headers
Alleman, Glen B. | 3 Jun 2003 15:30

RE: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.

Mike,

As a reviewer of SWEBOK this is a problem in a larger context. SWEBOK is
an academic framework for the teaching of Software Engineering. The
first thought is that XP and agile method are transitory in the
engineering world. Meaning they are the "current" methods and describing
them in a "body of knowledge" is risky. Not because of their value to
the software world but because they are too far down in the food chain.
It would belike teaching GIS methods for waste water remediation in an
environmental engineering Body of Knowledge - critically important but
only so once you reach the field.

On the other hand agile methods have become recognizable in the broader
community and they need to be addressed somewhere besides the forums and
trade rags. I haven't received the review package yet (June is the plan)
so I'll make my meager effort to ask the power that be - "why not
mention agile methods."

BTW the SWEBOK is a normative standard and as such does not address the
participative and heuristic approaches to methodologies.

Glen B. Alleman
VP, Program Management Offfice
CH2M HILL
Rocky Flast Environmental Technology Site 
303.966.5865 Office
303.994.0874 Cell
glen.alleman <at> rfets.gov
glen.alleman <at> ch2m.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Mike Cohn | 3 Jun 2003 17:06
Favicon

RE: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.

There's a difference, however, between mentioning agile methods and writing
a body of knowledge that has some implicit assumptions about Big Design
Upfront. I would think our body of knowledge should include mention that Big
Design Upfront doesn't work--even if there is no explicit mention of
anything agile.

Perhaps we mean a guide to the Agile Body of Knowledge? :)

--Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Alleman, Glen B. [mailto:glen.alleman <at> rfets.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 7:31 AM
To: scrumdevelopment <at> yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They
Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.

Mike,

As a reviewer of SWEBOK this is a problem in a larger context. SWEBOK is
an academic framework for the teaching of Software Engineering. The
first thought is that XP and agile method are transitory in the
engineering world. Meaning they are the "current" methods and describing
them in a "body of knowledge" is risky. Not because of their value to
the software world but because they are too far down in the food chain.
It would belike teaching GIS methods for waste water remediation in an
environmental engineering Body of Knowledge - critically important but
only so once you reach the field.

On the other hand agile methods have become recognizable in the broader
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David J. Anderson | 3 Jun 2003 17:44
Picon
Favicon

RE: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.

How does the SWEBOK treat RAD? (as it has been around
for 10 years or so)

and 

How does SWEBOK relate to PMBOK (if at all)?

Glen, When you say this is used for academic teaching
do you mean that it is the basis off which books such
as Somerville's "Software Engineering" and Pressman's
"Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach" are
updated? If so then I do not see why Agile methods
should not be part of it.

Regards,

David

--- Mike Cohn <mike <at> mountaingoatsoftware.com> wrote:

There's a difference, however, between mentioning
agile methods and writing
a body of knowledge that has some implicit assumptions
about Big Design
Upfront. I would think our body of knowledge should
include mention that Big
Design Upfront doesn't work--even if there is no
explicit mention of
anything agile.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Brad Appleton | 3 Jun 2003 19:13

Agility and CMBoK? (was Re: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.)

On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 09:06:08AM -0600, Mike Cohn wrote:
> There's a difference, however, between mentioning agile methods and writing
> a body of knowledge that has some implicit assumptions about Big Design
> Upfront. I would think our body of knowledge should include mention that Big
> Design Upfront doesn't work--even if there is no explicit mention of
> anything agile.
> 
> Perhaps we mean a guide to the Agile Body of Knowledge? :)

Hmmn - an AgileBoK? 

On an (only somewhat) related note, a configuration-management WIki-web was started about a year ago and
some folks voluntarily took it upon themselves to attempt to document a CM Body of Knowledge (or CMBoK). I
don't think they intent certification (at least not yet - tho they did model it after the organization of
the PMI's PMBOK).

There is a section of it that talks about contribution to CM from other areas and methods, and which speaks
specifically about contributions from Agile development, XP, SCRUM, and RAD. These are all still "in
progress" of course and some parts or obviously incomplete. (one of the sections was taken from an email
posting of mine to a related mailing list wondering what the heck this agile-stuff was and how does it
relate to CM, and is it anything new or just old wine in new skins).

Those wanting to look at it and make clarification/corrections/additions or comments can do so at their
leisure (it's a wiki after all) at:
 http://www.cmcrossroads.com/cgi-bin/cmwiki/bin/view.cgi/CM/CMBoKContributions

--

-- 
Brad Appleton <brad <at> bradapp.net> www.bradapp.net
  Software CM Patterns (www.scmpatterns.com)
   Effective Teamwork, Practical Integration
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike Beedle | 3 Jun 2003 22:49

RE: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.


<please read me in a humurous tone.>

--- "Alleman, Glen B." <glen.alleman <at> rfets.gov> wrote:
>As a reviewer of SWEBOK this is a problem in a larger

>context. SWEBOK is an academic framework for 
>the teaching of Software Engineering. 

Glen:

Well, agile developers would claim that what we
knew about Software Engineering before agile methods
came about was largely useless -- specially based
on their success rate.

