The Latest

Explore the differences between a process and methodology and why neither process nor methodology should be used to label and encapsulate agile-lean product (system-software) development.

Dear Readers,

Writing or receiving a break-up letter can be fairly daunting or shattering, depending on which end of the letter your name appears. That letter puts a pretty hard stop to a relationship. It’s communicating detachment and finality. It can create a lot of pain whether intended or not. In contrast, a love letter is uplifting. The endorphins fly! Someone is revealing their attraction for you, and their hopes and wishes for a future with you.

 Jim Coplien's recent book, Lean Architecture: for Agile Software Development, explains how agile principles and architecture are complimentary, and how, with everyone working collaboratively, a good, lightweight architectural framework can help enable agility, rather than being a barrier to it.  With his usual iconoclastic style, Coplien dispels the myth that agile doesn't need architecture.

No two people or groups are the same, but their differences don't have to force them apart. In this column, Esther Derby uses the example of feuding operations and development groups to explain how focusing on the source of structural conflict can help build a bridge across the disagreements.

The components of software processes work together in important and sometimes unrecognized ways. The removal of one of those components will affect the others. In this article, which originally appeared in the August 2010 issue of the Iterations eNewsletter, Jennitta Andrea takes a look at the value of acceptance test-driven development and the costs of making it an optional practice.

Organizations eager to solve the problems they see in their projects or processes often decide to adopt Scrum in the belief that it will immediate solve all those problems. Although Scrum can and often does resolve some problems immediately, it also has the potential to expose or exacerbate other existing problems and can even appear to create a few problems of its own.

In some cases, this can be seen to be a “failure” of Scrum, even when implemented by an organization that was initially enthusiastic and determined. This perceived failure can cost the organization considerable time and money if the Scrum team continues along the same path they are on, despite the unresolved problems. These costs, as well as frustrations and even pressures from inside or outside the Scrum team can cause Scrum to be abandoned without ever demonstrating its full potential.