I was talking about unbundling in the sense of breaking the requirements for each internal iteration down into smaller feature sets, not in the sense of the completeness of the feature sets for the externally released product nor how the software is architected into components.
-----Original Message----- From: Gary Feldman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 12/29/2004 8:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [XP] New XPlorations article: "Customer Value: Unbundling", and some reviews Steven Gordon wrote: > Even in the case of Office, MS has started "eating its own dog food" > - using early versions of Office in-house. So, even in the case of > MS Office, internal value is increased by unbundling features, > implementing them in order of utility, and frequently releasing new > versions internally. Also, there is development value and decreased > risk in the more frequent and more focussed feedback obtained by > releasing features in smaller increments. I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. I thought Microsoft's policy was largely to get alpha and beta versions in use in-house on a wide scale. This doesn't imply anything about frequency of releases, nor unbundling. (Besides, they bought PowerPoint, FrontPage, and perhaps other components of Office.) Gary [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