Also, if you accept that agile software development is

a _fundamental_ and _revolutionary_ approach 
to software engineering that has been proven to 
enhance certainty, productivity, quality and 
human comfort above and beyond of what 
previous Software Engineering approaches
were able to deliver, you would pitty _any_ students 
that would be deprived of such valuable knowledge.

--- "Alleman, Glen B." <glen.alleman <at> rfets.gov> wrote:
> The first thought is that XP and agile method are 
> transitory in the engineering world. Meaning they 
> are the "current" methods and describing them
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Alleman, Glen B. | 3 Jun 2003 23:31

RE: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.

Can't speak for Somerville's and Pressman's books, but the SWEBOK can be
used as the basis of curricula development.

Glen B. Alleman

|-----Original Message-----
|From: David J. Anderson [mailto:netherby_uk <at> yahoo.co.uk]
|Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:44 AM
|To: scrumdevelopment <at> yahoogroups.com
|Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for
Reviewers--They
|Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.
|
|How does the SWEBOK treat RAD? (as it has been around
|for 10 years or so)
|
|and
|
|How does SWEBOK relate to PMBOK (if at all)?
|
|Glen, When you say this is used for academic teaching
|do you mean that it is the basis off which books such
|as Somerville's "Software Engineering" and Pressman's
|"Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach" are
|updated? If so then I do not see why Agile methods
|should not be part of it.
|
|Regards,
|
|David
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ron Jeffries | 4 Jun 2003 00:10
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Agility and CMBoK? (was Re: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.)

On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 1:13:23 PM, Brad Appleton wrote:

>> Perhaps we mean a guide to the Agile Body of Knowledge? :)

> Hmmn - an AgileBoK? 

Verrrry Interesting ...

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Bang, bang, Jeffries' silver hammer came down upon their heads ...
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Alleman, Glen B. | 4 Jun 2003 16:10

RE: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.

Agreed Mike, the challenge - and there always is one - is how to make
changes to the curricula of CS departments. Many decades ago I decided
I'd do a terminal master degree that my employer would pay for.  Peter
Freeman was a "simple" Prof then (he's now the Chair of CS at George
Tech and does something in the government as well). We were learning
about analysis methods and had Al Irvine come to our work (aerospace
firm) from SADT fame. Peter had never really written software for money
before. Along with Standish (of UCI and data structures) I think they
learned a lot about the "commercial" world versus the "academic" world. 

Standish had us "test drive" his data structures book. A developer from
the then Burroughs in Mission Viejo explained that the string parsing
algorithms in the data structure book was lame and he used one in the
Ada compiler he worked on that was an order of magnitude faster.
Standish had was very interested to learn that we in the "biz" had
already worked out many of the problems. My home work was to write up
the Huffman coding algorithm we used for image compression at the time
(radar signal processing). I failed to turn it in on time and didn't get
my name in the book.

The point is the SWEBOK authors live in the university and their view is
different - neither right or wrong - just different.

Glen B. Alleman
VP, Program Management Offfice
CH2M HILL
Rocky Flast Environmental Technology Site 
303.966.5865 Office
303.994.0874 Cell
glen.alleman <at> rfets.gov
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Marco Abis | 4 Jun 2003 16:22
Picon

Re: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.


Despite the fact that I don't always agree with him, Grady Booch wrote about the SWEBOK:

"Yes, I was one of those 500 earlier reviewers - and my comments were  entirely negative. The SWEBOK I
reviewed was well-intentioned but  misguided, naive, incoherent, and just flat wrong in so many dimensions."

Maybe it's me but I don't generally like BOK (I know few of them, in particular the PMBOK) because they often
seems to me just a list of thing to be taken as truth even if the authors already know that outside the reality
is "a little different".

Just my 0.02 eurocent

Marco Abis
Agility SPI: Software Process Improvement 
abis <at> agilemovement.it - abis <at> acm.org 
http://agilemovement.it
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Fabian Ritzmann | 4 Jun 2003 17:01
Picon

Re: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc.

Alleman, Glen B. wrote:

> Agreed Mike, the challenge - and there always is one - is how to make
> changes to the curricula of CS departments. Many decades ago I decided
> I'd do a terminal master degree that my employer would pay for.  Peter
> Freeman was a "simple" Prof then (he's now the Chair of CS at George
> Tech and does something in the government as well). We were learning
> about analysis methods and had Al Irvine come to our work (aerospace
> firm) from SADT fame. Peter had never really written software for money
> before. Along with Standish (of UCI and data structures) I think they
> learned a lot about the "commercial" world versus the "academic" world. 

I don't quite understand the argument. I just checked the curriculum of
my former CS faculty and they offer seminars for MSc students on Extreme
Programming and seminars for BSc students on "modern software
engineering methods".

I remember half a decade ago :-) when I finished my degree PSP was very
popular. We had seminars on that and research assistants were busy
writing research papers on it. Now I'm seeing the same assistents write
papers on test-driven development and pair programming.

Generally, I find that Agile software development methods are much
closer to how software is developed in an academic environment than more
traditional methods.

Fabian
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |

Gmane