The Great Methodologies Debate: Part 2
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ACCESS TO THE EXPERTS The Journal of Information Technology Management January 2002 Vol. 15, No. 1 The Great Methodologies Debate: Part 2 Resolved “Today, a new debate rages: agile software Traditional methodologists development versus rigorous software are a bunch of process- development.” dependent stick-in-the-muds who’d rather produce flawless Jim Highsmith, Guest Editor documentation than a working system that meets business needs. Opening Statement Rebuttal Jim Highsmith 2 Lightweight, er, “agile” methodologists are a bunch of glorified hackers who are going to be in for a heck of a surprise Agile Software Development Joins the when they try to scale up their “Would-Be” Crowd “toys” into enterprise-level Alistair Cockburn 6 software. The Bogus War Stephen J. Mellor 13 A Resounding “Yes” to Agile Processes — But Also to More Ivar Jacobson 18 Agile or Rigorous OO Methodologies: Getting the Best of Both Worlds Brian Henderson-Sellers 25 Big and Agile? Matt Simons 34 Opening Statement by Jim Highsmith Who wants to fly a wet beer mat? rigorous (or whatever label one expect significant variations in the What is the opposite of a Bengal chooses) methodologies a others. High-level CMM organiza- tiger? For answers to these and chaordic perspective, collab- tions tout their ability to achieve other intriguing questions, read on! orative values and principles, and their planned goals most of the barely sufficient methodology. A time (99.5% was reported in one As Ive read through the articles chaordic perspective arises from article on a new Level 5 organiza- for the two methodology debate the recognition and acceptance of tion [1]). Agile developers would issues of Cutter IT Journal, Ive increasing levels of unpredictability counter that this level of predict- wondered at times about the in our turbulent economic world ability is a sham either the debate. It seems that no one and that traditional plan-then- result of overpadding the plans or wants to be thought of as rigid, execute methods based on eliminating any risky (turbulent) stiff, or inflexible, so the agile stability and predictability will be projects from the portfolio. To agile bandwagon has become very the debate rages unsuccessful in this environment. developers, responding to change popular. Several of the articles in This perspective on turbulent is more important than conforming this issue one by Ivar Jacobson, change has a profound impact to a plan. In a moderate- to high- a principal author of the Rational on how agilists approach project change environment, responding Unified Process, and those by management. Two concrete ramifi- to those changes and achieving Alistair Cockburn and Steve Mellor, cations of trying to manage in an 99.5% conformance to plan are both authors of the Agile Manifesto unpredictable environment are incompatible goals. This perspec- seemed to be more focused on that (1) while goals are achievable, tive difference doesnt converge, explaining away the differences projects themselves are often nor should we want it to. The than explaining them. I dont mean unpredictable, and (2) the foun- issues surrounding highly changing to imply that this convergence is a dation of many process-driven environments and how to respond bad thing, just an interesting one. approaches, the goal of repeatable to them will remain fruitful ones However, dont be lulled into the processes, will be unattainable. for debate. conclusion that the debate has Jeff Sutherland directly addressed Second, as Alistair Cockburn abated. By converging on some this predictability issue in last points out in his article, sometimes issues, others are highlighted. If months issue. the differences are in emphasis. there were no differences, there By project unpredictability, I mean Agile developers, as described in would be no debate, and the that the traditional measure of the Agile Manifesto, have a laser response to these two issues of project success conforming to focus on people issues, hence the the Journal has shown that there scope, schedule, and cost plans second characteristic of agile are certainly debatable issues is an unrealistic goal. In highly development: collaborative values in this agile versus rigorous volatile environments, the best we and principles. Cockburns article methodology arena. can hope for is to focus on a single contains words like team, I think there are three categories characteristic scope, schedule, community, reflecting, and of issues related to the agile versus or cost (usually schedule) and amicability. If you were to ask 2 January 2002 ©2002 Cutter Information Corp. him about tools, he would prob- agile chaordic perspective, one Cutter IT Journal® ably say, Oh yes, you need good, that suggests creativity and innova- Cutter Business Technology Council: light tools also. Cockburn tion occur in a slightly messy envi- Rob Austin, James Bach, Tom believes strongly in automated ronment, not a mostly structured