Skip to main content

JavaOne Feedback

We're preparing to head for the airport in San Francisco so this seems like a good time time to look back on an eventful week at JavaOne. There are so many conversations, new people we've met and significant feedback that we received from people who have used xProcess or were using it for the first time. Ivis didn't have the most conspicuous booth in the Pavillion but somehow word got round that something goodwas going on there and we had excellent traffic through the booth and interest from nearly everyone who stopped by. We also had opportunities for meeting with valued Ivis partners like CollabNet, Apple, Sun and Serena while we were there and the building excitement around both the feature set and architecture of xProcess 2 was very heartening.

One highlight for me was Paul Kuzan's Birds of a Feather session on the Tuesday. Its timing was not ideal - 10.30 to 11.20 on the Tuesday night, competing with many vendor parties, restaurants, bars and simply being in bed ready for a 7am start the next day! Nevertheless we did have a small but very engaged audience to hear Paul explain the principles of xProcess's connected/disconnected architecture built on a file version control system. The penny is gradually dropping that this architecture has significant applications beyond the immediate extensions to xProcess's. Several of the audience who attended and came up to talk to Paul and me after the event had also seen this potential and were keen to discuss further.

The final proof of the JavaOne pudding will be in the eating. Not just the great conversations, record leads generated and subsequent record stats on the web site - it will bejudged on how this exposure leads to actual users of the technology and ultimately delivered business benefits.


Popular posts from this blog

"Plan of Intent" and "Plan of Record"

Ron Lichty is well known in the Software Engineering community on the West Coast as a practitioner, as a seasoned project manager of many successful ventures and in a number of SIGs and conferences in which he is active. In spite of knowing Ron by correspondence over a long period of time it was only at JavaOne this year that we finally got together and I'm very glad we did.

Ron wrote to me after our meeting:

I told a number of people later at JavaOne, and even later that evening at the Software Engineering Management SIG, about xProcess. It really looks good. A question came up: It's a common technique in large organizations to keep a "Plan of Intent" and a "Plan of Record" - to have two project plans, one for the business partners and boss, one you actually execute to. Any support for that in xProcess?

Good question! Here's my reply...

There is support in xProcess for an arbitrary number of target levels through what we call (in the process definitions) P…

Does your Definition of Done allow known defects?

Is it just me or do you also find it odd that some teams have clauses like this in their definition of done (DoD)?
... the Story will contain defects of level 3 severity or less only ... Of course they don't mean you have to put minor bugs in your code - that really would be mad - but it does mean you can sign the Story off as "Done"if the bugs you discover in it are only minor (like spelling mistakes, graphical misalignment, faults with easy workarounds, etc.). I saw DoDs like this some time ago and was seriously puzzled by the madness of it. I was reminded of it again at a meet-up discussion recently - it's clearly a practice that's not uncommon.

Let's look at the consequences of this policy. 

Potentially for every User Story that is signed off as "Done" there could be several additional Defect Stories (of low priority) that will be created. It's possible that finishing a Story (with no additional user requirements) will result in an increase in…

Understanding Cost of Delay and its Use in Kanban

Cost of Delay (CoD) is a vital concept to understand in product development. It should be a guide to the ordering of work items, even if - as is often the case - estimating it quantitatively may be difficult or even impossible. Analysing Cost of Delay (even if done qualitatively) is important because it focuses on the business value of work items and how that value changes over time. An understanding of Cost of Delay is essential if you want to maximise the flow of value to your customers.

Don Reinertsen in his book Flow [1] has shown that, if you want to deliver the maximum business value with a given size team, you give the highest priority, not to the most valuable work items in your "pool of ideas," not even to the most urgent items (those whose business value decays at the fastest rate), nor to your smallest items. Rather you should prioritise those items with the highest value of urgency (or CoD) divided by the time taken to implement them. Reinertsen called this appro…