How do you prevent agile methodology with monthly sprints/iterations causing a fragmented design. For ex. take the case of design of Manhattan Streets vs Design of Boston streets. The blueprints for Manhattan Streets were designed as a whole resulting in easy manoeverability and driving. Boston streets were designed in a piece meal approach and its a nightmare getting around.
+8
A:
Streets are a bad analogy to use for software. Streets cannot be easily moved, rerouted, or changed without significant effort. Well-written software is an composition of orthogonal components that are easily reorganized and modified as needed.
The reason that agile development works is that both the developers and the software itself are agile. The developers respond quickly to change and the software they write is written in a manner that makes it responsive to change as well.
Andrew Hare
2009-07-23 14:12:57
+1
A:
You can have a design phase that decides on the Streets. What buildings get built is determined in each phase.
I think that there is a tendency to do too little design/architecture in scrum projects. You can do constant refactoring but that can be alot of work, if something has not been designed. You can get into the same problem if there is an error in the design.
Shiraz Bhaiji
2009-07-23 14:28:33
+1
A:
Use of SOLID principles would result in code which is loosely coupled & highly cohesive.
Remember design is the king.
IMHO analogies of software components with Buildings, Streets are just illogical. None of this is even remotely similar to software development or software design.
AB Kolan
2009-07-23 14:31:10
+2
A:
Agile development is not a mandate to throw away over-arching design. It makes a lot of sense to plan 'the big picture' - what the responsibilities of your major components are, and how they will interact, for example. In my own team, I find a reasonable compromise is to agree a broad public API up front, but defer detailed implementation decisions where possible. This allows individual developers the freedom to modify the design as the implementation evolves, while also gaining the benefit of hashing out different approaches at the design level, when changes are much cheaper. Modularity is also key - keep components specific in function and as decoupled from one another as possible. This minimises your overheads when you find you need to make changes to your implementation, and should increase the chances that individual components you write remain useful.
ire_and_curses
2009-07-23 15:16:23