[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [epf-dev] Core Concept Review Telecon Proposed Agenda
|
Hi,
I agree that Intent seems to be a special
type of work product. "THings" and "Intent" have a
lot of common characteristics, such as they both needs to be put under
CM... But, I agree with Asier that it is meaningful to call out Intent
separately from other Things...
Now, I am pretty sure that all of the
above is elaborated upon a lot in a whitepaper Philippe mentioned exist,
so hopefully we can get access to it...
Cheers
Per Kroll
STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
Project Lead: Eclipse Process Framework
Rational Software, IBM Corp
408-342-3815
"Asier Azaceta"
<Asier.Azaceta@xxxxxx>
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
05/26/2006 01:24 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] 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
From: Peter Haumer [mailto:phaumer@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 4:43 AM
To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
Cc: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List; epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Core Concept Review Telecon Proposed Agenda
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.
*****************************************************************************************_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev