Re: Digest Number 132
Saif Ahmad <[email protected]> Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:18:53 -0800 (PST)
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.extreme-programming.adoption |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--0-1423583663-1073798333=:36797 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Bill, your article made for interesting reading. I just had a few questions: The stated objectives are presumably a)to question the practice of using analogies to describe the software development processs b)to explore "if software development really just like hardware development" While there could be an interesting debate on the latter with respect to concept,approach,execution and management,I am wondering if there is a slight dichotomy in the stated objectives. I would look forward to the subsequent articles.The stated objectives 1-6 in the posting are quite interesting and I would love to see how you develop the argument. S Bill Walton <[email protected]> wrote: High praise, indeed. Thank you, Ron. I agree with Jorge completely and have, for the past many months, been trying to understand what they (and I) aren't "getting." I've come up with a couple of hypotheses and have started writing again. My first hypothesis is that the root of the problem lies in confusion, caused by the words that have been histsorically used to describe software development activities, over the *nature* of software development. So my first tack will be to try to clear that up. I'll be doing a series of columns for Computerworld.com, the first of which appears in the IT Management section on Monday. At the risk of giving away the punch line, the argument goes like this: 1) Software development (i.e., the creation of working software) is *entirely* a Design/Development phase activity (phase being used in the Product life cycle, not Project life cycle sense) 2) All Design/Development phase activities, independent of domain (e.g., computer hardware, office buildings, etc.) are best managed using an Iterative, Incremental approach because the single most important determiner of success in Design/Development efforts is feedback. 3) Feedback needed is a function of the amount and types of Innovation (including such markers for Innovation as Uncertainty and Complexity) embodied in the project. 4) Software development projects typically involve large amounts of Innovation of various types and thus need large amounts of high-quality feedback. 5) Feedback allowed is a function of cost constraints (time and money). 6) The nature of software (i.e. the fact that 'fabrication' consists of compiling/linking) reduces the cost constraints associated with producing product on which to get feedback to improve the product, thus allowing software development efforts to take an even *more* iterative, incremental, approach than is typically allowed for hardware development efforts. Once the reader accepts that line of argument, the only question left is "What's the best approach for minimizing the time-to-feedback loop?" and I think the answer to that is pretty obviously XP. The first column deals entirely with number 1 above. My feeling is that we (PMs and managers in particular, but lots of developers too) have fallen into a linguistic trap that leads us to believe that a major portion of software development is something other than a Design activity. I know that was true for me. Then I realized it wasn't true; that a programmer writing code is doing Design just as surely as a EE using a schematic capture tool. So I used the first column to try to deal with that. I think the rest of the assertions above are fairly non-controversial and will be easily accepted if I can make a convincing case for #1. Anyway, I'd be honored to have your feedback. The article is at http://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/development/story/0,10801,880 90,00.html Best regards, Bill --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xpAdoption/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes --0-1423583663-1073798333=:36797 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <html><body> <DIV><FONT face=verdana>Bill, your article made for interesting reading.<BR>I just had a few questions:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=verdana>The stated objectives are presumably a)to question the practice of using analogies to describe the software development processs b)to explore "if software development really just like hardware development"</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=verdana>While there could be an interesting debate on the latter with respect to concept,approach,execution and management,I am wondering if there is a slight dichotomy in the stated objectives.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=verdana>I would look forward to the subsequent articles.The stated objectives 1-6 in the posting are quite interesting and I would love to see how you develop the argument.</FONT></DIV> <P><FONT face=verdana>S</P> <DIV><BR></FONT><BR><B><I>Bill Walton <[email protected]></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><TT><BR>High praise, indeed. Thank you, Ron.<BR><BR>I agree with Jorge completely and have, for the past many months, been<BR>trying to understand what they (and I) aren't "getting." I've come up with<BR>a couple of hypotheses and have started writing again. My first hypothesis<BR>is that the root of the problem lies in confusion, caused by the words that<BR>have been histsorically used to describe software development activities,<BR>over the *nature* of software development. So my first tack will be to try<BR>to clear that up. I'll be doing a series of columns for Computerworld.com,<BR>the first of which appears in the IT Management section on Monday.<BR><BR>At the risk of giving away the punch line, the argument goes like this:<BR>1) Software developm ent (i.e., the creation of working software) is<BR>*entirely* a Design/Development phase activity (phase being used in the<BR>Product life cycle, not Project life cycle sense)<BR>2) All Design/Development phase activities, independent of domain (e.g.,<BR>computer hardware, office buildings, etc.) are best managed using an<BR>Iterative, Incremental approach because the single most important determiner<BR>of success in Design/Development efforts is feedback.<BR>3) Feedback needed is a function of the amount and types of Innovation<BR>(including such markers for Innovation as Uncertainty and Complexity)<BR>embodied in the project.<BR>4) Software development projects typically involve large amounts of<BR>Innovation of various types and thus need large amounts of high-quality<BR>feedback.<BR>5) Feedback allowed is a function of cost constraints (time and money).<BR>6) The nature of software (i.e. the fact that 'fabrication' consists of<BR>compiling/linking) reduces the cost constraints associated with producing<BR>product on which to get feedback to improve the product, thus allowing<BR>software development efforts to take an even *more* iterative, incremental,<BR>approach than is typically allowed for hardware development efforts.<BR><BR>Once the reader accepts that line of argument, the only question left is<BR>"What's the best approach for minimizing the time-to-feedback loop?" and I<BR>think the answer to that is pretty obviously XP.<BR><BR>The first column deals entirely with number 1 above. My feeling is that we<BR>(PMs and managers in particular, but lots of developers too) have fallen<BR>into a linguistic trap that leads us to believe that a major portion of<BR>software development is something other than a Design activity. I know that<BR>was true for me. Then I realized it wasn't true; that a programmer writing<BR>code is doing Design just as surely as a EE using a schematic capture tool.<BR>So I used the first column to try to deal with that. I think the rest of<BR>the assertions above are fairly non-controversial and will be easily<BR>accepted if I can make a convincing case for #1.<BR><BR>Anyway, I'd be honored to have your feedback. The article is at<BR><A href="http://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/development/story/0,10801,880">http://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/development/story/0,10801,880</A><BR>90,00.html<BR><BR>Best regards,<BR>Bill<BR><BR></TT><BR><TT> <HR width=500> <B>Yahoo! Groups Links</B><BR> <UL> <LI>To visit your group on the web, go to:<BR><A href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xpAdoption/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xpAdoption/</A><BR> <LI>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR><A href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe">[email protected]</A><BR> <LI>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</A>. </LI></UL></TT><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!?<br> Yahoo! Hotjobs: <a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/hotjobs/mail_footer_email/evt=21482/*http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus">Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes</a> <br> <tt><hr width="500"> <b>Yahoo! Groups Links</b><br> <ul> <li>To visit your group on the web, go to:<br><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xpAdoption/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xpAdoption/</a><br> <li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br><a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe">[email protected]</a><br> <li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>. </ul> </tt> </br> </body></html> --0-1423583663-1073798333=:36797--