headers
JeffGrigg | 1 Aug 2010 01:59
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Communicating from the Enterprise to Project Teams

--- "MarvinToll.com" <MarvinToll <at> ...> wrote:
>  <at> Jeff... I was just going back to find your original post..
> 
> <jeff>
> What I've seen and heard as most successful for distribution
> of Enterprise Application Architecture/Design is...
> 
> o Sample Programs - of the style of AppFuse

Ah; there it is!  Thanks!

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/message/154655
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ron Jeffries | 1 Aug 2010 02:02
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Communicating from the Enterprise to Project Teams

Hello, MarvinToll.com.  On Saturday, July 31, 2010, at 8:12:43 AM,
you wrote:

> What strategies can you endorse via 'hands-on' personal experience that
> effectively communicate Successful Large Enterprise (SLE) Application
> Architecture/Design to self-organized teams?

What do you mean by "effectively"? I've seen such things mandated,
and, mandated, they were used.

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
www.xprogramming.com/blog
That's my opinion and I agree with it. -- Julio Santos
Permalink | Reply | 316 comments |
headers
Ron Jeffries | 1 Aug 2010 02:04
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Communicating from the Enterprise to Project Teams

Hello, PAUL.  On Saturday, July 31, 2010, at 8:18:54 AM, you wrote:

> This assumption as been questioned in the past and there is a
> body of evidence that suggest that this is not the case. So if
> performance falls off with organisational size, why employ a large organisation?

> Instead of seeing large as a badge of success, history has shown
> that more often then not large is a badge of failure.

> Google has lots of small autonomous teams. Centrally all that
> occurs is a portfolio of projects is maintained in order of
> perceived value. This is used to manage budgets.

> They adopt the approach that there is more to gain by releasing
> teams, rather then trying to "enable" them. An alternative way of
> thinking about things, which is based on a completely different set of assumptions.

Recall, though, that Marvin's teams have incredibly high turnover,
and this is not likely to be corrected.

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
www.xprogramming.com/blog
Only the hand that erases can write the true thing.  -- Meister Eckhart
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Ron Jeffries | 1 Aug 2010 02:11
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Communicating from the Enterprise to Project Teams

Hello, MarvinToll.com.  On Saturday, July 31, 2010, at 10:26:58
AM, you wrote:

>  <at> Paul - EXACTLY!

> That is why I'm intentionally seeking out those that have seen first-hand a different outcome!

> <question>
> What strategies can you endorse via 'hands-on' personal
> experience that effectively communicate Successful Large
> Enterprise (SLE) Application Architecture/Design to self-organized teams?
> </question>

I believe Marvin is saying "If you don't have the answer I want,
don't answer."

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
www.xprogramming.com/blog
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.
The important thing is to not stop questioning. --Albert Einstein
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Ron Jeffries | 1 Aug 2010 02:13
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Re: Communicating from the Enterprise to Project Teams

Hello, MarvinToll.com.  On Saturday, July 31, 2010, at 10:45:47
AM, you wrote:

> What strategies can you endorse via 'hands-on' personal experience that
> effectively communicate Successful Large OpenSourceEnterprise
> Project(SLOP) Application Architecture/Design to self-organized teams?
> </question>

I have seen organizations command everyone to use some architecture.
I have seen the teams do it.

I have never seen it work so well that a /real/ self-organized team
couldn't have done better building their own architecture and mating
up on information interfaces.

> Ron... thought you would appreciate another acronym for your lexicon.  :-)

Indeed.

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
www.xprogramming.com/blog
If there's only one answer, then this must not be a very interesting topic.
Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Adam Sroka | 1 Aug 2010 02:45
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Re: Communicating from the Enterprise to Project Teams

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries <at> acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello, MarvinToll.com. On Saturday, July 31, 2010, at 10:45:47
>
> AM, you wrote:
>
> > What strategies can you endorse via 'hands-on' personal experience that
> > effectively communicate Successful Large OpenSourceEnterprise
> > Project(SLOP) Application Architecture/Design to self-organized teams?
> > </question>
>
> I have seen organizations command everyone to use some architecture.
> I have seen the teams do it.
>
> I have never seen it work so well that a /real/ self-organized team
> couldn't have done better building their own architecture and mating
> up on information interfaces.
>

I would go a step further and say that teams who are told to use a
certain architecture waste considerable energy trying to fulfill that
request even though they know of better ways to do it.

