Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[epf-dev] Re: Mock Up of General Intentions and Collaborative Principles

Don

You said: "My primary worry is whether what I propose is part of the
ultimate vision for epf or is this effort just going to be producing two
more defacto industry standards."

I voiced this exact concern in Cupertino, pointing out that it looked to me
like we're creating two (or more) fundamentalist processes. Organizations
will be forced to choose one of them and very likely the content, extensions
and plug-ins written for one will be incompatible with the other. Ideally
what we want is for method content (aka practices) to be process-agnostic.
We want the industry to be able to use any practices on top of any process.
Industry experts who would like to author some content don't want to be
forced to choose a process to extend - they want anybody to be able to use
it.

There was a lot of debate on this topic in Cupertino, which indicates we
HAVE NOT been doing a good enough job of communicating this - internally or
externally. In Cupertino everyone finally agreed: yes, this is ideally what
we would like to do, but given the current tool limitations it will be
difficult. I am glad to see Convansys has suggested a solution. IJI has also
suggested a solution. The EssUP core concepts (such as alpha and competency)
are an integral part of achieving separation and composition of practices.
Ivar's Ottawa postcard outlines some of these ideas.

We said in Cupertino it may make sense to launch a SIG within EPF to look at
different ways of achieving this vision. I am sure there are many people
with great ideas to contribute.



DJ

-------------------------------------

 

Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 11:14:32 -0400
From: Donald Firesmith <dgf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Mock Up of	General	Intentions	and
	CollaborativePrinciples
To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
	<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <443E6AD8.1090603@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Per,
Makes lots of sense as an /intermediate/ solution.  For method 
engineering to work, there needs to be excellent tool support to make it 
easy to select the right components, tailor them as appropriate, maybe 
even add a few components, and then integrate them together to make a 
good project, program, or organization-specific method.  Also, once an 
organization has such its own epf-compliant method, it can become the 
basis of tailoring for future projects.  I understand that the epf 
toolset is currently not where I would like it to be yet in terms of its 
support for method engineering.  For example, we need an automated 
process engineer tool to ask the right questions and help a project 
process engineer (usually not qualified to do the job) do the selecting 
and tailoring for method engineering to be acceptable in terms of ease 
of use and quality of resulting method.  Until an organization has one 
or more organizational methods to use as a foundation, creating an 
OpenUP and OpenAgile can make reasonably good sense, especially if it is 
alos used to ensure that the interim toolset is well architected, etc.

My primary worry is whether what I propose is part of the ultimate 
vision for epf or is this effort just going to be producing two more 
defacto industry standards.  I feel that we need to architect into the 
toolset the kind of extensibility and scalability to support method 
engineering now, or it will be too difficult to add on later and then 
the eclipse epf will just supply another RUP and Agile method.

My problem is that I do not see support for method engineering in the 
current vision documentation.  If it isn't part of the current plan, 
then it is likely that it will never be.

Don

Per Kroll wrote:

