It doesn't sound from the tone of the article that it is official policy for IBM GS and PWC to standardize on RUP - just wishful thinking on Devlin's part.
IMO, it would be a mistake for IBM to get heavily into RUP. It's definitely stuck in the old paradigm, just as the agile paradigm is really beginning to catch-on and cross the chasm.
Highly iterative RUP or RUP with an 2-week iteration (XP plug-in, sic) is still RUP based in SDLC and OOSE and PMI/SEI/ISO quality standards and project management model.
Getting into RUP now would give IBM a severe case of The Innovator's Dilemma - they won't be able to focus on the agile space while they are incentivized to learn, teach and sell RUP. This provides an opportunity for competitors to steal the market from under them with a better ROI proposition based on agile methods.
David
--
David J. Anderson
http://www.uidesign.net/
The Webzine for Interaction Designers
Just arriving but the party's over
It doesn't sound from the tone of the article that it is official policy for IBM GS and PWC to standardize on RUP - just wishful thinking on Devlin's part.
IMO, it would be a mistake for IBM to get heavily into RUP. It's definitely stuck in the old paradigm, just as the agile paradigm is really beginning to catch-on and cross the chasm.
Highly iterative RUP or RUP with an 2-week iteration (XP plug-in, sic) is still RUP based in SDLC and OOSE and PMI/SEI/ISO quality standards and project management model.
Getting into RUP now would give IBM a severe case of The Innovator's Dilemma - they won't be able to focus on the agile space while they are incentivized to learn, teach and sell RUP. This provides an opportunity for competitors to steal the market from under them with a better ROI proposition based on agile methods.
David
--
David J. Anderson
http://www.uidesign.net/
The Webzine for Interaction Designers