(responding to W.M. Jaworski)
> Thanks for helpful 'generalizations'. > > [Paul Oldfield] > I think, as developers, we are already used to reconciling > divergent world views. > > [wmj] > That our job as developers/designers. This is certainly part of the job, and may be handed off to specialist roles such as Analyst or Business Analyst. > [Paul Oldfield] > If the developers have a slightly different world view from > that of the 4+1 RUP approach, then they still need to > reconcile this with the customer's world view, and indeed > with the world views of all the stakeholders. > > [wmj] > I might be confused here (English is not my native language) but it seems > that '4+1 RUP approach' is not about world views but about '4+1 View' of a > System being developed. So in a nutshell developers reconcile not only: > (1) divergent world views of 'all stakeholders' > (2) different (divergent?) System views > but also (2) with (1). > > For (2) we need tools 'to assure System (blueprints) consistency'. > For (1) we need tools that allow to present System views that are > 'stakeholders' oriented. Ah, I should have been more clear. One of the 'world views' I was talking about is a world view that sees '4+1' as an adequate set of System views for a specific system under development. I would expect all developers on a single project to come to a common world view fairly early into the project - I guess as usual the junior members have it imposed on them, others may get to participate in the choice if they are lucky. Clearly, one of the considerations when evaluating such a 'world view' is whether it is adequate to address the issues arising from the need to reconcile other world views, and to develop the system in the environment that pertains with respect to the current project. To cut out the flowery language, we need to ask ourselves, "Is the '4+1' set of system views the best way to organise our thoughts for the current project?". Realistically, it is a question that few folk will ask. Most folk with RUP will follow the guidelines and work round any tricky bits that emerge. Most folk without RUP will either adopt RUP or carry on with the process they had before - or possibly adopt some other process such as XP or one of the other 'Agiles'. One needs to have a pretty good process in place before this sort of question tops the priority list for process improvement. Paul Oldfield any opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of Mentors of Cally ************************************************************************ * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions. * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support * * Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Archive of messages: * http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject: <BLANK> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum *************************************************************************
