The last 6 months

Andrew Delin was asking me the other day what I had been doing since January, so here is a quick summary:

Without going into details, I still kept very active in the MSF and TFS world:

  • Participated of the SEPG 2006 conference with the Microsoft booth (I will come back to that later), with Randy Miller and David Anderson (who coordinated the MSF for CMMI Process Improvement Appraiser's workshop)
  • Worked (and I am still working!) with Randy Miller on an 3-day Agile Software Development course
  • Moved to another Microsoft team focused on ALM (Application Lifecycle Management)
  • Worked on site at several customers helping them with adopting/migrating to VSTS, TFS and MSF

There could be no better event to blog about other than the Agile 2006 Conference. I will come back to it over the next few days as I collect my ideas on some of the sessions I attended.

Comparative study on RUP vs MSF

Johan Traa has just published a comparative study on RUP vs MSF for Agile Software Development: "MSF Documentation: RUP vs. MSF - A comparative study". Check the post at the MSF Forum.

It is really worth the reading. He adds new material to help you understand MSF for Agile Software Development, specially a nice graphical representation on page 132.

Who says software development has to be without fun?

If you are not interested in the not so subtle Dilbert comics, you might want to start reading David Anderson's blog for subtle Scottish wit in between some serious postings that are among the best in the industry.

MSF oldies

I was talking to my good friend Andrew Delin about how the original MSF 1.0 had several concepts which today are associated with Agile methodologies. One such concept was the polemic "Why No Requirements Document?" one. The main point in this doc is:

·         Users/customers generally don't know what they want or need until they gain some familiarity with what they can have; 

The solution presented at the time resonates with what has become common today:

   The SDD process model does not ignore customer requirements.  They are accommodated through: 

·         early identification of driving requirements and constraints as a part of defining the project scope [i.e, Vision Scope document]; 

·         establishing traceability through analysis techniques like activity-based analysis, in which all features specified in the Functional Specification are traceable to specific user activities or tasks identified in the analysis activities [i.e. Personas and a list of Scenarios]; 

·         controlled revision of project scope and Functional Specification documents to reflect changing or better-understood requirements [i.e. Functional Spec as a collection of Scenarios which can be modified or postponed to a later iteration ("versioned releases" at the time)].

These and other gold nuggets are in MSF 1.0 RC1.

Hello World

As a new blogger (out of hundreds of thousands already out there), and as a developer, my first post had to be "Hello World". I fondly remember my first experiences with Turbo Pascal 5.0, at the time the best development tool available.

You can get Turbo Pascal 5.5 even today: check this article by DavidI, who I had the pleasure to meet last June at the UML & Design World Conference (thanks Randy Miller for introducing me to DavidI).


<<  April 2018  >>

View posts in large calendar

Month List