[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [epf-dev] Renaming "Change Management" practice to "Basic Change Management"


Hi.
For me "Change Management" is a discipline, but not a practice.  The difference is that change management just implies that a solution for managing change is needed, but not the concrete set of practices and procedure that are performed to achieve this need of managing change.  The same with Requirements Management or Project Management: Not practices, just disciplines. Putting an ambiguous adjective such as Basic or Flexible in-front of it makes it in IMHO even worse as it even becomes less clear what it means. There is also no value communicated with these words.

Many of our other practices much better communicate what the practice is actually about, such as Evolutionary Architecture, i.e. the practice of not creating an architecture up-front, but evolving it out of the solution development.

Hence, better names would be "everyone can request change" or "state-machine driven change tracking" or "attribute-driven work item list management". If we do not have a practice for actually managing changes in OpenUP then the name should also reflect that such as "submitting changes into a work item list" is all I can see for now.

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) 463-5096
______________________________________________________________



From: "Ken Clyne" <ken.clyne@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List" <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 08/13/2008 12:51
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Renaming "Change Management" practice to "Basic Change        Management"





Good dialog.  Bruce I wasn't inferring we were claiming copyright on "Change Management" but rather those people challenging your use of the term were.  

I like Ana's suggestion and Maciel's endorsement but also put forward one of my own that is a bit a narrower but maybe apropos to the limited content of this practice "Change Request Management".

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Maciel, Eduardo (Brazil R&D) <maciel@xxxxxx> wrote:
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.


Bruce MacIsaac
Manager - RUP/OpenUP Content

bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (408)463-5140


"Ken Clyne" <ken.clyne@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

08/12/2008 01:11 PM


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] Renaming "Change Management" practice to "Basic Change        Management"

 






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:

 


 


 


243928




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

 

_______________________________________________
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