This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Software development process template. |
|
Software: Computing Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
It seems to me that this template belongs on all the pages in the activities and models section, but not always the supporting disciplines -- some of the latter, like Project management, are more general than software. -- David.alex.lamb 21:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Since eXtreme is an Agile method, why is it listed as a sub-process as opposed to say Scrum or any other other Agile methods and approaches? -- Walter Görlitz 04:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well - someone should remove it, since right now the structure is wrong and misleading 84.112.16.84 11:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
So what is the difference between Software development process and Management Information System...???@@???? -- Ramu50 ( talk) 23:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I have (re)added Software engineering in the templates title. I think the Software development process is the hart of software engineering and visa versa. Templates like this should state it's domain.
I admit though, that the dubble title isn't perfect. Maybe it is a solution to recreate this template as a horizontal collapsable Software engineering template. This template will have the main scope, but will have the option to give a better overview of all aspects related to the Software development process. I think the current template is rather limited in scope. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 08:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | Students of engineering learn engineering and are rarely exposed to finance or marketing. Students of marketing learn marketing and are rarely exposed to finance or engineering. Most of us become specialists in just one area. To complicate matters, few of us meet interdisciplinary people in the workforce, so there are few roles to mimic. Yet, software product planning is critical to the development success and absolutely requires knowledge of multiple disciplines. [1] | ” |
References
I designed a new Software Engineering Template to replace this template, see Template talk:Software Engineering. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have agreed to keep this template for now. I do think it shouldn't interfer with images such as in the Requirements analysis. These images should come first.
Second question. I recently added a link to the data model article, which I think could better be removed again. If I am not mistaken all other items listed here are about models of the development process!? This off cause fitt the purpose of the template. Now data models are a different category of models, and should therefor better be removed?
Last but not least. The template now is giving a list of process development models? But aren't there a lot more process models here. A lot of (older(?)) software development methodologies, for example Jackson System Development are also giving models of the development process. Now I am not sure about all new methodologies here. But isn't the current listing rather selective? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 01:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
A place of the template near the top is all right with me too. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 14:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The question I asked about the datamodel being listed is in fact part of problem I am working on to determine, what kind of diagrams/models exist in the field of software engineering in particular and computer science in general? For example
No I haven't head an answer on the logical data model question yet? And why not? And why couldn't you give me a firm answer about datamodels should be listed or not? (I don't mean that you should have?)
I think the main problem here is, that this is a rather undetermined field. There is no clear understanding and overview about models in software development. Now you have argued that I am trying to simplify things here. I am merely trying to get a more clear and differentiated view here. I think here is possible progress to be made. Some kind of overview could help!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 14:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
There is an other thing I don't understand in the listing of models in the template:
They are all listed as models here. But for me there are two separate things:
And the other items listed (exclusive datamodel), which I consider:
This is a differentation, I am trying to make in the software egineering template. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 14:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I already mentioned Jackson System Development as a Process development methods. Now I will like to take a closer look at what methods exist here. I was under the impression that there are dozends of them. I will get back on this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Please comment on separate items and here with general comment. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious, is there any reason CMM/CMMi is not considered a software development process? It seems to me that it is definitely a major player in the field. I'll add it if there is no opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topkai22 ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have just (see here) replaced Executable UML by UML for the following reasons:
It doesn't seem that Executable UML has a similar impact as other items listed. -- Mdd ( talk) 19:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I am aware that UML is not a development method, and I already had my doubts including it in the set of development methods. So I removed it again (for now). However, I am quite sure that Executable UML should not be listed here at the moment. Let us first try to solve the problems around that article. -- Mdd ( talk) 20:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Activities and Steps. There is not, and has never been, a shred of empirical evidence that software development work can be meaningfully divided into the activities and steps listed in this template. These steps are channeling a RUP/IBM/Plan-Driven worldview. They represent a hyper-rationalized, oversimplified view of development as translated from an idealized engineering process. There are several theories of the software development process – SCI Theory, FBS Framework, Boomerang – that could be drawn on to improve, but I don't know how to fix this without changing about 20 different articles.
Methodologies. Scrum is a project management framework. TDD is a practice. XP is a method. Iterative is class of methods that includes basically all of them. Agile is a philosophy or worldview, and a fuzzy category of methods. V and Dual Vee are hypothetical, academic methods that have never had any significant uptake. Dumping all of these into the same category is misleading – it implies false equivalence.
Supporting Disciplines. These look straight out of RUP to me.
