File APIs for Java Developers
Manipulate DOC, XLS, PPT, PDF and many others from your application.
http://aspose.com/file-tools
The moose likes Agile and Other Processes and the fly likes what is the most used process Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Engineering » Agile and Other Processes
Bookmark "what is the most used process" Watch "what is the most used process" New topic
Author

what is the most used process

Kishore Dandu
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 10, 2001
Posts: 1934
In terms of number of projects, what do experts think is the most used process(wrt to software Engineering).
What process is more applicable to the size and scope of project, those comments are also welcome.
Your bets about which will have longer lifespan, please give that input aswell.


Kishore
SCJP, blog
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal

Joined: Jul 08, 2003
Posts: 24187
    
  34

I suspect that, sadly, the most used process is still "none."


[Jess in Action][AskingGoodQuestions]
Nicholas Cheung
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 4982
Among those projects I took part in, I found that people usually start think about the process at the very beginning. However, as time goes on, or maybe when the deadline is round the corner, people start rushing out a *workable* system, and put aside the process.
I guess, large firms, like IBM, SUN, etc, may still have the stardard guidelines on the process, however, the rest may not.
Nick


SCJP 1.2, OCP 9i DBA, SCWCD 1.3, SCJP 1.4 (SAI), SCJD 1.4, SCWCD 1.4 (Beta), ICED (IBM 287, IBM 484, IBM 486), SCMAD 1.0 (Beta), SCBCD 1.3, ICSD (IBM 288), ICDBA (IBM 700, IBM 701), SCDJWS, ICSD (IBM 348), OCP 10g DBA (Beta), SCJP 5.0 (Beta), SCJA 1.0 (Beta), MCP(70-270), SCBCD 5.0 (Beta), SCJP 6.0, SCEA for JEE5 (in progress)
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
I suspect that, sadly, the most used process is still "none."

I was going to say "death march", but I suspect that's really the same answer....
friso dejonge
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 162
guess, large firms, like IBM, SUN, etc, may still have the stardard guidelines on the process, however, the rest may not.

yes true most big companies use some sort of rup/standardised process. They skipped over waterfall, because that has a bad name in the industry (wonder why)
Management, again i came back to management, tell customers they are using rup, uml and all sorts of diagrams associated with RUP. Then in reality what happens is that when the design phase is over and functional and technical designs have to be updated, nothing happens. Developers use waterfall methods, and management preaches they used RUP extensively.
so it is down to perception whether your company uses RUP or any other guidelined process or not.
It is true, i am cynical about the processes, because mostly they end up the same way.
friso
ps. You can replace RUP with any guidelined process.


swimming certificate (A & B), shoelaces diploma, and some useless java ones.
Lasse Koskela
author
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 23, 2002
Posts: 11962
    
    5
Then in reality what happens is that when the design phase is over...
In other words, neither the management nor the developers try to avoid the waterfall...


Author of Test Driven (2007) and Effective Unit Testing (2013) [Blog] [HowToAskQuestionsOnJavaRanch]
friso dejonge
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 162
true, but have you seen it any other way ?
Lasse Koskela
author
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 23, 2002
Posts: 11962
    
    5
Originally posted by friso dejonge:
true, but have you seen it any other way ?

Yes. And I'm sure many of this forum's regulars have seen as well.
Unfortunately it's most often the developers who strive for iterations, rarely the management.
Jane Cleland-Huang
Author
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 28, 2004
Posts: 32
I was just looking through this thread - and I realize it is NOT an IFM thread (and I was trying to be a little sensitive and NOT try to bring IFM into every conversation)... however I would like to raise what I think is a relevant point.
If management see the financial benefits of iteration - then they will do more than preach it, they will buy into it. IFM provides a strong financial rationale for iterative development, because iteration is an underlying principle for incremental delivery.


Jane Cleland-Huang PhD<br />DePaul University<br />jhuang@cs.depaul.edu<br /><a href="http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/jhuang" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/jhuang</a>
Lasse Koskela
author
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 23, 2002
Posts: 11962
    
    5
Originally posted by Jane Cleland-Huang:
I was trying to be a little sensitive and NOT try to bring IFM into every conversation
Jane, now that you did bring IFM into every conversation ...
...would it be a reasonable guess that IFM would be more easily "understood" by management than the Throughput Accounting method described in Agile Management for Software Engineering? The problem I see with Throughput Accounting is that it takes more CPU cycles to grasp than a typical manager has to spare that it easily gets the shoulder simply because the audience doesn't understand the suggested approach.
Jane Cleland-Huang
Author
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 28, 2004
Posts: 32
Well I have to admit that I haven't read this book. Could you give a brief synopsis?
Nicholas Cheung
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 4982

The problem I see with Throughput Accounting is that it takes more CPU cycles to grasp than a typical manager has to spare that it easily gets the shoulder simply because the audience doesn't understand the suggested approach.

Does this be too *low level*?
I dont know much about Throughput accounting, but, I think, it is very *painful* for analysts if we need to quatify everything during the fesiability study. In addition, if we consider CPU cycles, how about I/O then? and network? many many things can be involved in fact.
Nick
Kishore Dandu
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 10, 2001
Posts: 1934
Some big firms(like Sabre) started using XP. But,many of their developers do it because they had to follow corporate dictate rather than project/people's choice.
I have seen many other projects where there is time crunch to go the way of iterative approach and assiging difficult tasks to experts and easier ones to beginners etc.
[ April 29, 2004: Message edited by: Kishore Dandu ]
Ilja Preuss
author
Sheriff

Joined: Jul 11, 2001
Posts: 14112
Originally posted by Kishore Dandu:
But,many of their developers do it because they had to follow corporate dictate rather than project/people's choice.

