We all know that we want to “cut to the chase” as soon as we can and start incrementally developing the software product through which we deliver value back to the business. But we also know that there are certain essential pre-requisites to “sprinting”, such as some kind of vision of where we are supposed to be going and the right team and tools to get us there. If we start motoring before we are ready we may head off in the wrong direction or we may find that the wheels come off as we accelerate through the gears. Read More

The kernel Alphas are the core, key, critical, central, essential conceptual entities that we need to manage and progress in a controlled way in order to ensure a successful outcome for our project. But, like all concepts, they have the distinct disadvantage of being invisible. A project manager is convinced that his project is important and that managing its progression to a successful conclusion is critical. But if, as an outside assessor, I were to say “bring me this project of which you speak so that I may gaze upon it and assess its status” he would be stumped. He can show me plans, people, documents, but he can’t show me “the project”. These key concepts are the elephants in the room that no one can see because …  well , because they are invisible. To be useful, they need to be made visible and real, so normal people can interact with them.

Read More

Many organizations have achieved a degree of process maturity (reliability, discipline, consistency) only by paying a very heavy price – they have become addicted to documents and document templates.

Unfortunately, it can happen all too easily. Most processes end up being document-centric even though they never set out to be so. They start by offering useful process guidance on how to progress the project in a controlled way, in the form of a set of activities, each of which is defined in terms of the artifacts it produces. Most artifacts are documents of some kind and the process helpfully comes with templates for each document – a template is better than having to start with a blank sheet of paper, after all. The project milestones we need to pass through are evidenced using the documents, and the whole thing hangs together nicely. Read More

Software development processes have long advocated structuring a software solution around a domain model of the problem space being automated. A domain model shows how our business processes add value by progressing the states of our key business entities. These entities and their life histories tend to be much stable over time than the processes that surround them. Modeling the entities and their states enables us to experiment with different ways of achieving the same outcomes (state progressions) as we seek to rationalize and automate these processes.
So, why have we never thought to build a good domain model of the software projects at the heart of our software development processes? At IJI we started building such a model some four years ago and this model now forms the heart of our process kernel around which we built the Essential Unified Process. One key motivator was to model the value that different development practices and processes can / do / should provide so that we could enable our customers to evaluate and select between different ways of achieving the same outcomes.

Read More

I first learnt about the power of domain models more than 25 years ago when I first applied the Jackson System Development (JSD) process. This approach involves modeling the key conceptual entities in the problem domain and the business rules that define how value is delivered by advancing the value states of these key entities. Add a few key business attributes and you now have an executable model of your problem domain / business. You can then simulate the execution of your business merely by slapping some rough-and-ready user-interface screens onto these entities.
Read More

We in the software development industry face a seemingly intractable problem. We have learnt the lesson that prescriptive process is a bad thing. Process bureaucrats sitting in ivory method towers, telling highly-skilled professionals how to do their job and setting the process police on them if they don’t follow their instructions to the letter, can (unsurprisingly) be really quite damaging. It disempowers the development team  and engrains apathetic attitudes along the lines of “When we inevitably under-deliver, it will not be our fault, but the fault of these ludicrous process hoops that we are forced to jump through, instead of being able to focus on writing great software”.  The agile revolution was software engineering’s way of learning this lesson, and the agile manifesto pledge to value “people over process” and “software over documentation” has got to be right. But (… there was always a “but” coming …), we are already finding that the opposite extreme of little or no explicit process isn’t going to cut it either, because it leaves too many problems unsolved, such as: Read More