May 19, 2006
@ 07:03 AM

Scott Ambler has a new article comparing most of the leading development methodologies. He also tries to  recommend which methodology fits which kind of project (e.g. for a commercial of the shelf products use EUP/RUP, ISO 12207, TSP/PSP or Data Driven Approach).

The article serves as a nice overview of available methods - however Scott doesn't explain the reasoning on why he think a particular methodology fits (or doesn't) a certain type of application which is a pity. Furthermore, I think Scott is missing the point a little by neglecting organizational, cultural other people related reasons for choosing a methodology. For example if all your teams are versed with RUP, you would most likely "force-fit" it to your new COBOL project rather than choose a better fit methodology.

Also, I am not sure I agree with the all his mapping - the most notable example is  mapping XP for  safety critical projects. To get a DO-178B (the certification required by the FAA for aviation software) you need to have the following documents (DO-178B has 5 levels and not all documents are needed for all levels):

DO-178B Documents: DO-178B Records:
  • Plan for Software Aspects of Certification (PSAC)
  • Software Development Plan (SDP)
  • Software Verification Plan (SVP)
  • Software Configuration Management Plan (SCMP)
  • Software Quality Assurance Plan (SQAP)
  • Software Requirements Standards (SRS)
  • Software Design Standards (SDS)
  • Software Code Standards (SCS)
  • Software Requirements Data (SRD)
  • Software Design Description (SDD)
  • Software Verification Cases and Procedures (SVCP)
  • Software Life Cycle Environment Configuration Index (SECI)
  • Software Configuration Index (SCI)
  • Software Accomplishment Summary (SAS) 
  • Software Verification Results (SVR)
  • Problem Reports
  • Software Configuration Management Records

 

 

 

 

*list copied from LynxOS site

I don't think that this level of formality is a good fit for XP

 


 
Comments are closed.