Win a copy of Programmer's Guide to Java SE 8 Oracle Certified Associate (OCA) this week in the OCAJP forum!
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Heayweight Methodologie- RUP

 
Shazia Parveen
Greenhorn
Posts: 10
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi all,

Need help on this:-
'The Rational Unified Process (RUP) is often considered to be a 'heavyweight' process. To what extent is this true???
What RUP chracteristics make it heavyweight?

Help will very much be appreciated!
 
Lasse Koskela
author
Sheriff
Posts: 11962
5
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The appearance of RUP as being heavyweight generally comes from the way it being applied or "instantiated", meaning that the people in charge of devising a process instance based on what RUP, the process framework has to offer, err too much on the heavy side, resulting in a document-driven process with lots of sign-offs and gates to pass through. I'd like to think that most all of these people do so with good intentions but, in my experience, the RUP instance that results from all those good intentions and the "hey, this sounds good -- we'll do that as well" insights has always been way too rigid and cumbersome for the project it was to be applied to.

Often resulting in nobody following the process but instead trying to circumvent it as much as possible...
 
Ilja Preuss
author
Sheriff
Posts: 14112
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Lasse Koskela:
The appearance of RUP as being heavyweight generally comes from the way it being applied or "instantiated", meaning that the people in charge of devising a process instance based on what RUP, the process framework has to offer, err too much on the heavy side, resulting in a document-driven process with lots of sign-offs and gates to pass through. I'd like to think that most all of these people do so with good intentions but, in my experience, the RUP instance that results from all those good intentions and the "hey, this sounds good -- we'll do that as well" insights has always been way too rigid and cumbersome for the project it was to be applied to.


I guess that it feels more safe to err on the heavyweight side - doing too much might hurt less than doing too little.

In fact that is true - and a problem! Because doing too much hurts less, it is also harder to notice and correct. If you do too little, you will most often notice very early. From the perspective of *iterating* to a good process, it is therefore more safe to start with too little!
 
Stan James
(instanceof Sidekick)
Ranch Hand
Posts: 8791
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Our team was taught RUP by Rational consultants, on site for most of 1996. They definitely gave it a heavy flavor. Nowadays I'd bet you'd get a different picture.

Also in 1996 I interviewed with a manager who had just come off the Seawolf submarine project, and was proud that their methodology took up 12 shelf feet of books. I had just started reading about CMM and such and I was pretty impressed. Nowadays I'd run like hell.
 
Lasse Koskela
author
Sheriff
Posts: 11962
5
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by Stan James:
their methodology took up 12 shelf feet of books.

...are you sure that wasn't mythology more than methodology?
 
Scott Ambler
author
Ranch Hand
Posts: 608
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
You might find Skinnier RUP to be of interest.

RUP can be instantiated to be very slim, but the reality is that most organizations choose to instantiate it as a HW process. IMHO that is almost always a very serious mistake.

- Scott
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic