Hi,
I´m sorry for the intromission on this
subject, but I´d like to complement Jean’s view.
It seems that the need to start coding
over a partially approved scope is everyday more common.
I mean, in order to ensure delivery on
expected dates we start by the part of the scope that is already approved or
will be with no doubt. This may lead projects to start coding before all
inception goals are accomplished, for instance.
Regards,
Maciel
From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Ruehlin
Sent: terça-feira, 22 de maio de
2007 16:52
To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [epf-dev] No coding
in Inception
Hi Jean, thanks for your thoughts.
We’ll take them into consideration at the Committers Meeting this week.
The concern that Brian raised is, should
we explicitly indicate that coding occurs during Inception, and if so how
should we do it. We expect that many projects that use OpenUP/Basic as-is will
not require coding during Inception. Many small projects are not novel or are
adding features to existing systems. So proving the architecture or other
significant system elements could be as easy as pointing to an existing system
or framework and saying that we’re confident the architectural approach
is already proven.
This isn’t meant to prohibit
implementing prototypes and the like during Inception. But OpenUP/Basic is
meant to be “minimal, complete, and extensible”. If we want to
fulfill the minimal requirement, do we include implementation during Inception?
This is a question we’ll be asking at the meeting.
One possible approach would be to create a
second capability pattern for Inception. So there could be one Inception CP
that doesn’t include implementation, and another one that does. CPs can
be replaced and the process re-published using EPF Composer.
Thanks,
Jim
____________________
Jim Ruehlin, IBM
Rational
RUP Content
Developer
Eclipse Process
Framework (EPF) Committer www.eclipse.org/epf
email:
jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx
phone:
760.505.3232
fax:
949.369.0720
From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of "Jean Pommier" <pommier@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:08
AM
To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [epf-dev] No coding in
Inception
I've been on the list for a few weeks now, so sorry if my reaction to
this thread his missing enough context and OpenUP knowledge. Yet, since
we leverage OpenUP in our company, I want to make sure we are not
missing something around the Inception concept. We also met with Ricardo
to assess our use of and contribution to OpenUP, hence the access to
this -dev list.
Bryan Lyons wrote:
> We should discuss the absence of actual coding in the Inception phase
of OpenUP
> as demonstrated by the Inception Iteration capability pattern and then
discuss
> the notion that other parts of the process and method characterize the
architecture
> has had its feasibility "confirmed"... with no code. This is an
issue
worthy of
> discussion with broad participation by the OpenUP/Basic authors.
- First, in our software business we meet prospects and customers either
before they actually launched their project or after. We characterize
the switch from Inception to Elaboration as the official Go/No Go
decision. Within the Inception phase, project stakeholders may have to
demonstrate some concepts and feasibility to get management buy in and,
in the software context, that usually requires some actual modeling and
coding (especially performance benchmarks).
- Another thing is that, to my knowledge, RUP has some coding involved
during the Inception phase (which again makes most sense to me).
Therefore, following generalization principles, I don't see how OpenUP,
which is more general as a foundation, couldn't include the idea of some
coding during Inception. Doesn't mean that there is necessary coding
involved in all situations, but it makes OpenUP more applicable to all
cases by supporting the idea of some coding.
- If the idea behind the previous statement is that a
formal/theoretical/abstract method/approach (as opposed to pragmatic
coding) should be used in Inception, then I think this reduces the
usability and applicability of OpenUP to quite sophisiticated entities
and companies, maybe not something we wish for.
Again, sorry for the long post, hope I'm not too far off topic. In
particular by overstating the Inception/Elaboration inflection point.
Thanks for letting me know otherwise. As suggested by Bryan, looking
forward to hearing back from the OpenUP/Basic authors anyway.
Jean.
PS: by curiosity, is there any other clear cut such as this one on other
disciplines in the phases? I mean a discipline which would not be
present in a certain phase. I thought there was at least "some" of
each
discipline in every iteration, some meaning a lot or a little depending
on the phase. But at least some. Makes the process less directive, but
more flexible and applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Pommier, Vice President Methodology, Corporate Quality Office
ILOG Inc., 1195 West Fremont Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94087-3832, U.S.A.
T:+1 408 991 7132, F:+1 408 991 7003, jpommier@xxxxxxxx, www.ilog.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
