processes), and=20
<BR>> then afterward created the downloadable web page and a tool to =
tailor=20
<BR>> it.  Then maybe <poof> OpenUP/Basic would be =
Agile.<BR>>=20
<BR> >     &a mp;nbsp;    &nbsp=
;     &nbsp ;     &nbsp ;=
              &=
nbsp;     & nbsp;     & n=
bsp;   =20
---------------- b</FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C70DC6.2A910020--

Re: Reference to EPF & OpenUP in Forrester Teleconference [message #24888 is a reply to message #24264]

Tue, 28 November 2006 21:22

Eclipse User

I agree Brian. The analyst didn't seem to understand that OpenUP is an
entity separate from RUP.

I noticed the analysts name is Carey Schwaber. Is she any relation to
Ken Schwaber of Scrum? If so, her process analyses should indicate that
for full disclosure. It would color her evaluations differently.

- Jim

Brian Lyons wrote:
> hiho,
>
> I was just foraging around in the Forrester site and I came across
> this (free) PowerPoint presentation that goes with a teleconference
> that was done in September, 2006:
> http://www.forrester.com/Teleconference/Previous/Overview/1, 5158,1548,00.html
>
> It is entitled "What's New In Application Development Processes And
> Methodologies" and it mentions EPF and OpenUP.
>
> There are some interesting nuances, though I happen to take issue with
> a few parts. The author of the presentation characterizes OpenUP as
> being under the RUP framework and then characterizes the RUP framework
> processes as not fully agile in part because they don’t “belong to the
> family of Agile processes or fully embody the principles of Agile
> development”. Then there is a reference to the fact that OpenUP/Basic
> is meant to be Agile, but is not because it is “tooled”.
>
> I like to clearly describe OpenUP as conforming to the Unified Process
> framework rather than any vendor branded version of the UP (i.e. UP
> rather than RUP). I am not interested in whether the process belongs
> to any “family”. I disagree that OpenUP does not fully embody the
> principles of Agile development. I don’t believe the fact that OpenUP
> can be applied by people and also viewed in HTML and tailored with EPF
> Composer causes it to be any less Agile. But that’s just me.
>
> In part I am pleased to see EPF getting visibility in the analyst
> community. But I see that we have a problem in the way we are
> presenting OpenUP such that people have a difficult time separating
> out the process from the usage of technology for rendering or
> tailoring its description. I guess we should have written a book
> first (or a couple dozen books as can be found for some of the other
> Agile processes), and then afterward created the downloadable web page
> and a tool to tailor it. Then maybe <poof> OpenUP/Basic would be Agile.
>
> ---------------- b

Re: Reference to EPF & OpenUP in Forrester Teleconference [message #25604 is a reply to message #24264]

Tue, 12 December 2006 15:01

Eclipse User

hiho,

I would like to provide one little update to my earlier comments. I
remarked that the author of the report stated that OpenUP is not agile
in part because it is "tooled".

The analyst who authored the presentation explained to me that the slide
that states "What distinguishes these processes from Agile processes is
that they are 'tooled'" (slide 36) was not meant to state that the
tooling is what makes OpenUP/Basic non-agile. The bullet was meant to
note tooling as a distinguishing characteristic. I read too much into
the way the word "distinguishes" was being used.

This does not change the whole point of my post, but I did want to
correct my misrepresentation about what the analyst was saying about
tooled processes and agility.

On a more positive note, this specific presentation has fueled some
great discussions amongst the contributors responsible for the OpenUP
process description. The reality check of "Why do some people think
this is not agile?" is driving all sorts of discussions about how we can
better communicate the agile nature of OpenUP/Basic.

-------- b
Brian Lyons wrote:
> hiho,
>
> I was just foraging around in the Forrester site and I came across this
> (free) PowerPoint presentation that goes with a teleconference that was
> done in September, 2006:
> http://www.forrester.com/Teleconference/Previous/Overview/1, 5158,1548,00.html
>
> It is entitled "What's New In Application Development Processes And
> Methodologies" and it mentions EPF and OpenUP.
>
> There are some interesting nuances, though I happen to take issue with a
> few parts. The author of the presentation characterizes OpenUP as being
> under the RUP framework and then characterizes the RUP framework
> processes as not fully agile in part because they don’t “belong to the
> family of Agile processes or fully embody the principles of Agile
> development”. Then there is a reference to the fact that OpenUP/Basic
> is meant to be Agile, but is not because it is “tooled”.
>
> I like to clearly describe OpenUP as conforming to the Unified Process
> framework rather than any vendor branded version of the UP (i.e. UP
> rather than RUP). I am not interested in whether the process belongs to
> any “family”. I disagree that OpenUP does not fully embody the
> principles of Agile development. I don’t believe the fact that OpenUP
> can be applied by people and also viewed in HTML and tailored with EPF
> Composer causes it to be any less Agile. But that’s just me.
>
> In part I am pleased to see EPF getting visibility in the analyst
> community. But I see that we have a problem in the way we are
> presenting OpenUP such that people have a difficult time separating out
> the process from the usage of technology for rendering or tailoring its
> description. I guess we should have written a book first (or a couple
> dozen books as can be found for some of the other Agile processes), and
> then afterward created the downloadable web page and a tool to tailor
> it. Then maybe <poof> OpenUP/Basic would be Agile.
>
> ---------------- b

