Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




RUP (Rational Unified Process)


Has anyone have implemented project using
RUP with and without the Rational ToolSet

Can you effectively use RUP with the Rational ToolSet ?

Snacky
Friday, May 16, 2003

Sorry, my question was :

Can you effectively use RUP WITHOUT the Rational ToolSet ?


Joel : An EDIT Feature will be nice ;-)

Snacky
Friday, May 16, 2003

I've used RUP on a few projects - they work well for me. It's usefulness depends on the size of your project and the understanding of RUP amongst your team.

i-ching
Friday, May 16, 2003

This is a very heavy methodology.  Avoid it!

Ethan Herdrick
Friday, May 16, 2003

With respect, Ethan, two points:

1) Beware damning a methodology in general, as one can normally find situations in which it would apply. This is as inappropriate as claiming that methology XYZ works equally well in all situations. As so many have said in similar threads here, basically it's "use the right tool for the job", to which I would add the qualifier, "and that is appropriate to your constraints."

2) I did a consulting gig a few years ago where I implemented RUP for a new shop that didn't have any process, saw they needed one, and through a series of events I won't go into we ended up choosing RUP. As I read the documentation -- no mean feat, certainly, as there's a lot of it -- I saw that Rational themselves strongly recommends to anyone using RUP that they tailor its processes and artifacts to suit local conditions, at the shop or potentially at the project level, so you can keep it 'heavy' or make it as light as you want.

Unless they've changed their stance in the last few years, they (Rational) took the position that (my words) "here's RUP, the whole enchilada -- take from it what works for you, because the entire thing is probably more than you need for every cases."

So yes, RUP is heavy, if you use it as-is out of the box. Fine, take it and tailor it, with Rational's blessing.

And for the record, I've never worked for Rational -- they offer similar services to what I did for my client, but I was totally independent at the time, so I'm not talking as a current or former Rational representative.


In response to the main post, I would say that I kind of think of RUP as the top-level, or perhaps 'super-class' of development methodologies. I haven't heard or seen anything in FDD or XP or anything else that isn't subsumed within RUP. Hell, even waterfall's buried in there if you'd want to do it. So I think of the various methodologies one hears about as being special cases of RUP having been tailored down in one way or another.

Regarding using their tools or not, Rational has done a lot to tie RUP as a process and their tools together as tightly as they can. Whether they've been successful or not is a different topic, but I don't see anything in the basic process of RUP that would force you to use their tools. It's been a couple of years since I spent any time reading RUP or Rational's documentation, so my exposure to it is dated a bit, but I think it likely one would find some implementation procedures, or their details at least, not to apply well if using RUP without their tools. At the higher levels, though, their general principles seem to apply pretty well irrespective of the tool used.

Cheers,

anonQAguy
Friday, May 16, 2003

For a company that spouts methodology Rational's tools are crap. Rose in particular was horrific. I hope that their software isn't an example of what their methodology can produce.

Clutch Cargo
Saturday, May 17, 2003

The problem with *any* methodology is getting it in motion. Once its going, any methodology is better than none. However, out of all of them, XP's the easiest to start. RUP is heavy, but it is very complete. It becomes more relevant the larger the team and the cycles become.

Regarding Rational's tools... I haven't used Rose all that much, but ClearCase is the finest version control system I've ever used (CVS, PVCS, VSS, StarTeam and ClearCase). It's truly awesome, even if a couple of their dialogs are a little slow when used on larger projects (as in "are you sure it hasn't crashed!?" kind of slow. my only gripe, but it's for truly large projects only with hundreds of baselines).

But as I said, any methodology is better than none. All players on the team need to know what the game rules are...

Arron Bates
Sunday, May 18, 2003

We looked at using RUP and decided it was too "heavy" "out of the box." We evaluated XP and it seemed too light--we're an ISV with one app that sells for $6,000 a seat, and we need a more refined process to support our 5 to 10 year lifetime.

We settled on the ICONIX process, which uses a subset of RUP to accomplish the goal of structured analysis and design by using a boiled-down approach. It's explained in this book, part of the UML series from Addison-Wesley:

Use Case Driven Object Modeling With UML: A Practical Approach
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201432897/qid=1053800380/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-8161840-3382300?v=glance&s=books

Incidentally, if you're looking for an alternative to Rose, especially if you're a frustrated Visio user, check out Enterprise Architect, from an Australian company.  I have been using the product for about a month and EVERY SINGLE DAY I seem to find new features that impress me. And plus, it's US$149 a seat.

(I have no affiliation)

The addresss is: http://www.sparxsystems.com.au

Dave
Saturday, May 24, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home