The key points of the OMG RFP Draft: Call for a widely accepted kernel
2011/06/11
The OMG RFP is entitled “A Foundation for the Agile Creation and Enactment of Software Engineering Methods.” This title is selected to loudly and clearly strike for three distinctive key points driven by Semat:
(1) It is about finding a kernel.
It emphasizes that the RFP is not creating a new method; instead, it is to build a foundation that “consists of a kernel of software engineering domain concepts and relationships that is extensible (scalable), flexible and easy to use”.
(2) Its target group is the practitioners, not the process engineers.
The kernel has to be agile and lightweight to be successful. It focuses on people who do the work: the practitioners (e.g., analysts, developers, testers). This foundation is created by practitioners, and serves the practitioners.
(3) Its focus is on the usage of methods, not on the definition of them.
Methods are enactable. The enactment of a method can be defined as the carrying out of that method in the context of a specific project effort.
These are the critical features that separate this initiative from previous and existing efforts in this space. These features cannot be achieved by simply extending previous and existing work. These are the aspects that will fundamentally change our understanding of how to work with methods and processes.
Please refer to an extract of the OMG RFP draft for more detailed information:
http://www.semat.org/pub/Main/WebHome/ADTF_SEMAT_RFP_Brief_version.pdf
You can also read the Highlights of the OMG RFP Draft at:
http://www.semat.org/pub/Main/SematDocuments/OMG_RFP_Highlights.pdf
Do you agree with the three key differentiators mentioned in this blog? We would love to hear your feedback and comments. Your involvements ensure we are doing the right things and keep us in the right direction.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Shihong Huang
2011/06/11 at 02:09
I cannot agree with the item 3 “The focus is on the usage of the methods not on the definition of them”. A definition brings clarity of a term. It brings everyone on to the same page. If we use a term without defining, we continue the existing state of confusion prevalent in the software industry. It prolongs the usage of the term at different places with different meaning. If we fail to define them, multiple agencies use the same term but with different steps in the method or altogether a different method.
In point 2, about the target groups, there are other important stakeholders such as academia and the managements of the software industry. Why are they left out?
On point 1 – if we build a foundation, who will complete the structure?
I think that you need to re-consider these three points and elaborate on them. They leave out some information.
Best wishes
Murali Chemuturi
2011/06/14 at 13:10
Regarding point 2, I don’t think that other stakeholders are left out. The language is focussed on practitioners, but that does not mean that all others cannot use or understand it. After all, all stakeholders are interested in creating good software, so it’s an obvious approach to focus on those who get the work done. However, that does not prevent us from adding features useful for other stakeholders than practitioners, as long as these features do not constrain practitioners in doing a good job.
2011/06/13 at 12:05
Practitioners need methods of software engineering,the define of software works must be clarified,so many professors in university of many countries in the world have their opinions about it .Most failure of software development had used wrong methods,so ,Practitioners need guide all the time.
Best wishes
Stephen