RE: Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce: msg#00020 programming.scrum.general

Still kidding for a moment - 1000 pages for a $23MM
project would still be OK.

Now to deal with the real beast of Waterfall and why
it remains popular.

I think it is to do with two things - a tangible way
to declare progress - and related to this a way for
accounts to show added value - some countries allow
the capitalization of development work in their
standard and acceptable accounting practices.

The 2nd one creates a macro problem for managers -
they can have financial constraints or controls
imposed which make Waterfall optimal for solving the
problem of meeting their numbers. This would be hard
to overcome - maybe impossible in a big company -
Fortune 500.

The first one is really to do with how acceptable the
management finds reporting methods. I think that
getting out of the waterfall model can be overcome
with learning. For example, if in Scrum you could
build consensus that reporting on the burn down chart
of tasks for a project (or as Ken does in the book)
report the hours remaining then this may be
acceptable.

It occurs to me that the hours remaining against the
hours spent may be a suitable solution to the
financial problem too.

Developers get asked to fill out timesheets becuase of
management accounting methods such as Activity Based
Costing. If Scrum's time remaining (and time spent)
charts were enough for management then the Waterfall
thinking would be broken.

In my experience, getting people to buy-off on new
ways of reporting progress is very hard - very hard
indeed.

David

--- Paul <horked_noodle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<HR>
<html><body>

<tt>
Kidding aside, what is the real take on the 1000
page 
spec? 
Dr. Royce said a 1000 page spec is appropriate and 
David said it's reasonable, but isn't this totally 
wrong approach to agile? 
Why spec so much? 
I loathe the waterfall methodology.  We have
one 
manager trying to push it at my company.  He's
winning 
the battle. 
 
--- Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: 
> Great. Where do I apply? 
> Ken 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Mike Cohn 
> [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:54 PM 
> To: scrumdevelopment@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
Dr. 
> Winston Royce 
> 
> 
> According to 
> 
<a
href="http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/";>http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/research/data/us/calc/</a> 
> 
> $5 million in 1970 is $23M today 
> and 
> Ken should be making $55,515 a year. 
> 
> --Mike 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Ken Schwaber
[mailto:ken.schwaber@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:18 PM 
> To: scrumdevelopment@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> Subject: RE: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
Dr. 
> Winston Royce 
> 
> Let's see. In 1970 I was being paid $12,000 a
year 
> by the University of 
> Chicago. At the same markup (factor of 30), I
should 
> be making $360,000 
> per 
> year. Who wants to contribute to the cause?? 
> Ken 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: David J. Anderson 
> [mailto:netherby_uk@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:12 PM 
> To: scrumdevelopment@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Waterfall and
Dr. 
> Winston Royce 
> 
> 
> What would $5MM be in today's money? My guess
is 
> around $150MM. 
> 
> I'd say a 1000 page specification for a
$150MM 
> project 
> would be decidedly agile. 
> 
> David 
> -- 
> David Anderson 
> <a
href="http://www.uidesign.net/";>http://www.uidesign.net/</a> 
> The Webzine for Interaction Designers 
> 
> --- "Ken Schwaber
<ken.schwaber@xxxxxxxxxxx>" 
> <ken.schwaber@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> 
> Documentation - Dr. Royce, "My own view is
quite a 
> lot...the first 
> rule of managing software development is
ruthless 
> enforcement of 
> documentation requirements ... Management of 
> software 
> is simply 
> impossible without a very high degree of 
> documentation." Dr. Royce 
> indicates that a 1000 page spec document is 
> appropriate for a $5m 
> project, mostly because "a verbal record is
too 
> intangible." 
> 
> 
> 
>
__________________________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign
up 
> now. 
> <a
href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com";>http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a> 
> 
> To Post a message, send it to:  
> scrumdevelopment@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: 
> scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a> 
> 
> 
> 
> To Post a message, send it to:  
> scrumdevelopment@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: 
> scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To Post a message, send it to:  
> scrumdevelopment@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: 
> scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a> 
> 
> 
> 
 
===== 
==Paul 
 
__________________________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
now. 
<a
href="http://mailplus.yahoo.com";>http://mailplus.yahoo.com</a> 
</tt>

 
<tt>
To Post a message, send it to:  
scrumdevelopment@xxxxxxxxxxx 
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx</tt>
 

 
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>


</body></html>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@xxxxxxxxxxx
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Previous by Date:	RE: Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce: 00020, Paul
Next by Date:	RE: Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce: 00020, Ken Schwaber
Previous by Thread:	RE: Waterfall and Dr. Winston Roycei: 00020, Paul
Next by Thread:	RE: Waterfall and Dr. Winston Royce: 00020, Paul
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]