If you asked me what the most important lesson in the technical
training I give to teams was, I would say that it is this: challenge
your assumptions -- forget about what you think you /have/ to do (In
other words: YAGNI.)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
MarvinToll.com | 1 Aug 2010 05:08

Re: Communicating from the Enterprise to Project Teams

 <at> Ron... In our case project teams have no mandate to use Enterprise Application Architecture/Design
enablers.  (They are required to use the corporate infrastructure.)  I've acknowledged that there is
informal pressure from some project managers that do not want individuals or teams implementing their
own 'personal favorites' with the expectation that someone else in the Enterprise will provide support
for the next five-ten years.

To specifically answer your question in our context: 'Effective' means that 80% of the teams self-select
to use Enterprise-supplied enablers 80% of the time - because they believe the net impact on working
software is positive - including the overhead of comprehending the Enterprise communication.  (Pareto
Principle - we strongly resist providing 100% of functionality to 100% of the teams even though we are
continually requested to do so.  We believe that when 'too much' is contributed at the Enterprise level
designs become brittle.)

I would like to think that it is easier to use contextualized Enterprise enablers then competing
uncontextualized open source alternatives (although many of our 'enablers' are open source).  By
contextualized I mean optimized for our infrastructure, application architecture, Java patterns,
usability patterns, corporate security model, deployment model and developer training.

And I would like to think it is easier to read the imported souce code of our Enterprise Reference
Implementation then it is to read the documentation of many open source initiatives (AppFuse
excepted!). 

(Concluding Note: As you may have surmised the use of the 80/20 rule is a directional guideline... not a
metric.) 

P.S. I've mentioned that our company has 22 different enterprise service organizations telling teams
what to do (depending on the project).  So there is plenty of frustration which is not going to change
because you and I want it to.  What I believe is a starting point for change is how we communicate.  Or said
another way,  if an Application Architectural/Design point can not be made via working software in a
deployable Reference Implementation and/or Code Sampled Pattern... then shut-up about it.  The inbound
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 315 comments |
headers
MarvinToll.com | 1 Aug 2010 05:30

Re: Communicating from the Enterprise to Project Teams


 <at> Ron - Somehow I gave the impression that "Communicating from the Enterprise to Project Teams" implied
that the communication was a "command".

In our company we work collaboratively with teams and encourage them to point out any Application
Architectural/Design gaps.  If we feel an Enterprise solution is reuseable we will often partner with the
team.  Many times, the team is encouraged to find their own solution because the cost/benefit of an
Enterprise solution does not warrant an investment.

More simply stated... at our company teams are not "commanded" to do anything beyond use the corporate infrastructure.

It would be great if you had some face-to-face time to hear stories of frustration how things were working
with our distributed teams four & five years ago... and see how low-cost (high-turnover) sourcing with
distributed teams is working now.

Of course, as you know, I never assert that distributed teams are as effective as a colocated team!  However,
unless you and Chet are willing to work for $8 per hour colocation is not going to happen anytime soon.

--- Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries <at> ...> wrote:

> I have seen organizations command everyone to use some architecture.
> I have seen the teams do it.
> 
> I have never seen it work so well that a /real/ self-organized team
> couldn't have done better building their own architecture and mating
> up on information interfaces.
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
MarvinToll.com | 1 Aug 2010 05:49

Re: Communicating from the Enterprise to Project Teams

 <at>  George... two thoughts.

1) I fixed the wording of the question.  In an attempt to be 'cute' clarity suffered.

2) Your last point resonated with me... I've found a number of communication artifacts (including
PowerPoint) to be ineffective.

<question>
What strategies can you endorse via 'hands-on' personal experience that effectively communicated
Application Architecture/Design from an open source project to self-organized teams?
</question>

--- George Dinwiddie <lists <at> ...> wrote:
>
> Relating all this back to your question, I haven't seen any examples of 
> large companies successfully standardizing an architecture throughout 
> distributed development groups.  I /have/ seen examples where companies 
> /thought/ they'd done that, but since the architects coded in 
> powerpoint, their work had little effect on the systems that were 
> actually built.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
MarvinToll.com | 1 Aug 2010 06:03

Re: Communicating from the Enterprise to Project Teams

Almost... If I were brutally honest I'd say it this way:

"If you have not seen effective Enterprise Application Architecture/Design at work... then don't feel
compelled to share  another failure story.  I have experienced plenty of frustrations in this space and at
the moment I'm looking for examples that have worked well - if they exist."

<question v.3.1>
What strategies can you endorse via 'hands-on' personal experience that effectively communicated
Application Architecture/Design from an open source project to self-organized teams?
</question v.3.1>

--- Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries <at> ...> wrote:
>
> I believe Marvin is saying "If you don't have the answer I want,
> don't answer."
>
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane