 |
Evolving the AUP Lifecycle
|
 |
| |
|
|
I've spoken and/or emailed with several people
privately over the past few months about simplifying the AUP
even more. An important observation that people have made,
which I've seen myself, is that the Inception and Elaboration
phases are not only very short, they are often performed in
parallel. I suspect that much of this is the result of the AMDD
influence on the initial modeling effort early in the lifecycle
-- we just do high-level modeling (e.g. the 5-10% level) during
this period. In the RUP you might flesh out your use case model
to the 20% level during Inception, and to the 80% level during
Elaboration, hence the difference.
|
|
The proposal is to evolve the current AUP lifecycle (see
Figure 1) to combine the Inception and Elaboration phases
into a single, Initiation phase (see Figure 2). The
existing milestones would be combined into the Lifecycle Feasibility (LCF)
milestone, see Table 1.
Figure 1. The AUP Lifecycle v1.

Figure 2. The AUP Lifecycle v2.

Table 1: Comparing the LCA and LCO
milestones with LCF.
| Milestone: Phase |
Criteria |
| Lifecycle Objectives (LCO): Inception |
- Scope concurrence. The stakeholders reach agreement as to the
scope of the project.
- Initial requirements definition. There is agreement that the right
set of requirements have been captured, at a high level, and
there is a shared understanding of those requirements.
- Plan concurrence. The stakeholders agree with the initial cost and
schedule estimates.
- Risk acceptance. The risks have been identified, assessed, and
acceptable strategies to address them have been identified.
- Process acceptance. The AUP has been initially
tailored and agreed to by all parties.
- Feasibility. The project makes
sense from business, technical, and operational perspectives.
- Project plan. Adequate plans are in place for the next phase
(Elaboration).
- Portfolio compliance. Does the scope of the project fit well
into your organization's overall project portfolio?
|
| Lifecycle Architecture (LCA): Elaboration |
- Vision stability. The project vision has stabilized and is
realistic.
- Architecture stability. You agree that the architecture is stable
and sufficient to satisfy the requirements. The architecture has been
prototyped where appropriate to address major architectural risks.
- Risk acceptance. The risks have been assessed to ensure they have
been properly understood and documented and strategies to handle them are
acceptable.
- Feasibility. The project still makes
sense from business, technical, and operational perspectives.
- Project plan. Detailed iteration plans for the next few
Construction iterations, as well as a high-level project plan, are in place.
- Enterprise compliance. Does the system architecture reflect
the realities of the enterprise architecture?
|
| Lifecycle Feasibility (LCF): Initiation |
- Feasibility. The project makes
sense from business, technical, and operational perspectives.
- Stakeholder concurrence. The stakeholders reach agreement as
to the vision of the project.
- Initial requirements definition. There is agreement that the right
set of requirements have been captured, at a high level, and
there is a shared understanding of those requirements.
- Architecture stability. You agree that the architecture is stable
and sufficient to satisfy the requirements. The architecture has been
prototyped where appropriate to address major architectural risks.
- Project plan. Detailed iteration plans for the next few
Construction iterations, as well as a high-level project plan, are in place.
- Risk acceptance. The risks have been identified, assessed, and
acceptable strategies to address them have been identified.
- Process acceptance. The AUP has been initially
tailored and agreed to by all parties.
- Portfolio compliance. Does the scope of the project fit well
into your organization's overall project portfolio?
- Enterprise compliance. Does the system architecture reflect
the realities of the enterprise architecture?
|
I actively work with clients around the world to
improve their information technology (IT) practices as
both a mentor/coach and trainer. A full
description of what I do, and how to contact me, can be
found here.