Re: Reference to EPF & OpenUP in Forrester Teleconference [message #568884 is a reply to message #24264]

Tue, 21 November 2006 18:38

Eclipse User

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C70DC6.2A910020
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Brian

I share your frustration. I guess the short answer must be that we need =
to provide more material that asserts and demonstrates OpenUP's Agile =
credentials.=20

As it currently stands, Forrester's analysis of OpenUP/Basic is arguably =
quite fair. The OpenUP/Basic Vision says

"The OpenUP/Basic is an iterative software development process that is =
minimal, complete, and extensible."

Maybe it should say "The OpenUP/Basic is an agile, iterative software =
development process that is minimal, complete, and extensible." That =
would at least be a start ;-)

We could also sign up to the Agile Manifesto and the Agile Alliance. =
These small steps would at least show that OpenUP/Basic flies the Agile =
flag very clearly.

We don't agree with the "OpenUP/Basic is RUP for small projects" =
argument but that's because we are involved closely enough to understand =
the difference. So maybe our message isn't getting across clearly =
enough.

At the Cupertino meeting in April I recall suggesting that the team =
produce a short paper describing how OpenUP/Basic supports the Agile =
Manifesto and Agile Principles. I was pleasantly surprised when recently =
grazing OpenUP-related writings to find that someone has indeed written =
something along those lines. I can't seem to find it now though...

Maybe it's time we figured out what the heck those guys in Marketing do? =
:-)

cheers

Mark

"Brian Lyons" <blyons@numbersix.com> wrote in message =
news:ejv3l1$fka$1@utils.eclipse.org...
> hiho,
>=20
> I was just foraging around in the Forrester site and I came across =
this=20
> (free) PowerPoint presentation that goes with a teleconference that =
was=20
> done in September, 2006:
> =
http://www.forrester.com/Teleconference/Previous/Overview/1, 5158,1548,00.=
html=20
>=20
> It is entitled "What's New In Application Development Processes And=20
> Methodologies" and it mentions EPF and OpenUP.
>=20
> There are some interesting nuances, though I happen to take issue with =
a=20
> few parts. The author of the presentation characterizes OpenUP as =
being=20
> under the RUP framework and then characterizes the RUP framework=20
> processes as not fully agile in part because they don=92t =93belong to =
the=20
> family of Agile processes or fully embody the principles of Agile=20
> development=94. Then there is a reference to the fact that =
OpenUP/Basic=20
> is meant to be Agile, but is not because it is =93tooled=94.
>=20
> I like to clearly describe OpenUP as conforming to the Unified Process =

> framework rather than any vendor branded version of the UP (i.e. UP=20
> rather than RUP). I am not interested in whether the process belongs =
to=20
> any =93family=94. I disagree that OpenUP does not fully embody the=20
> principles of Agile development. I don=92t believe the fact that =
OpenUP=20
> can be applied by people and also viewed in HTML and tailored with EPF =

> Composer causes it to be any less Agile. But that=92s just me.
>=20
> In part I am pleased to see EPF getting visibility in the analyst=20
> community. But I see that we have a problem in the way we are=20
> presenting OpenUP such that people have a difficult time separating =
out=20
> the process from the usage of technology for rendering or tailoring =
its=20
> description. I guess we should have written a book first (or a couple =

