Agile, Lean, Kanban and kindred software practices present different variations on the same theme: How to do software development more effective, i.e. how to provide customers’ happiness with more confidence.
- creative, knowledgeable and skilled team lead,
- ¼ of the team is creative and skilled,
- ¼ of the team is more creative than skilled,
- ¼ of the team is more skilled than creative,
- ¼ of the team lacks creativeness and skills, however these guys are sufficiently responsible and diligent.
Range of “non-ideality” of a development team can vary substantially, that is why we need definite clear rules of thumb to organize lean/agile processes for an average team.
Similar rules for widely used SLCMs are well known. Certainly, these rules are not carved in stone, and mostly they even do not exist as written lists of regulations. These rules are defined indirectly, being backed by something very well thought out like sets of standard documents/records that should be kept throughout the project and/or sets of special software to support all the stages of the SLC. It is true for the waterfall model as well as for the iterative one implemented by RUP/IBM or by Microsoft.
Existent rules not only make it possible for an average team to deal with a project, but they also eliminate misunderstandings and disputes between developers and customers: The both sides have the same landmarks from the very beginning. Absence of such reference points in the current agile projects is supposed to be compensated by flexibility both of the developer and of the customer as well as by common sense of the parties. Sounds more feasible than it really is for an average development team and an average customer.
No comments:
Post a Comment