Talk:Rational unified process

message: That's surprising Quality Assurae/Control is nowhere in RUP. Unless it is everywhere instilled in all disciplines. When a stream only exists virtually, it has a strong probability not to be deployed correctly. This is probably one of the major weaknesses of RUP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.103.192.89 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality Assurance / Control 

message: "They must also ensure a common understanding of the target organization between customers, end users and developers." They refers to software engineers. Is this intentional or a bad choice of words? If intentional that would explain all that failed software engineering projects even with RUP. Shouldn't that be the responsibility of a different role (a Manager Role, an Analyst Role?)
Lippmj (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business Modeling discipline 

message: "is an iterative software development process" :: this is not true, iterative is the default but is not 100% necessary e.g. you can take the roles and templates and processes from RUP in a waterfall way and still be using RUP. So the word "iterative" is very awkward.
If you are not practising risk-driven iterative development, you are not using RUP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.212.244 (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iterative 

message: 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?
----
I'm not a fan of RUP/UP and I was surprised that the tone of this article seems to show a bias towards the methodology & product:  there are no links to critical articles, the "limitations" section says if you think there are limitations then you don't understand the methodology (!!!).
I think it could easily be made into a well-rounded article that presents UP/RUP as a methodology without seemingly endorsing it, or giving the impression that it is universally accepted.
----
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)
thread_title:  Discussion prior to June 2006 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RUP approach 

message: Proposed outline for a refactoring of this article
# Background
# History (No content for this yet.)
# Phases and Milestones
## Inception 
## Elaboration
## Construction
## Transition
# Disciplines and Workflows (This section needs cleanup.  It is using the old terminology.)
## 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.)
## Requirements Discipline 
## Analysis and Design Discipline 
## Implementation Discipline 
## Test Discipline 
## Configuration and Change Management Discipline (No content for this yet.)
## Environment Discipline  (No content for this yet.)
## Deployment Discipline 
## Project Management Discipline (No content for this yet.)
# Best Practices
## Develop software iteratively
## Manage requirements
## Use component-based architecture
## Visually model software
## Verify software quality
## 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
## Refinements and Variations
##* Open Unified Process, etc.
## Alternative Approaches
##* Extreme Programming, etc.
## Related Topics
##* Software Engineering, etc.
# References
## Books
## 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)
thread_title:  Refactoring, July 2006 

message: I have added stubs for the two missing disciplines (Project Management and Environment). GFLewis 10:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disciplines 

message: It seems to me that this article is quite biased in favor of RUP. There are no links to critical articles, and the limitation sections simply states that if there are some problems with RUP then it's because users didn't understand it..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.86.48 (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absence of Criticisms 

message: I am going to add a reference to an academic article that finds that there is a competing methodology that is superior to RUP - URDAD
User:Adrianwilford (User talk:Adrianwilford) 09:25, 04 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Absence of Criticisms 

message: I added the Criticisms section and also renamed the "Alternative frameworks" section to "Competing frameworks and methodologies"
Adrianwilford (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Absence of Criticisms 

message: At what point did the Rational Unified Process get relabeled the IBM Rational Unified Process? With a redirect from RUP to IBM RUP? I see that IBM has acquired a federally registered trademark on the phrase. SunSw0rd (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When IBM bought Rational, I believe. I'm not sure of the date, if that's what you're looking for. Merenta (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM Rational Unified Process versus Rational Unified Process 

message: Hi, please could I have some comment on my criticisms section, is it sufficiently objective? 
I mentioned the business analysis comparison because that is what I know about, 
I am not qualified to be a critic on the rest of RUP - please can someone else contribute here?
Adrianwilford (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Absence of Criticisms 

message: I started wikifying this article. I hope to establish more of an overview and less of a series of listings, which I think are far to much details. Such a thing could maybe fit as on Wikibooks, but here it is more important to give a poverfull overview. --  Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikification 

message: I removed the following list of external links, which aren;t acceptabel in Wikipedia articles. If a link has some thing notable to contribute to the article, it should be intergrated in the article itself and added as a reference. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? I think some of these links are perfectly fine, and some even very beneficial. I think they should be at least kept in the External Links section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.106.34 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkfarm removed 

message: :I submitted an edit that was reverted. I rv'd it since I feel it was perfectly valid and am opening a discussion here. In a few places this article has a pattern of providing inline credit for process creation of other processes; e.g. the topic of my above edit, plus ""Objectory Process"...by Ivar Jacobson... the "Booch method" by Grady Booch... the Object-modeling technique by James Rumbaugh". I feel the bylines are unnecessary, uninformative, and distracting for readers. The reverting editor says in his rv of my edit that " The creators matter. Their biographies on Wikipedia point to related work which complements RUP." However I would argue that such material belongs in the respective process pages and including the bylines here interrupts reading flow. I would predict that no RUP article reader who is unfamiliar with one of the above alternate processes would go to (or even be interested in) the respective creator's page without first going to the already-linked-to alternate process page (where all the relevant cites belong, and which themselves link to their creators). It's unnecessary to credit the creators inline here and the average RUP article reader just isn't interested in hearing about the personalities. We don't say "Stroustrup's C++" or whatever each time C++ is linked to. Ripe (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you in principle but not in the case you cited: IMHO, it is important, that those three names are mentioned in this particular place because of the second half sentence: "who combined forces at Rational Software Corporation in the mid 1990's, and in the process, rationalised their thinking regarding best practices for the software development process." This is important information to the history of Rational and RUP. So I would leave it in its current form Lippmj (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive inline bylines 

message: I am currently doing a paper in which I conduct research on RUP. I have found that the description for the six best practices in this wikipedia article is not accurate when cross-checked with the IBM Best practices white paper Page 4 ( http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/content/03July/1000/1251/1251_bestpractices_TP026B.pdf )
The descriptions in this article are very minimal, and slightly inaccurate compared to what is in the whitepaper (page 4).
I am no expert on writing for Wikipedia, but I do hope that one of the authors/moderators here will take the time and necessary effort to increase the quality of this article.
Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.106.34 (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanations to the Six Best Practices 

message: Currently this article reads without any criticism of RUP.  This is hardly appropriate for a method which has clearly been controversial and which has been attracted plenty of criticism.  Whether that criticism is valid or not is something that should be dealt with by showing, using clear references, counter arguments or that the critics lack the evidence which would make their criticisms valid.  Even the link with widespread use UML, a widely excoriated modelling technology, is something that has been widely made and so if the supporters of RUP want to disown it they should show clear evidence of separation between the method and the technology that was widely used in conjunction with it.  
There was a criticism section, commented out in this edit if nobody is willing to write a further, more accurate criticism statement then I would propose reinstating that and only accepting edits which improve it or add alternative with links to references showing that the new material is more accurate or more notable.  N.B. just because material is imperfect is not a justification for removing it if not providing something better.  StacksofHoy (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of balance and criticism 

message: Is there any evidence out there for the prevalence of formal software processes like RUP? I ask since all of the 'Further Reading' texts are from at least 10 years ago. Are there no more up-to-date works about it? Jtaylor100 (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of Prevalence