When I joined this company a couple of years ago, it was still in full blown
RUP document driven development. Thankfully, this is well on its way to
being changed to a more agile process, we're not there yet - any company
that's been around for 120 years has a good deal of inertia too it.
Despite its almost innumerable evils, document driven development did have
one seemingly good thing going for it. It allowed the engineering director
to go toe-to-toe with an ISO auditor and say "OK buddy-boy, just have a look
at this then, we've got more process than you can shake a stick at!". And
the auditor retreats to whatever location he inhabits between audits.
Now, is this as easy with an Agile process. To quote Uncle Bob - "Software
without documentation is a disaster." - and that's a point most if not all
can agree with. But would the "short and salient" documentation he goes on
to describe pass the ISO auditor?
Another interesting one, is the question of review. Now, we've been
integrating pair programming on some areas of our code base, and typically,
these areas would not be subject to wider review. In the older process, all
code of any architectural significance would be reviewed by 3 or 4
developers. The reviewee would present in a quite formal fashion, and the
feedback recorded in an equally formal fashion. Whilst this was slow and
cumbersome, it does provide good proof of quality control and process. The
way we have decided to tackle this, is using Visual SourceSafe. When we
check our files in, we add the names of the pair of programmers to the
comment field of the check-in.
I'm curious to know how other teams have tackled this issue. Does an agile
process easily align with the kind of proof-of-process required by the ISO