9th edition of the HRUG meeting
obeghain 100000Q3V6 Comment (1) Visits (1638)
Holland Rational User Group (HRUG) venue lead by Eric Lopes Cardozo (my colleague and owner of Empulsys), by Lisa Hoven Phillips (a former Rational Software colleague) and John Straathofs who both work at Zyntax. The venue was hosted by Philips HealthCare.
In the context of the selected theme for this meeting (integration), the following subjects where presented:
During the "IBM Rational strategy" session:
Roger positionned in the context of the current difficult economical situation _where their (IBM) customers (in others words you, we) are often asked to deliver software with value of quality, faster and with less budget_ the new set of Jazz-based IBM Rational solutions with a special attention to Rational Team Concert, the Measured Capability Improvement Framework (MCIF). Roger also expresed the fact that over time, the role of Business Partners will be more and more important for IBM since IBM won't be able to handle all the needs in terms of expertise and availabilities in the area of software engineering. He also showed a simple matrix vizualizing which dutch IBM Business pArtners where active in which domains (eg. Empulsys in the Process, Project and Portfolio Management area; Zyntax in the Quality Management area). He also indicated that currently not so many partners where (my term) promoting the Telelogic recently acquired solutions. By the way, based on my current knowledge, it's the same situation in Belgium. Finally, Roger re-affirmed his wish to have at each HRUG venue the presence of an IBM Rational representative who would share with attendees an insight on what we can expect from IBM Rational. Additionally, he also proposed that IBM hosts one of the next HRUG venues in 2010. Thank you IBM!
What I liked in this session? The contribution of IBM (Roger) towards the future HRUG venues and the message of considering customers/partners as being part of the team.
During the "case study presentation" session:
Ling explained a real project case where he was involved with and during which a company throwed over (to CSC) a whole bunch of requirements handled by CSC following their own development methodology (oups, forgot the name!) that had been integrated with RUP using the services of IBM. Shortly, he explained that using IBM Rational RequisitePro they were able to transcript the customer provided requirements as organized specifications (use cases) and trace these towards design decisions and information entities. He also explained that Rational Rose (a very old version) was used to host the modeled information and traced back to specifications in Rational RequisitePro. They also used Rational SoDA to generate reports that included information from both IBM Rational RequisitePro and Rose. He several times mentioned that he wishes CSC would have either more licenses available for these products, either provide access to much recent versions of the products. And... as many Rational SoDA users would tell you, he also indicated the well known SoDA recommendation: "when working with SoDA, a good tip is to save your work every 2 minutes :-)".
What I liked in this session? The merit Ling has to present a case which is not so easy since you're never sure if the facts you present are representative (or meaningful) for the audience.
During the "Performance Management Rational Solutions" session:
Jos very simply explained the importance of being able to perform measurements during a sofwtare development project targeted by software development improvement actions. His statement: "You cannot improve a situation when you cannot measure it". For eaxmple, next to have with RUP an iterative use-case and risk-driven architecture, we should add to it: "a measurement-enabled project lifecycle". By the way, aren't iteration evaluation criteria low-level placeholders for business- and team
What I liked in this session? The way how Jos positionned the need of being able to measure a situation over time to follow-up the aligment of a team towards an improvement path.
During the "Meaning of Agile/Iterative" session:
Julian really captivated my attention during this session! After having presented what most of us would think of which should be the conditions to have a project team able to work in an iterative/agile way (eg. co-loccated, skilled, etc), he presented a simplified OpenUP-issued view of the various roles that should collaborate during a project lifecyle. He indicated that instead of having highly skilled experts, it makes much more sense to have professionnals able to _next to their primary expertize_ *play* one or more other roles. For example, it makes sense that an Analyst also understand and is able to *play* the role of Tester. Related to the simplified view of roles, typically the roles that are adjacents. Julian also explained the migration fo RUP's key principles (former best practices) into practices and the creation of the OpenUP core. Within this core, both Agile and Iterative approaches are combined in order to deliver at strategical level a control over the risk (benefit of the iterative approach) and at the tactical level a control on which value if produced for the end-customer(s) (benefit of the agile approach). Julian then explained that IBM re-integrated in their solution offering the work of OpenUP through Rational Method Composer (RMC) that is based on the Epclipse Process Framework Composer (EPF Composer) and through the practice library. A good resource place for RMC is the blog of Peter Haumer. Doing so, now IBM offers the possibility to any sofwtare development project to start with a core set of practices and _depending the evolution of the project_ add valuable or remove unnecessary practices over the project lifetime. During this session, a good question came up: "What's the difference between OpenUP and EssUP of Ivar Jacobson". The answer is: (1) as similarity, both aim to offer the possibility to get guidance in accordance to the need of a project (typically start with small and extend in function of what is really needed); (2) as differentiator, one (OpenUp/RUP) is based onto a standarized metamodel (UMA of OMG) and the other (EssUp) is based onto a proprietary metamodel. By the way, a blog I like to follow regarding Rational Solutions and maintained by an EssUP promoter is the Mike MacDonagh's blog.
What I liked in this session? The way how agile and iterative differently but complimentary contribute to projects. And I really enjoyed the way how Julian presented, an enjoying speaker to recommend!!