Re: XP, the Agile Alliance, and RUP



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Sinan Si Alhir (salhir@earthlink.net)
Mon, 13 Aug 2001 21:13:18 -0500


Just a note regarding the paper "XP, the Agile Alliance, and RUP". Apologies for the broad/repetitive distribution -- but feedback has been overly extensive. This paper is *not* about XP *vs.* RUP, but about XP *and* RUP together ---- it appears that when people see the words XP and RUP in the same title or sentence, they assume its a *vs.* rather than an *and*. This paper is *not intended to offend anyone* (only explicate the facts as they appear) but *is intended to be reconciliatory*, in better delineating between the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and computer programming languages, deciphering the concepts of "weight" and "agility" relative to methodology and process, and exploring and bridging the chasm between XP, the Agile Alliance, and RUP. Announcements of this paper do not constitute the whole paper! 0. Abstract "Some may even [and some may NOT] venture to claim that the debate has reached climactic proportions" based on "language and tone". 1. Introduction Its all about "culture", "people", "processes", "tools", a "common goal and a shared vision". 2. Language "No 'silver bullets'" -- its all about "knowledge", "societies", "cultures", "social structures", and "language". 2a. The Unified Modeling Language (UML) This language focuses across the lifecycle perspectives (beginning, middle, and end) and "layers of abstraction". 2b. Computer Programming Languages These types of languages focuses on a subset of the lifecycle perspectives (end) and "layers of abstraction". 3. Methodology and Process There are process frameworks (methodologies), process instances (processes), and projects -- its all about cultural values, principles, techniques, and practices. 3a. Weight We can consider the mass of a methodology, the mass of a process instance, and the weight of a process instance. We can consider massive methodologies and minute methodologies. We can consider lightweight processes and heavyweight processes. 3b. Agility We can consider operational, tactical, and strategic capabilities. We can consider the agility of a methodology, the agility of a process instance, and the agility of a project. 4. The Chasm The chasm between RUP and XP has three dimensions: Process-vs-People, Documentation-vs-Code, and Predictive-vs-Adaptive. But, "the issue of weight *cannot* simply be reduced to people *or* process, documentation *or* code, or being predictive *or* adaptive, but must be a *mixture of all aspects*." 4a. RUP and XP RUP and XP are similar (structurally and semantically) --- dynamically likewise. 4b. The Agile Alliance There has been emphasis on the mass of a methodology and agility of a project (independent of the other characteristics). Historically (given the market dynamics), this is NOT unanticipated -- for the Agile alliance members to classify themselves as "anarchists". 4c. Bridging the Chasm Its not about "fear" but "a mixture of all aspects". The three dimensions (Process-vs-People, Documentation-vs-Code, and Predictive-vs-Adaptive) apply to RUP and XP, but are dependent on the practitioners applying them. 5. Conclusion It "is *not* simply either RUP *or* XP" but RUP *and* XP to "bridge the chasm". ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sinan Si Alhir" <salhir@earthlink.net> To: "pUML" <puml-list@cs.york.ac.uk> Cc: "Sinan Si Alhir" <salhir@earthlink.net> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 12:13 AM Subject: XP, the Agile Alliance, and RUP > > The following paper may be of interest: > > > * "XP, the Agile Alliance, and RUP" > (http://home.earthlink.net/~salhir/#xpaarup) > > This paper elucidates the reality beyond the surface of the debate between > heavyweight approaches and lightweight or "agile" approaches by delineating > between the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and computer programming > languages, deciphering the concepts of "weight" and "agility" relative to > methodology and process, and exploring and bridging the chasm between XP, > the Agile Alliance, and RUP to conclude that *RUP is a more massive but more > agile methodology than XP, from which appropriately weighted and more agile > processes than XP may be derived, with which more agile projects than XP may > be executed*, and given RUP's broad scope, breadth and depth, and > flexibility as a process framework and given XP's collection of practices, > *the chasm is bridged via applying RUP, as a process framework, within which > XP, as a collection of practices, may be leveraged*. > > > I welcome your comments. > > Thank you. > > Sincerely, > Sinan Si Alhir > Email: mailto:salhir@earthlink.net > WWW: http://home.earthlink.net/~salhir > --- --- --- > Read what people are saying about "UML in a Nutshell" (Comments and > Feedback) [http://home.earthlink.net/~salhir/#umlinanutshell] > >


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view