DeMarco, Jim Highsmith, Tim Lister, Ken Orr, Dick Nolan, Ed Yourdon testing tools, for example. How- one. It comes from the complex ever, his emphasis is probably adaptive systems concept of Editorial Board: Larry L. Constantine, Bill Curtis, 80% collaboration and 20% process balancing at the edge of chaos. Tom DeMarco, Peter Hruschka, and tools. A barely sufficient methodology Tomoo Matsubara, Navyug Mohnot, eliminates non-value-adding activi- Roger Pressman, Howard Rubin, On the flip side, consider the Paul A. Strassmann, Rob Thomsett ties and minimizes documentation emphasis areas in Ivar Jacobsons (and cost), but most importantly, Editor Emeritus: Ed Yourdon article. In the first sentence of the Publisher: Karen Fine Coburn the barely sufficient emphasis second section, he states that soft- Managing Editor: Karen Pasley supports the concept of collabora- Production Editor: Linda Mallon ware development is a highly tion (and the idea that too much Client Services: Christine Doucette creative undertaking and then structure adversely impacts Cutter IT Journal® (ISSN 1522-7383) recommends enhancing the collaboration) and is driven by is published 12 times a year creative environment by applying by Cutter Information Corp., a chaordic perspective. tools, processes, and automated 37 Broadway, Suite 1, Arlington, MA 02474-5552 (Tel: +1 781 648 8700, knowledge bases to the 80% of So as you read these articles and or, within North America, the work that he labels as repeti- try to reach a convergence of ideas +1 800 964 5118; Fax: +1 781 tive. Jacobsons solution involves that might work for your organiza- 648 1950 or, within North America, +1 800 888 1816; Web site: working on the non-creative piece tion, keep these three viewpoints www.cutter.com/consortium/). in order to free up time for the in mind: a chaordic perspective Cutter IT Journal® covers the more creative work. Cockburn on the turbulence and change software scene, with particular emphasizes how to improve the that project teams face, the extent emphasis on those events that will creative piece. There is some to which a collaborative set of impact the careers of information technology professionals around combination of both, a conver- values and principles resonates the world. gence of ideas, that most orga- with your organizations culture, ©2002 by Cutter Information Corp. nizations will employ. However, and whether or not a barely suffi- All rights reserved. Cutter IT Journal® the tough question is how to cient methodology would be is a trademark of Cutter Information balance, because the two areas enough for your company. Corp. No material in this publication may be reproduced, eaten, or are not independent. Too heavy an distributed without written permission There is no opposite to agile emphasis on tools and process from the publisher. Unauthorized software development, writes even if the 80% repetitive work is reproduction in any form, including Cockburn in our first article. The photocopying, faxing, and image the target can adversely impact scanning, is against the law. word agile depicts where people the collaborative environment choose to focus their attention. Subscription rates are US $485 a year and thus creativity. Too light an in North America, US $585 elsewhere, Alternatives to agile software emphasis on tools and process, payable to Cutter Information Corp. development arise as soon as they Reprints, bulk purchases, past issues, and the team will spend all its time focus their attention elsewhere. and multiple subscription and site fighting fires and have little time to license rates are available on request. He argues that there is no opposite be creative. to agile, that non-agile is a non- The concept of a barely sufficient thing. In so doing, he suggests methodology attempts to answer altering the debate from the the question of how much struc- correctness or incorrectness ture is enough. It derives from the of approaches to software Get the Cutter Edge free: www.cutter.com/consortium/ Vol. 15, No. 1 3 development to a debate about abstract forms. Mellor concludes development, 80% of the work where we place our emphasis. Do that few would argue over the remains repetitive, routine work we emphasize predictability or need to sketch out ideas, or that is amenable to automation maneuverability? Do we empha- over the benefits of executable through standard processes and size community or predictability? models, so the prime area for automated tools. Furthermore, he By altering the debate from debate is over blueprints. He views the RUP as an extensive either/or to where to place our goes on to discuss the progress knowledge base upon which emphasis which may change in executable models, such that teams can draw as needed. By from project to project based on debate over blueprints may soon systematizing and automating the the problem domain Cockburn be a non-issue. 80% of the work that is routine, helps frame the debate in collegial, Jacobson contends that the Ivar Jacobson, vice president of respectful ways.