With a bit of creative thinking, a moderately iterative approach can be made to "appear" as a waterfall framework, if that is the externally imposed development approach.
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
[QB]The GOOD points of RUP
Heavily uses UML.
UML is a good tool since it makes it easier for both customer and developer since it gives them modelling tool that both can understand.
RUP gives a control over the project; this will help project managers to manage the development especially if the project is large.
Not like SSDAM, which was designed so that everybody could use it.
Only really deal with software development
More for developers than customer
Do not have as much user/customer interaction as say E.T.H.I.C.S and Soft system methodology.
These points make me think that it would be difficult to work with RUP Waterfallish.
What do you do in SSM, but not in RUP regarding user/customer interaction?
Customers typically do understand UML??? That's news to me...
What kind of control are we speaking about here? Can you give examples?
I'd say they're not. This is the first time I've read about ETHICS, but I can't find anything particularly similar between ETHICS stages 4-5 and extreme programming.
I'd say stages 4 and 5 of ETHICS are similar to XP.
Again, I would not. ETHICS is just a process, and one that trusts on big design up-front and prototyping, it seems. Why would one try to make sense of a process framework (RUP) by looking at a process instance--unless that particular process instance would be somehow the most common?
When trying to make sense of RUP I'd look for something that includes stages 1 to 3 of ETHICS.
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
I admit I have a problem in determining the role of the Customer in RUP or XP.
If customers or more importantly customer reps don't need to understand UML then there does not seem to be enough to link the Customer system describing processes and system development processes.
Even Bob Martin said here that he doesn't utilise Use Cases (and that means CRC cards as well)
but that may be because he is a big enough personage to have contact with the business people who matter (but who may not be doing the actual tasks)
There doesn't seem much said in RUP or XP for the Customer (reps) process or toolset which makes for poor analysis.
RUP (and XP) seems mainly for system developers. If Customer reps do not need to understand UML then I cannot see how they'll be trying to go from UML to BPEL4WS either, for instance.
I wouldn't want to work in an environment (again) where capable Analysts left in droves (leaving the crud behind) and all because their role wasn't particularly well-defined.
Originally posted by Lasse Kosekela :
I would consider myself very, very lucky for getting a customer who understands UML. Not because I would draw UML diagrams for him but because that would indicate that she probably knows other "technical" stuff as well. At least to some degree. Heck, maybe she's even an ex-software engineer!
Originally posted by Illja Preuss:
No, it doesn't. I am quite sure that he uses CRC cards as a design tool. Like Lasse, I don't see the connection to Use Cases
Can you elaborate on this problem?
Originally posted by Stan James:
Some of the ideas come from XP and other AgileMethodologies. But we are careful to not say we are "doing XP." XP has 12 (or so) major practices, and we are trying only a few.