Anyone have any ideas for how to sort out this template? Paul Ralph (Lancaster University) ( talk) 19:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The Large Agile Framework Appropriate for Big, Lumbering Enterprises parody website that Mike Cohn released as an April Fool's joke some years back has made an appearance as an ostensibly valid link on the Scaled Agile Framework page and in the template for Software development processes. I have removed these with appropriate comments. Let's watch out for this coming back. Davidjcmorris Talk 19:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Software development process template. |
|
Software: Computing Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
It seems to me that this template belongs on all the pages in the activities and models section, but not always the supporting disciplines -- some of the latter, like Project management, are more general than software. -- David.alex.lamb 21:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Since eXtreme is an Agile method, why is it listed as a sub-process as opposed to say Scrum or any other other Agile methods and approaches? -- Walter Görlitz 04:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well - someone should remove it, since right now the structure is wrong and misleading 84.112.16.84 11:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
So what is the difference between Software development process and Management Information System...???@@???? -- Ramu50 ( talk) 23:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I have (re)added Software engineering in the templates title. I think the Software development process is the hart of software engineering and visa versa. Templates like this should state it's domain.
I admit though, that the dubble title isn't perfect. Maybe it is a solution to recreate this template as a horizontal collapsable Software engineering template. This template will have the main scope, but will have the option to give a better overview of all aspects related to the Software development process. I think the current template is rather limited in scope. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 08:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | Students of engineering learn engineering and are rarely exposed to finance or marketing. Students of marketing learn marketing and are rarely exposed to finance or engineering. Most of us become specialists in just one area. To complicate matters, few of us meet interdisciplinary people in the workforce, so there are few roles to mimic. Yet, software product planning is critical to the development success and absolutely requires knowledge of multiple disciplines. [1] | ” |
References
I designed a new Software Engineering Template to replace this template, see Template talk:Software Engineering. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have agreed to keep this template for now. I do think it shouldn't interfer with images such as in the Requirements analysis. These images should come first.
Second question. I recently added a link to the data model article, which I think could better be removed again. If I am not mistaken all other items listed here are about models of the development process!? This off cause fitt the purpose of the template. Now data models are a different category of models, and should therefor better be removed?
Last but not least. The template now is giving a list of process development models? But aren't there a lot more process models here. A lot of (older(?)) software development methodologies, for example Jackson System Development are also giving models of the development process. Now I am not sure about all new methodologies here. But isn't the current listing rather selective? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 01:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
A place of the template near the top is all right with me too. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 14:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The question I asked about the datamodel being listed is in fact part of problem I am working on to determine, what kind of diagrams/models exist in the field of software engineering in particular and computer science in general? For example
No I haven't head an answer on the logical data model question yet? And why not? And why couldn't you give me a firm answer about datamodels should be listed or not? (I don't mean that you should have?)
I think the main problem here is, that this is a rather undetermined field. There is no clear understanding and overview about models in software development. Now you have argued that I am trying to simplify things here. I am merely trying to get a more clear and differentiated view here. I think here is possible progress to be made. Some kind of overview could help!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 14:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
There is an other thing I don't understand in the listing of models in the template:
They are all listed as models here. But for me there are two separate things:
And the other items listed (exclusive datamodel), which I consider:
This is a differentation, I am trying to make in the software egineering template. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 14:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I already mentioned Jackson System Development as a Process development methods. Now I will like to take a closer look at what methods exist here. I was under the impression that there are dozends of them. I will get back on this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Please comment on separate items and here with general comment. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious, is there any reason CMM/CMMi is not considered a software development process? It seems to me that it is definitely a major player in the field. I'll add it if there is no opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topkai22 ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I have just (see here) replaced Executable UML by UML for the following reasons:
It doesn't seem that Executable UML has a similar impact as other items listed. -- Mdd ( talk) 19:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I am aware that UML is not a development method, and I already had my doubts including it in the set of development methods. So I removed it again (for now). However, I am quite sure that Executable UML should not be listed here at the moment. Let us first try to solve the problems around that article. -- Mdd ( talk) 20:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Activities and Steps. There is not, and has never been, a shred of empirical evidence that software development work can be meaningfully divided into the activities and steps listed in this template. These steps are channeling a RUP/IBM/Plan-Driven worldview. They represent a hyper-rationalized, oversimplified view of development as translated from an idealized engineering process. There are several theories of the software development process – SCI Theory, FBS Framework, Boomerang – that could be drawn on to improve, but I don't know how to fix this without changing about 20 different articles.
Methodologies. Scrum is a project management framework. TDD is a practice. XP is a method. Iterative is class of methods that includes basically all of them. Agile is a philosophy or worldview, and a fuzzy category of methods. V and Dual Vee are hypothetical, academic methods that have never had any significant uptake. Dumping all of these into the same category is misleading – it implies false equivalence.
Supporting Disciplines. These look straight out of RUP to me.
Anyone have any ideas for how to sort out this template? Paul Ralph (Lancaster University) ( talk) 19:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The Large Agile Framework Appropriate for Big, Lumbering Enterprises parody website that Mike Cohn released as an April Fool's joke some years back has made an appearance as an ostensibly valid link on the Scaled Agile Framework page and in the template for Software development processes. I have removed these with appropriate comments. Let's watch out for this coming back. Davidjcmorris Talk 19:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)