> dozen books as can be found for some of the other Agile processes), =
and=20
> then afterward created the downloadable web page and a tool to tailor=20
> it. Then maybe <poof> OpenUP/Basic would be Agile.
>=20
> ---------------- b
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C70DC6.2A910020
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi Brian</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I share your frustration. I guess the =
short answer=20
must be that we need to provide more material that asserts and=20
demonstrates OpenUP's Agile credentials. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As it currently stands, Forrester's =
analysis of=20
OpenUP/Basic is arguably quite fair. The OpenUP/Basic <A=20
href=3D" http://www.eclipse.org/epf/openup_component/openup_vision.ph p">Vi=
sion</A>=20
says</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"The OpenUP/Basic is an iterative =
software=20
development process that is minimal, complete, and =
extensible."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Maybe it should say "The OpenUP/Basic =
is an=20
<STRONG>agile</STRONG>, iterative software development process that is =
minimal,=20
complete, and extensible." That would at least be a start =
;-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>We could also sign up to the Agile =
Manifesto and=20
the Agile Alliance. These small steps would at least show that =
OpenUP/Basic=20
flies the Agile flag very clearly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>We don't agree with the =
"OpenUP/Basic is RUP=20
for small projects" argument but that's because we are involved =
closely=20
enough to understand the difference. So maybe our message isn't getting =
across=20
clearly enough.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>At the Cupertino meeting in April I =
recall=20
suggesting that the team produce a short paper describing how =
OpenUP/Basic=20
supports the Agile Manifesto and Agile Principles. I was pleasantly =
surprised=20
when recently grazing OpenUP-related writings to find that someone =
has=20
indeed written something along those lines. I can't seem to find it now=20
though...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Maybe it's time we figured out what the =
heck those=20
guys in Marketing do? :-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>cheers</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Mark</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Brian Lyons" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:blyons@numbersix.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>blyons@numbersix.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> =
wrote in=20
message </FONT><A href=3D"news:ejv3l1$fka$1@utils.eclipse.org"><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>news:ejv3l1$fka$1@utils.eclipse.org</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> hiho,<BR>> =
<BR>> I was=20
just foraging around in the Forrester site and I came across this =
<BR>>=20
(free) PowerPoint presentation that goes with a teleconference that was =
<BR>>=20
done in September, 2006:<BR>> </FONT><A=20
href=3D" http://www.forrester.com/Teleconference/Previous/Overview/1, 5158,=
1548,00.html"><FONT=20
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> http://www.forrester.com/Teleconference/Previous/Overview/1, 5158=
,1548,00.html</FONT></A><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2> <BR>> <BR>> It is entitled "What's New In =
Application=20
Development Processes And <BR>> Methodologies" and it mentions EPF =
and=20
OpenUP.<BR>> <BR>> There are some interesting nuances, though I =
happen to=20
take issue with a <BR>> few parts.  The author of the =
presentation=20
characterizes OpenUP as being <BR>> under the RUP framework and then=20
characterizes the RUP framework <BR>> processes as not fully agile in =
part=20
because they don=92t =93belong to the <BR>> family of Agile processes =
or fully=20
embody the principles of Agile <BR>> development=94.  Then there =
is a=20
reference to the fact that OpenUP/Basic <BR>> is meant to be Agile, =
but is=20
not because it is =93tooled=94.<BR>> <BR>> I like to clearly =
describe OpenUP=20
as conforming to the Unified Process <BR>> framework rather than any =
vendor=20
branded version of the UP (i.e. UP <BR>> rather than RUP).  I am =
not=20
interested in whether the process belongs to <BR>> any =
=93family=94.  I=20
disagree that OpenUP does not fully embody the <BR>> principles of =
Agile=20
development.  I don=92t believe the fact that OpenUP <BR>> can =
be applied=20
by people and also viewed in HTML and tailored with EPF <BR>> =
Composer causes=20
it to be any less Agile.  But that=92s just me.<BR>> <BR>> In =
part I am=20
pleased to see EPF getting visibility in the analyst <BR>> =
community. =20
But I see that we have a problem in the way we are <BR>> presenting =
OpenUP=20
such that people have a difficult time separating out <BR>> the =
process from=20
the usage of technology for rendering or tailoring its <BR>>=20
description.  I guess we should have written a book first (or a =
couple=20
<BR>> dozen books as can be found for some of the other Agile =
processes), and=20
<BR>> then afterward created the downloadable web page and a tool to =
tailor=20
<BR>> it.  Then maybe <poof> OpenUP/Basic would be =
Agile.<BR>>=20
<BR> >     &a mp;nbsp;    &nbsp=
;     &nbsp ;     &nbsp ;=
              &=
nbsp;     & nbsp;     & n=
bsp;   =20
---------------- b</FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C70DC6.2A910020--

Re: Reference to EPF & OpenUP in Forrester Teleconference [message #569448 is a reply to message #24264]

Tue, 28 November 2006 21:22

Eclipse User

Re: Reference to EPF & OpenUP in Forrester Teleconference [message #574149 is a reply to message #24264]

Tue, 12 December 2006 15:01

Eclipse User

Previous Topic:	process instantiation / tailoring
Next Topic:	process instantiation / tailoring

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

Current Time: Sat Jun 28 12:48:27 EDT 2025

.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Breadcrumbs

Sign up to our Newsletter