![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
One of the 6 best practices on which RUP is based is "Continuously verify quality". In combination with risk-driven iterations and the emphasis on architecture, the overall focus on quality is quite strong.
WUT?--
193.63.27.196 (
talk) 14:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
"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)
"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)
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)
That what was "RUP", Rational Unified Process was renamed Unified Process (UP) and is now publicly held with Object Management Group (OMG) its custodian. Wouldn't it be better to rename this page as Unified Process, specify the origin and also what is RUP. RUP is now (as far as I know) a commercial product of IBM. -- Werner BEROUX 18:58, 8 Mai 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that's correct. OMG does not own the Unified Process, no one does. The term Unified Process (UP) is used by those who are using a RUP-like process but don't want to mention Rational. Unless there is some significant proof, this needs to be restored quickly. Mjchonoles
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)
I have created a new (albeit short) Unified Process article. I do not want to belittle RUP, but I think with all these different flavors of UP being invented the Unified Process needs to be more than a REDIRECT to the RUP article.-- GFLewis 19:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Proposed outline for a refactoring of this article
Other comments
-- GFLewis 20:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I have taken a first cut at this, but it still needs more work.-- GFLewis 03:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added stubs for the two missing disciplines (Project Management and Environment). GFLewis 10:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
Agreed. The article reads like the RUP propaganda you encounter in the field, when someone pushes for it. Having the "party line" in the article is fine of course, but there must be organized critisism somewhere out there. Bertrand Meyer has some nasty things to say about UML, for example. JöG ( talk) 09:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
What does Meyer's critique of the UML have to do with RUP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.212.244 ( talk) 06:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Just ABOVE the criticisms, the sentences 'As the RUP must be customized for each project by a RUP process expert, the project's overall success is highly dependent on the abilities of this one person.' are in my experience simply wrong. I was involved with RUP as a company that sold it for Rational in around 1998, and in a couple of methods and process for several years before that.
1. RUP could be used as is. It did not need to be customised at all. However for newcomers to any process, it was advised to simplify it if this was expedient rather than get everyone lost in a large comprehensive process. There is a fundamental difference between advising to tune it in that circumstance and dictating that it MUST be customised. The emphasis was on using as much as you can and as much as you find useful, if all of it seemd too much at once. Generally the more used and more the gain. Furthermore refining the process in an ongoing way was encouraged as a standard 'Best Practice' for any manufacturing operation, including software. This is not a limitation, its a Best Practice of any enterprise seeming to adopt Quality practices. ... (Updated .. rather than me bleat on, I have found and grabbed the relevant bit from the Rationa Edge article 'What Is the Rational Unified Process?' by Philippe Kruchten re RUP "It is general and comprehensive enough to be used "as is," i.e., out-of-the-box, by many small-to-medium software development organizations, especially those that do not have a very strong process culture. But the adopting organization can also modify, adjust, and expand the Rational Unified Process to accommodate the specific needs, characteristics, constraints, and history of its organization, culture, and domain.".)
2. The Process Engineer (who customises the process) was a 'worker', now 'role'. There has never been any dictate that this must be one person. In fact role sharing was encouraged. The project's success is not dependent on the ability of one person in any way due to RUP. It is quite simply ignorant to make this link.
As with many processes in institutions, when people take it half on board, half understood, and apply their own old pre-conceptions and bureaucracies to the process, they end up reading into it things that are not there at all. This has happened in this wikipedia article.
I suggest people go back the read what IS in RUP, and also understand that no one individual, including those involved in writing books or even helping develop RUP, are sole arbiters of what is RUP. It was a highly collaborative effort involving many people dicussing best practices in a moving landscape 9software development) over a period of time. This landscape moved rapidly as RUP initially was being developed, due to the commercialisation of object-oriented and then web development. RUP is designed to change, and has morphed and branched into many variants that share the 'UP' part of the RUP name.
Finally, regarding the Criticisms section: 'Wolfgang Hesse is a vocal critic of RUP, one of his most famous papers on the subject is "Dinosaur Meets Archaeopteryx?' I have never heard of Wolfgang Hess, and to say his paper is famous is highly subjective. I am not trying to belittle him, but I for one have not heard of it. What makes it 'famous'? - an exaggeration surely.
'Common criticisms of RUP include:' Common? I think not. Some people's, perhaps.
'it is very costly to implement'. Actually in a world where 85% of software project fail, the cost is probably in NOT implementing either it or ANY other reasonably sane method/process. That is my opinion, but many (probably most) experienced people I used to speak to agreed with me. Adopting RUP, or any process SAVES money, ie it has a positive ROI. Most institutions fail to take processes on board properly or at all, and most of their projects fail. Do you see any connection? I certainly do.
- DavidTangye ( talk) 05:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC) (Sorry to have edited this several times)
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)
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)
Grady, Jim, and Ivar's primary focus was the development of the Unified Modeling Language. While they and other individuals (Walker Royce, Dean Leffingwell) certainly contributed to the Rational Unified Process, these contributions were small in comparison to the large experience base assembled by development and field teams from Rational, Requisite, SQA, and Pure-Atria. Philippe Kruchten led the effort to create the Rational Unified Process, and led its continued development for several years. (Dave Bernstein, Rational VP Product Development, 1982 to 2003) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.212.244 ( talk) 06:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
On the relationship of UML and RUP
1. One of the six best practices at the core of RUP is to establish a component-based (modular) architecture. Another of the six best practices is to visually model an application's architecture; the UML was developed in support of this best practice.
2. RUP itself can be unambiguously described using the UML, enabling automation.
The best practices underlying RUP were developed over many years at Rational Software and the companies it acquired. Grady, Jim, and Ivar were certainly significant contributors, but not primary authors. Other notable contributors include Phillipe Kruchten, Phil Levy, Jim Archer, Rich Reitman, Mike Devlin, Dave Stevenson, Jon Hopkins, Walker Royce, Dean Leffingwell, Joe Marasco, Jurt Bittner, Per Kroll, Maria Ericsson, Magnus Chistersson, Stefan Bylund, Hakan Dyrhage, Jas Madhur, and Bruce Katz.
I led Rational's Object-Oriented Business Unit during the development of Rose and the UML, and led Rational's Product Group during the development of RUP.
Dave Bernstein Dave ( talk) 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)