Talk:IBM Rational Unified Process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Discussion prior to June 2006
2 RUP approach
3 UP verses RUP
4 Refactoring, July 2006
5 Disciplines

[edit] Discussion prior to June 2006

This article is related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Method engineering.
	Please note that the use of Wikipedia to host this project has been questioned. Please read this discussion and, if you wish, contribute your thoughts there.

In the RUP 2000 we changed workers to role and core workflow to disciplines, hence my small edits. Also the link to the Rational Software company is now defunct. (from Philippe Kruchten, one of the original developers of RUP).

its a good read, im learning the stuff.

one comment, the limitations section seems to jump to past tense... had vs has and was vs is.

should this be changed?

This is my first contribution (before I got a username), hope it's OK. I'm not the ideal person to write this as I'm not (yet) a Software Engineer and have never applied the RUP! However I've got an exam involving it tomorrow and thought it would be good revision. Sorry it's incomplete I realised I'd better start on Language Processing and Computer Systems (which is also in the exam), great :)

there should be explanation of the phases if it is an exam point of view

In section "Manage requirements" there was this comment at the end: "not really". I don't think it fits well in the article. A concensus should first be made and then, the "Manage requirements" should be reedited, imho.

Since I've worked with this method before, I took a stab and condensing and clarifying the material. I removed some comments that seemed POV and others that seemed redundant. I also reorganized a bit while updating the grammer and style. I was impressed with how thorough the article was and the excellent use of diagrams. Great first contribution! -- Jareth 18:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't get "Ala ma kota" (looks like Polish) at the end of "Background of the Rational Unified Process". Is that of any use?

Do you think the Microsoft Solutions Framework is something that is related to the Rational Unified Process and can be added to the "See also" section? --Marc Hoeper 12:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That what was "RUP", Rational Unified Process was renamed Unified Process (UP) and is now publicly held with Object Management Group (OMG) its custodian. Wouldn't it be better to rename this page as Unified Process, specify the origin and also what is RUP. RUP is now (as far as I know) a commercial product of IBM. --Werner BEROUX 18:58, 8 Mai 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that's correct. OMG does not own the Unified Process, no one does. The term Unified Process (UP) is used by those who are using a RUP-like process but don't want to mention Rational. Unless there is some significant proof, this needs to be restored quickly. Mjchonoles

[edit] RUP approach

I have updated the paper to reflect numerous changes in RUP Version 7.0, including terminology changes and concepts from the Unified Method Architecture as proposed for the OMG standard Software Process Engineering Metamodel (SPEM) version 2.0, new delivery processes, and the fact that the RUP is now part of the IBM Rational Method Composer product.

Cecile Peraire, software development methodologist on the IBM RUP team.

May somebody inform me where I can be updated about all the news related to RUP (i mean only process without any tools). Currently I can't find the RUP detailed description on IBM site. It is really strange, they (IBM) base the products on something I can't read. In addition I have to say that if this article was updated according RUP 7.0, it corresponds only MSF 3.0 with some of its wrong concepts (it still looks like an old waterfall model).

So is IBM RUP is something new or it is "comertial" process suitable only for IBM software.

Michael Mutafian (Program Manager), Celenia Software --X4.mike 10:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UP verses RUP

I have created a new (albeit short) Unified Process article. I do not want to belittle RUP, but I think with all these different flavors of UP being invented the Unified Process needs to be more than a REDIRECT to the RUP article.--GFLewis 19:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have noted in Talk:Unified Process I have a problem with the implication that RUP is a derivative of UP. RUP is the original. I think it would be better to extend the history section here to cover the development of derivatives and include the table of them that you have put in the UP article. Then drop the UP article. It may also have been better to have had the Unified Process page as just a disambiguation page linking off to RUP and the others. FredThwaites 23:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My primary sources for creation of a separate article were Agile and Iterative Development by Craig Larman (2004) and The Unified Process Explained by Kendall Scott (2002). Neither Larman nor Scott use the word derivative, but they do use the words specialization and/or refinement. From Larman:

