RE: [epf-dev] No coding in Inception

["Nate Oster" <noster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jean,

One thing that we're focused on articulating better as OpenUP/Basic
approaches 1.0 is the "Dev Case" that it addresses "out of the box."  I
mean, OpenUP/Basic is "minimal, extensible, _complete_," but that
doesn't mean it's complete for all cases, or that it never needs
tailoring before use.

The idea is that OpenUP/Basic should be an executable unified process
for small, collocated teams on relatively short engagements.  I was
hearing 3-5 people, 3-4 months from the original committers, but always
had trouble squaring that with the fact that we recommend four week
iterations, and there's four phases, so unless we're planning one
iteration per phase (!), that's 4 months right there.  I'm hoping we'll
eventually settle on something like "5-8 people, 5-8 months."  The exact
numbers don't matter as much as getting the idea across that we're
talking small teams applying agile practices, ideally to architecturally
significant problems, to quickly deliver working solutions.

This needs to be explicit in the /basic process. (see
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=176199) 

Per your P.S., there are other disciplines that have *tasks* that are
unused in Inception.  Test, for example, doesn't perform Implement Test
Scripts or Run Tests during Inception, which is a bug that's closely
related (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=187665).  I'd
like OpenUP to acknowledge "if you've got code, you've got tests."

I'm incline to avoid the "multiple CP" option that Ricardo mentions for
a couple reasons, but mostly because it immediately introduces process
tailoring into the Inception phase, and I think one of OpenUP/Basic's
strengths is that you *can* extend it all you want (easily), but it's
executable for small teams without tailoring.

Thanks,
Nate Oster



-----Original Message-----
From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jean Pommier
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:08 PM
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