Where do you have this from?


The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Think only on those things that are in line with your principles and can bear the light of day. The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny - it is the light that guides your way. - Heraclitus
Kishore Dandu
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 10, 2001
Posts: 1934
Originally posted by Ilja Preuss:

Where do you have this from?

Well, I have it from some friends working in XP environment in a particular company. They are just doing it because of their senior VPs dictate. They say, they would prefer a mix of XP and UP depending on customer and other resources at hand(since they have projects that last different time frames).
Lasse Koskela
author
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 23, 2002
Posts: 11962
    
    5
Originally posted by Jane Cleland-Huang:
Well I have to admit that I haven't read this book. Could you give a brief synopsis?

Ok. Throughput Accounting is derived from the Theory of Constraints (a software development process always has a bottleneck and everything should be subordinated to exploit that bottleneck until it's no longer the bottleneck) and is supposed to be a much better fit than traditional Cost Accounting, because...
From http ://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/Archive/9808/pg_aa9808_throughput.html:
Eli Goldratt argues that traditional cost accounting is 'public enemy number one' of productivity for two reasons. First, by using by efficiency rates as local performance measures, and measuring the volume variance, traditional cost accounting encourages the accumulation of inventories. Second, the cost accounting approach emphasises local cost reduction - a flawed strategy for continuous improvement, as costs can only be reduced to a certain minimum level. The goal of organisations is to make money now and in the future; therefore, an organisation's objectives from a throughput perspective will be to maximise throughput (sales, not production), minimise inventory and minimise operating expense.
Here's a couple more descriptions:
http://www.corbett-toc.com/eng/pag_09.htm
http://www.accountancysa.org.za/archives/1998sep/features/road.htm
Lasse Koskela
author
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 23, 2002
Posts: 11962
    
    5
Originally posted by Kishore Dandu:
I have seen many other projects where there is time crunch to go the way of iterative approach and assiging difficult tasks to experts and easier ones to beginners etc.
It might be the late hours in Finland, but what are you saying here? That the time crunch prevents from doing X or forces to do X?
Lasse Koskela
author
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 23, 2002
Posts: 11962
    
    5
Originally posted by Kishore Dandu:
They are just doing it because of their senior VPs dictate. They say, they would prefer a mix of XP and UP depending on customer and other resources at hand (since they have projects that last different time frames).

What kind of variance in time frames are we talking about? There are plenty of projects that go on for ages and use XP to their success (think C3, which was a success for a couple of years until management started to dig the ground from under the team). Then again, if the project is going to last for two weeks or a month, would it really be better to use RUP instead (specifically, a tailored instance that's not close to XP)?
In short, I don't see how the variance in time frames should affect the "ideal" process for a project? I do, however, see how certain other aspects would have such an effect (legislative regulations, or life-critical problem domain, for example).
Ilja Preuss
author
Sheriff

Joined: Jul 11, 2001
Posts: 14112
Originally posted by Kishore Dandu:
Well, I have it from some friends working in XP environment in a particular company. They are just doing it because of their senior VPs dictate.

Well, that's of course quite anti-XP. "People and Interactions over Processes and Tools."
They say, they would prefer a mix of XP and UP depending on customer and other resources at hand(since they have projects that last different time frames).

That puzzles me a little bit, too, for several reasons.
First, as Lasse I don't see how time frames would drive me not wanting to do XP. After the first iteration, an XP project actually is in "maintenance mode" and could probably go on forever, or so it seems to me.
And second, if they know that a project would be improved by adding some UP practices to it or even dropping some of the XP practices, XP actually asks them to do so.
Tom Hennigan
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 25, 2001
Posts: 71
SDL (Software Development Lifecucle), combined with some OOAD, some UML diagrams, and some RAD (prototypes) seems to be most common in my limited experience. Iterative process has goods points in theory, but many veterans "powers-that-be" that is "managers and directors" cling to old ways.

UML Distilled points out well the combo-approaches commonly used. Newer IT departments (managers, too) try to include more modern design processes. In time, RUP, UP, Agile model will replace RAD, SDL, and combos, I think.


Tom Hennigan<P>Sun Certified Java 2 Platform Programmer
Lasse Koskela
author
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 23, 2002
Posts: 11962
    
    5
Note that DOD officially lifted their legendary "waterfall bias" already years ago, realizing that an iterative approach seems to be the only way to avoid multi-billion dollar failures... Even Winston Royce wrote in his classic waterfall paper that waterfall (~SDLC) works for only the simplest of projects and that you should always iterate at least once.

Obviously none of these facts made their way to the ears of the powers that be, which leaves us with what we've got today...
[ July 27, 2004: Message edited by: Lasse Koskela ]
Kishore Dandu
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 10, 2001
Posts: 1934
Originally posted by Tom Hennigan:
SDL (Software Development Lifecucle), combined with some OOAD, some UML diagrams, and some RAD (prototypes) seems to be most common in my limited experience. Iterative process has goods points in theory, but many veterans "powers-that-be" that is "managers and directors" cling to old ways.

UML Distilled points out well the combo-approaches commonly used. Newer IT departments (managers, too) try to include more modern design processes. In time, RUP, UP, Agile model will replace RAD, SDL, and combos, I think.


I agree with ur first paragraph. Second paragraph becoming a reality may take some time(except for the expensive consultants from Accenture and Bearingpoint trying to do it)
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: what is the most used process