[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [epf-dev] Core Concept Review Telecon Proposed Agenda
|
Hi, my 1-cent (not even 2-cents)
with respect to your second comment: Intent sounds to me
like a special kind of work products, those linked to the user's input, which at
the end are the input for the rest of the process. So it may be a good idea to
have a separate classification for them due to their relevance in the
process.
Regards,
Asier Azaceta
mailto:asier.azaceta@xxxxxx
Two comments:
1. Can a single word be really understood as a
principle? Aren't these too ambiguous? Some of them read like
qualities that can be applied to anything.
2. Three of the four "buckets" seem to map straight to
the way we describe method content in SPEM and EPF: Roles, Tasks, Work
Products. A process relates these three into semi-ordered
sequences/lifecycles/activities. Intent sounds to me just another work
product.
Thanks and
best regards,
Peter
Haumer.
______________________________________________________________
PETER
HAUMER, Dr. rer. nat.
Rational Method Composer | Eclipse Process
Framework
Rational Software | IBM Software Group
Tel.: +1 408
863-8716
______________________________________________________________
Per
Kroll/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
05/25/2006 17:54
|
Please respond
to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| Eclipse Process Framework Project
Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
| epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx,
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
Subject
| Re: [epf-dev] Core Concept Review
Telecon Proposed Agenda |
|
All,
I have significant heartburn associated with
changing
| From
| To
|
| Collaboration
| collaborate
|
| Iterate
| Evolve
|
| Architecture
| Focus
|
| requirements management,
| Balance |
Now, I do not have a problem with the change of word as such, but
with the very large broadening of the scope of each principle as discussed in
the Vancouver meeting.
- Collaborate => Good
- Evolve => I think this is a good change.
So, it is e.g. not only about iterate within a project, but also about
"iterating in the small" by first producing a 10%, then 25%, 50%, 80%, and
100% completion of any work product. This widening of scope is OK, as long
as it deals with how you approach your work, in the small or in the
large.
- Focus => I think this is the one I have
the biggest heartburn with if it is Focus without any more narrow context,
which is what I got from last weeks meeting. This cannot be about "Focus on
doing your job", "Focus your eyes on the monitor", "Focus on doing the right
thing", since this principles then becomes completely meaningless.... If you
would qualify Focus by clarifying (in the 1-sentence description) that it is
about "focus on the key aspects of the key work products" or similar, I
think it is fine. This allows us to say "Focus on the most essential work
products" <i.e. streamline your process>, "Focus on the key aspects of
your design" <i.e. on the architecture>, and so on.
- Balance => I have the same concern as
with Focus, needs to be more specific than for everything. No, it is not
about "Balance how many people you have of different nationalities on your
team" <eventhough that may be a great idea>, or "Balance your skills
on the team" <another great idea>. I want to narrow the scope to
"Balance between sometimes competing user needs" or
similar.
I found that the
simple model Philippe presented to represent any software development process
was extremely useful. I really like it. I probably bastardize it as I describe
it below, but in it's most simple form, a process consists of "4
buckets"
- Resources (that do the work), represented
by Teams, and architects, developers, analysts, ...
- Work (that produces the 'things"),
represented by work item lists, tasks, etc.
- "Things", represented by code, designs,
test specifications, etc.
- "Intent". indicating what user wants,
represented by Vision, Use Cases, Requirements, etc.
Philippe said that the people that wrote a paper on
the above found that all processes can be expressed using the above 4 buckets.
Now, i really
like the thought of coupling the 4 principles to these 4 'buckets'
- Collaborate articulates
the key guding principle for resources on an OpenUP project
- Evolve captures how we
perform the Work in an OpenUp project. Iterate in the small, iterative in the
large
- Focus is
crucial for how we deal with all the Things in a project. Focus on
architecture, streamline the process, ....
- Balance is how we deal with the many often
competing intents.
I think there is a beauty in the above, and I think this narrowing
of scope is crucial, or it just becomes empty words...
OK, time for me to balance my
workload, focus on going home, and evolve my thoughts about what to do
tonight, so I can collaborate with my wife. Wow, the process I use for drving
home must be OpenUP ....
Per Kroll
STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
Project Lead:
Eclipse Process Framework
Rational Software, IBM
Corp
408-342-3815
"Steve Adolph"
<steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
05/25/2006 10:15 AM
|
Please respond
to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| [epf-dev] Core Concept Review
Telecon Proposed Agenda |
|
OpenUP Core
Concepts Review Conference Call Agenda:
Good day, here is a very simple agenda for
our conference call tomorrow to “check-in” on the OpenUP core concepts and the
description of the practices. The call is scheduled for 8:00am
PDT.
Toll-free
dial-in:
1-877-421-0025
Toll dial-in:
1-770-615-1242
Participant passcode: 876927
1) Is there agreement for the OpenUP four core
concepts? During the Vancouver workshop we changed the OpenUP core
concepts:
| From
| To
|
| Collaboration
| collaborate
|
| Iterate
| Evolve
|
| Architecture
| Focus
|
| requirements management,
| Balance |
2)
Solicitation of comments regarding
write-up of practices for Core concepts:
a. Collaborate:
b.
Evolve
c. Focus
d. Balance
3) Action Items?
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing
list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing
list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
************************************ DISCLAIMER *****************************************
This message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify it to the sender and delete without resending or backing it, as it is legally prohibited.
************************************* AVISO LEGAL ****************************************
Este mensaje puede contener informacion confidencial, en propiedad o legalmente protegida.
Si usted no es el destinatario, le rogamos lo comunique al remitente y proceda a borrarlo, sin reenviarlo ni conservarlo, ya que su uso no autorizado esta prohibido legalmente.
*****************************************************************************************
