Your comments assume that "process overhead" is the major problem that
agile methods overcome and that "valuing people" is the major reason why
agile methods succeed.
I have to be curmudgeonly again and point out that we generally don't
have a lot of evidence as to which factors have the greatest impact on
agility, even taking as a given that they are generally successful.
My own opinion is that it is the iteration, high customer involvement,
and rapid feedback that are the big wins (the primary sources of
agility) and that the "process overhead" argument is largely a red
herring. The real process issue is whether the defined process is
iterative and incremental, rather than whether it is well-defined.
Of course, I also don't think that "valuing people" is unique to the
agile methods. Effective organizations, whatever their process, trust
and respect their people.
I thought it was interesting that the Feature-Driven Development book
claims that it concentrates only on the "construction" phases, not on
the front end, because the construction phases are the hard part. In my
organization I would say exactly the opposite was true - we don't have
much trouble building stuff, we have tons of trouble deciding what to
build.
So, I tend to value the notion of feedback-driven direct commitment,
rather than things like avoiding documentation and inspections. I think
the "process overhead" is in-the-noise, compared with the benefits of
having the customer seeing what you're doing and buying in day-by-day.
scott
| From: Charlie Poole<***@pooleconsulting.com>
| Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:17:54 -0800
|
| Mark,
|
| I can't disagree with anything you say here... it seemed to me that the
| discussion was focusing on comparing the logistics aspect of agile ( your #1
| below ) to the Spiral model. That makes some sense since it's what they have
| in common. It's also what most academic discussions seem to focus on - for
| the same reason.
|
| The only problem with this approach is that it makes the comparison by
| ignoring the very strength of the agile approaches. It's only /because/ of
| the values that we can strip away so much process overhead and still be
| successful. That's where a simple comparison of logistic approaches seems to
| me to fall a bit short.
|
| Nevertheless an interesting comparison.
|
| Charlie
|
|
| > -----Original Message-----
| > From: Mark Graybill [mailto:***@Graybill.com]
| > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 5:50 PM
| > To: ***@topica.com
| > Subject: Re: [AM] The Spiral Model
| >
| >
| > The Agile manifesto is a set of values, not processes. I believe it is
| > intended to for the most part to gear processes to focus on direct human
| > interaction.
| >
| > Spiral, although with perhaps hallmark implementations, is simply a
| > different method of logistics more amenable to evolutionary projects than
| > others. It is being taught in schools based on concept and fundamentals,
| > not implementation - this is the viewpoint I was taking on it.
| >
| > You can use a method such as a Spiral method and focus on non-human
| > interaction or human interaction - both would be considered an Spiral
| > implementation. The latter would likely be measured as being "Agile"
| >
| > Then again, here we are with terms:
| >
| > Spiral -
| > 1) fundamental process methodology as now being taught as one
| > process method
| > (process methodological precepts named Spiral)
| > 2) a particular implementation or operational description reflecting
| > original introduction of the use of the process.
| >
| > Agility -
| > 1) minimal process overhead required for organized and manageable
| > development of software measured uniquely for every organization, product
| > and/or project.
| > 2) logistics/operations of a process implement would be regarded as having
| > underlying values matching the Agile Manifesto or closer to
| > matching it than
| > what would traditionally be so.
| > 3) <description #1 adorned with description #2> <i.e. XP>
| >
| > It could be argued that Spiral (or any other evolutionary process) could
| > have more process overhead than traditional methods.
| >
| > Mark.
| >
| > ----- Original Message -----
| > From: "Charlie Poole" <***@pooleconsulting.com>
| > To: <***@topica.com>
| > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 12:05 AM
| > Subject: RE: [AM] The Spiral Model
| >
| >
| > > Having read the question and ensuing answers I'm struck that nobody has
| > > mentioned this:
| > >
| > > Agile methods deal with people and how they work together. Historically,
| > > this has been
| > > "out of scope" for software development methodologies. If we compare
| > > approaches while
| > > abstracting away this important difference, they may appear
| > similar, just
| > as
| > > an auto
| > > is like a wagon if you abstract away the source of motive power.
| > >
| > > When we choose to abstract away people in our discussion, we are being
| > > non-agile ourselves.
| > >
| > > Charlie Poole
| > > ***@pooleconsulting.com
| > > www.pooleconsulting.com
| > > www.charliepoole.org
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > >
| > > > -----Original Message-----
| > > > From: guillermo camilo [mailto:***@unsa.edu.pe]
| > > > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 1:14 PM
| > > > To: ***@topica.com
| > > > Cc: chicago-agile-***@yahoogroups.com; ***@yahoogroups.com;
| > > > ***@yahoogroups.com
| > > > Subject: [AM] The Spiral Model
| > > >
| > > >
| > > > hi everybody
| > > > after a list of readings about this subject , the spiral model
| > > > for software
| > > > developer (of dr Barry Boehm), i got one question
| > > > i hope, despite, you maybe found it obvious, all of you, wouldn't
| > > > bother to
| > > > help me to find the answer
| > > >
| > > > What is the main differences between the spiral model's
| > concepts and the
| > > > core of the agile methodologies???
| > > >
| > > > i see both of them are , in essence, iterative and incremental,
| > > > so. how are
| > > > we going to differentiate them?
| > > >
| > > > pls help
| > > > i would welcome any comment you could have about this matter...
| > > > thanks in advance
| > > >
| > > > Guillermo Camilo
| > > > ***@unsa.edu.pe
--
scott preece
motorola urbana design center (il67), 1800 s. oak st., champaign, il 61820
e-mail: ***@urbana.css.mot.com fax: 217-384-8550
phone: 217-384-8589 cell: 217-433-6114 pager: ***@msg.myvzw.com
For more information about AM, visit the Agile Modeling Home Page at www.agilemodeling.com
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: gcma-***@gmane.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrKDA.bWnbtk.Z2NtYS1h
Or send an email to: agilemodeling-***@topica.com
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^----------------------------------------------------------------