Matching Process to Types of Teams
Phillip Glen Armour · Communications of the ACM · 2001
e got away withoutsoftware process forquite a long time, andproduced a lot of soft-ware, some of it pretty good, too.The fact is, process is oftenstrongly resisted by thepeople who areexpected to use it. It isoften implementedless than optimally inmany establishments.There are certainlymany improvementsthat could be made toboth our approach tosoftware process andthe process ourapproach produces.But is all the hesi-tancy, reservations,resistance, and out-right rebellion simplythe work of recidi-vists? Is it just steppingon the cowboy programmers’inalienable right to program what-ever and however the heck theyplease? What is it they object to?“Your process is stifling my creativ-ity!” is the cry. Do they have apoint?The cornerstone of the softwareprocess faith is that process engen-ders repeatability. “Repeatable” iseven the name of the first levelabove bare existence in the SEImodel. But what is repeatability?And is it valuable? This scenario may help explain:a couple of years ago I was facilitat-ing a management workshop for asystems engineering group. Therewere 14 senior managers and theirVP in the room. These managerswere, in their engineering youth,the people responsible for makingthe first cellular telephone systemsoperational. A more “can do” groupI cannot imagine. With the excep-tion of one person, they did nothave a process-oriented bone intheir collective and corporate body.Their idea of process was “just doit.” The personality profiling we didwith them during the workshopsupported this view. Collectivelythey had both the rightapproach and the right per-sonalities to break open a newmarket, make things happen, flyin the face of accepted wis-dom, accomplish thingsthat had never been done,do things others saidcouldn’t be done—boldlygo where no person hadgone before. But process?You could have torturedthese people and they wouldnot have admitted thatprocess was a good idea. Thesolitary process-orientedindividual was a voice cry-ing in the wilderness.I was giving a pitch onthe SEI/CMM model, andit received the predictableresponse. Jim was one of themore challenging of a challenginggroup.“SEI Level 2 is ‘repeatable’,right?” Jim pointed out. “Well,look at our title. We’re theAdvanced Products Group.