>
> Don,
>
> I think there is general agreement on that we cannot provide a process 
> that everybody should use, but rather a framework allowing projects to 
> rapidly assemble a variety of different processes that fits their needs.
> So, you have a series of different baselines you may choose to use as 
> a starting point, and you can plug-in various components on top of 
> them, or write your own components.
> You can have many different baselines, or you can build your own.
>
> Today, we have a technical limitation so you need to describe what 
> base a process component extends, but in the future, we hope to 
> resolve this by defining API. This has been propsed by Covansys and 
> become a part of SPEM, and Ivar Jacobson International has also 
> proposed. And the idea has been well accepted.
>
> So, do you even need a few standard base processes? Eventhough it is 
> hypocritical to think we can define a process that is the "right' 
> process for a certain project, I think it is not much better to say 
> "here are 10,000 building blocks, go at it! So, if you believe in a 
> certain set of key development principles, such as for OpenUp, you 
> believe in the importance of architecture, in iterative development, 
> and so on, we have created a starting point (OpenUp/Basic) that 
> probably is close to what you may want to use. If you do not like it, 
> customize it. Or create something from scratch.
>
> You can then add a number of process components to that starting 
> point. In case it is hard for you to choose which to add, maybe it is 
> easier if you use a configuration as a starting point targeting your 
> type of environment, such as OpenUp/MDA. Using that as a starting 
> point, you cann add or remove components, and as always, write your 
> own, or modify any of the existing components.
>
> Does the above make sense?
>
> I am a bit worried about people like you believing that we are about 
> "producing a standard process for everybody to use", since this is 
> very far from what we are working on.... So, my take is that we are 
> doing exactly what you think should be done (well, at least reasonably 
> close, working with current technical constraints), but even after you 
> have spent considerably amount of time on this forum, your perception 
> is that we are doing something completely diffferent... So, what are 
> we doing wrong in our communication?
>
> Cheers
>
> Per Kroll
> STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
> Project Lead: Eclipse Process Framework
> Rational Software, IBM Corp
> 408-342-3815
>
>
> *Donald Firesmith <dgf@xxxxxxxxxxx>*
> Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 04/13/2006 05:17 AM
> Please respond to
> Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> 	
> To
> 	Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	Re: [epf-dev] Mock Up of General Intentions        and       
>  CollaborativePrinciples
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> Steve, I'm getting on my soapbox so read this accordingly:
> IMHO,part of the eclipse epf program's problem is the goal of creating 
> yet two more methods (processes) [greatest things since sliced bread] 
>  as opposed to a method component repository and associated tool set 
> from which anyone could build a project-specific method so that they 
> can perform the right process.  I have long ago stopped believing in 
> the appropriateness of a bunch of methodologists sitting around a 
> preverbial virtual table and coming up with a standard "tailorable" 
> method for everyone to use, when they haven't even talked to anyone on 
> the project, don't know its needs, and don't know its characteristics. 
>  What hubris I had when I wrote my methodolgy book recommending my 
> favorite method.  And I don't think getting a bunch of methodologists 
> and process engineers together to do the job as a committee yields any 
> better result (the camel being a horse designed by committee after all 
> does have some truth to it).  Thus, I have little or no faith in 
> OpenUP and OpenAgile (or what ever we decide to call it).  What I do 
> have faith in is the epf and associated tool set, that if properly 
> developed would allow anyone to EASILY and QUICKLY produce and 
> maintain a project-specific method that the project users will support 
> because it meets their actual needs, not some generic set of needs 
> made up by someone who has never even talked to them about their 
> project.  Thus, until eclipse epf addresses this challenge, then I 
> fear that the work on OpenUP and OpenAgile will be of little true 
> value, merely adding one more pair of methods to the pile.  We don't 
> need more project independent methods, but more project-specific 
> methods.  In other words, I want patient-based gene therapy and I 
> think the eclipse epf and tools could be a way to achieve that goal in 
> a method-independent manner.  At best, OpenUP and OpenAgile are useful 
> to help develop and test the eclipse toolset.  At worst, they will 
> merely add a few more /standard /methodologies when we already have 
> too many of them.  What we need is standard class libraries.  In other 
> words, we don't need more generic Java programs, but rather a great 
> Java class library and a great development environment that makes it 
> easier for everyone to develop the Java programs they really need, not 
> the standard ones we think they need.
> Stepping down now.  ;-)
> Don
>
> steve wrote:
> Hi Don:
>
> I absolutely agree we really need to define what "complete" means (and
