From: Mark Collins
There was a quote from your position statement at WOOD '94 in the
comp.software-eng newsgroup, so I read your complete statement. You seem
to be arguing that analysis should be tied to the implementation at the
same time that you are proposing more flexibility in design/implementation.
Is your point that a more flexible implementation will eliminate the need
to re-implement a design in a new environment? and by extension it will
no longer matter if the analysis is tied to the implementation because the
implementation will not change. Current practice is that analysis concerns
itself with the problem and not the solution and that design takes into
account how the solution will be constructed in a given implementation
environment.
From: ward (Ward Cunningham)
No. Though the idea is interesting. What do you call the activity
of matching capabilities (say core competencies or even reusable
frameworks) with desires (like improve customer service)? That's
what I meant by analysis. I see development teams co-evolving with
their business sponsors. Flexibility simply enables the evolution.
So, what was the general conclusion of the discussion participants?
When I've argued these points with people steeped in the traditional
roles they are quick to point out that analysis, design and
implementation can be done by the same person and that that person may
need to pop back and forth between the activities. I say, when you
can get a whole team to pop around like this without making lots of
extra work, then you're flexible.
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 08:43:03 -0600
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 10:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
ward@c2.com