The Unified Process (UP) is a popular iterative process framework, particulary its refinement in the Rational Unified Process. (Larman, p. 173)

The UP is an iterative process framework--a general process description that can and should be refined into a more detailed process description for an organization or project, such as the RUP. A UP specialization may itself be a more detailed process framework (as is the RUP) or a concrete process description for one particular project. (Larman p., 175)

Although Rational had Rational Unified Process and a commercial product in mind from the start, they also wanted to communicate and promote the idea of a process more public domain and open--a generalized Unified Process. This was consistent with their open Unified Modeling Language initiative. Hence, Ivar Jacobson wrote the first book to present this view, The Unified Software Development Process (1999) working from a draft of the RUP specification and product being developed by Kruchten's team. Since then, many books have been written under the appellation of simply "Unified Process" to signify similiarity to the RUP and adoption of its major ideas (the best practices, the phases, the disciplines, and so forth), while not necessarily being strictly the Rational process. (Larman, p. 207)

From Scott:

The Rational Unified Process (RUP) is an example of a specialized version of the Unified Process that adds elements to the generic framework. (Scott, p. 1)

Scott's book is a little dated and he is using the old terminology (i.e. Worksflow vs Disciplines). However, in an appendix he lists and describes elements which he claims are part of RUP but not UP:

The nine Workflows (Project Management, Business Modeling, Requirements, Analysis and Design, Implementation, Test, Configuation and Change Management, Enviroment, Deployment)
Five artifact sets (management set, requirements set, design set, implementation set and deployment set)
RUP defines approximately twice as many workers as the Unified Process (according to Scott)

--GFLewis 21:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is another reference in support of the precept that RUP and UP are not the same thing. This from no less than Philippe Kruchten in the preface (page xiv) to The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 3rd edition:

The Rational Unified Process is a specific and detailed instance of a more generic process described in the textbook The Unified Software Development Process.

--GFLewis 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While I havn't got access to all the references above, I am about 1/4 of the way through Applying UML and Patterns, 3rd edition also by Larman which takes a similar viewpoint. On the basis of the above and my current reading I'd like to put my concern on hold, and will comment back when I finish.

--FredThwaites 21:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring, July 2006

Proposed outline for a refactoring of this article

Background
History (No content for this yet.)
Phases and Milestones
1. Inception
2. Elaboration
3. Construction
4. Transition
Disciplines and Workflows (This section needs cleanup. It is using the old terminology.)
1. Business Modeling Discipline (The paragraph beginning with "Organizations are becoming more dependent..." is interesting, but I am not sure what it has to do with the RUP or why Business Modeling is the only one of the disciplines that seems to require a separate justification section.)
2. Requirements Discipline
3. Analysis and Design Discipline
4. Implementation Discipline
5. Test Discipline
6. Configuration and Change Management Discipline (No content for this yet.)
7. Environment Discipline (No content for this yet.)
8. Deployment Discipline
9. Project Management Discipline (No content for this yet.)
Best Practices
1. Develop software iteratively
2. Manage requirements
3. Use component-based architecture
4. Visually model software
5. Verify software quality
6. Control changes to software
The Rational Unified Process Software Product (Has the RUP been absorbed into the Rational Method Composer, or is it still sold as a standalone product?)
Criticisms (or Limitations?)
See Also
1. Refinements and Variations
  - Open Unified Process, etc.
2. Alternative Approaches
  - Extreme Programming, etc.
3. Related Topics
  - Software Engineering, etc.
References
1. Books
2. External Links

Other comments

The introduction needs to make it clear that the RUP is both (a) a process framework and (b) a software product from IBM.
The sentence "A typical project using the RUP will go through several iterations" makes no sense.
The sentence "Dividing the project into iterations ... needs more guidance and effort than the traditional sequential approach" is neither true nor a principle of the RUP.

--GFLewis 20:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have taken a first cut at this, but it still needs more work.--GFLewis 03:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)