Hello all,
I´m not sure if contributions are expected from non usual
contributors, such as me, but I´d like to opine about this subject.
I agree with Ana Pereira. In my humble opinion, Scope Management
is the best term.
-
For most of people Change Management reminds a very strict and
formal process.
-
By “managing the scope” one can understand it comprehends
the management of changes also.
-
The type of change management most of lightweight processes
implement is a different paradigm if compared to traditional change management
and usually are nothing more than keeping the scope under control (tracking,
creating or removing work items).
Regards,
Maciel
From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Ana Paula Valente Pereira
Sent: quarta-feira, 13 de agosto de 2008 14:09
To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Renaming "Change Management" practice
to "Basic Change Management"
what about Flexible ? ...
Flexible Change or Scope Management? ... contrasting with traditional change
management that seems to be more rigid ...
Ana
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Bruce Macisaac <bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Ken,
I think the
point is that without the qualifier, it makes it hard to name alternative
change management practices.
In other words,
if we have 3 change management practice alternatives, and one is called change
management, it's hard from the name to know what kind of change management is
being described
by the
practice. Also, it may seem unfair for us to claim copyright to
"change management" - by adding some kind of qualifier, at least we
are only claiming our brand of change management.
Another
suggestion from Per is "Informal Change Management".
Is that better
than "Basic"?
Note that this
practice, as it stands, just has one task, which is to submit change requests,
and otherwise changes are really being addressed as part of
work item
management done by the iterative development practice. It's not a
traditional formal change management approach with a CCB and unique states for
change requests.
I don't know I think you got it right the first time. Firstly, I don't
think its fair for any one group to claim copyright to the term Change
Management. Secondly the term "Basic" is almost pejorative and
somehow diminishes the importance of the practice (think about Basic Project
Management, Basic Architecture etc). Thirdly, I'm not sure we need a
qualifier, one would think the context would be sufficient if we put
"Basic" before one practice what does that mean about the other
practices.
My $0.03
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Bruce Macisaac <bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Chris Sibbald and I would like to make this change to address concerns raised
by reviewers.
The basic concern is that they expected from the name that this would be a
formal change management practice, and it's not.
See bugzilla:
I plan to make this change tomorrow, so if
there are any concerns at all with this, please let me know as soon as
possible.
Thanks,
Bruce MacIsaac
Manager - RUP/OpenUP Content
bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (408)463-5140
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
|