> minimal for that matter) because I could make the argument BUP (now 
> OpenUP)
> is becoming "bloated",  not that I would of course ;-)
>
> We are in the rather uncomfortable position of being squeezed from both
> ends. The agilists at the low end who may argue that we are creating yet
> another coercive heavy weight process (I disagree, but that argument 
> can be
> made) and the heavy weight process dudes on the high end (e.g. the 
> true RUP
> aficionados).  This means we to need to be careful in the crafting of our
> out reach message and our explanation of minimal and complete.
>
> Best regards,
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
> [ mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> ] On
> Behalf Of Donald Firesmith
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 5:16 AM
> To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
> Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Mock Up of General Intentions and
> CollaborativePrinciples
>
> Steve,
> I read you document and one thing clearly jumped out at me. BUP is
> anything BUT complete. It seems to be the least one can get away with.
> There are a huge number of useful method components that one could add,
> but which were chosen not to add. Because "complete" is being used (if
> correctly at all) in a very non-standard way, it is critical to clearly
> define what is meant by the word. Better yet, you should avoid the word
> complete completely. ;-)
> Don Firesmith
> P.S. For an example of complete and much that is missing in BUP, see the
> www.opfro.org <http://www.opfro.org/> repository.
>
> steve wrote:
>
>  
> Hello Everyone:
>
> I'm having a bit of a tough time working my way up the CVS/Eclipse
> learning curve (at this moment the designer of the Eclipse/CVS feature
> may be feeling the itch of my projected frustration..:-( ) and my lap
> top is getting ready for the big desk in the sky...So with our Tuesday
> deadline looming I did not want to miss getting a few of my ideas into
> discussion for Thursday.
>
> I have attached a word document that can serve as a mock-up of a
> proposed set of general concepts for BUP, collaboration, iteration,
> requirements management, and architecture. These concepts are broken
> down into philosophical principles (why is this concept important and
> what it's objectives are) and specific actionable practices (how do
> you implement these castle in the sky philosophies). The practices
> should eventually be linked to specific BUP tasks, roles and
> artifacts. Much of what these general principles are about is
> providing the context and intention behind specific tasks, roles, and
> artifacts. For collaboration I have drawn for John Boyd's principles
> for organizational success (trust, vision, intent, and skill). I have
> then tried to propose seven specific collaborative practices that
> implement and give rise to these principles.
>
> My intention is these general principles can be added to BUP as a
> separate plug-in (General Principles plug-in) perhaps.
>
> That all said, these principles, and especially the collaborative
> principles, will be seen as a "bag on the side" of BUP if they are not
> integrated into specific BUP tasks, roles, and work products. This
> will definitely give rise to some controversy. For example, in the
> collaborative practices, there is a practice named "*Manage By
> Intent*" whose ultimate actionable manifestation is coarse grain task
> assignment (e.g. 2 to 3 days in scope). This will have a significant
> affect on Kirti and the project management discipline. But more than
> that: is coarse grain task assignment something we all agree with?
> Personally, I think fine grain task assignment is at best silly, but
> then many people may think my ideas are silly. Another practice is
> "*Buddy Up*" more than one person shall have responsibility for a
> task. One person may of course have "primary responsibility" that is
> they are the task owner, but others are also made responsible for the
> performance of the task (e.g. review). This practice can manifest
> itself as pair programming, adjacent programming, or
> programmer/reviewer pairs (or even triples) but it changes the way
> work is assigned ( or signed up to ) by team members.
>
> In short there is a lot of new territory to cover here on the
> collaborative side and I am going to need all the assistance and
> willing volunteers that are willing to collaborate on this.
> Personally, I think this is going to be the most exciting part of BUP
> - but then I may be biased J
>
> I will open several Bugzilla issues for this.
>
> Chat with you all later after I figure this *&#%%@*I!U@++#@(@&&!)))
> piece of fine software.
>
> Steve
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> epf-dev mailing list
> epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev 
> <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev>
>
>
>    
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> epf-dev mailing list
> epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev 
> <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> epf-dev mailing list
> epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev 
> <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://eclipse.org/pipermail/epf-dev/attachments/20060413/aacd9ba2/attachmen
t.html

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev


End of epf-dev Digest, Vol 4, Issue 43
**************************************





Back to the top