Comments on: MSF: Version 4.0 versus Version 3.1 http://blog.brodzinski.com/2006/07/msf-version-40-versus-version-31.html Dealing with software projects in real life Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:07:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Pawel Brodzinski http://blog.brodzinski.com/2006/07/msf-version-40-versus-version-31.html#comment-1723 Pawel Brodzinski Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:16:00 +0000 http://blog.brodzinski.com/2006/07/msf-version-4-0-versus-version-3-1.html#comment-1723 Actually each methodology can work in a team when not everyone is fully dedicated although it always brings some risks. MSF is no different here.<br/><br/>Personally I'd try either to limit influence on the project from not dedicated people or (better) try to convince them it brings some worth not only for the project but also for them personally as they learn new techniques. Actually each methodology can work in a team when not everyone is fully dedicated although it always brings some risks. MSF is no different here.

Personally I’d try either to limit influence on the project from not dedicated people or (better) try to convince them it brings some worth not only for the project but also for them personally as they learn new techniques.

]]> By: Anonymous http://blog.brodzinski.com/2006/07/msf-version-40-versus-version-31.html#comment-1722 Anonymous Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:00:00 +0000 http://blog.brodzinski.com/2006/07/msf-version-4-0-versus-version-3-1.html#comment-1722 Just a question or request on your opinion: Could MSF (despite its version) work in teams to which people are not 100% dedicated? I mean, several people are nominated as members of some team which is to develope something "under MSF", but there is a risk these people can be (for an unpredictable period) reassigned to another project - just to extinguish a fire somewhere else. Can we think about MSF at all? Just a question or request on your opinion: Could MSF (despite its version) work in teams to which people are not 100% dedicated? I mean, several people are nominated as members of some team which is to develope something “under MSF”, but there is a risk these people can be (for an unpredictable period) reassigned to another project – just to extinguish a fire somewhere else. Can we think about MSF at all?

]]> By: Pawel Brodzinski http://blog.brodzinski.com/2006/07/msf-version-40-versus-version-31.html#comment-1721 Pawel Brodzinski Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:59:00 +0000 http://blog.brodzinski.com/2006/07/msf-version-4-0-versus-version-3-1.html#comment-1721 From the perspective of time one more thing became visible. Microsoft tries hard with keeping MSF "trendy." With agile becoming mainstream software development methodology guys from Redmond struggles to catch that train. They abandoned "common sense methodology" which for me was MSF 3 and moved to delivering tools for "your own lightweight methodology" which has only one advantage over other tools: it is much better integrated with MS development tools than anything else.<br/><br/>To be honest I can't say I like where Microsoft is heading with that part of their business. From the perspective of time one more thing became visible. Microsoft tries hard with keeping MSF “trendy.” With agile becoming mainstream software development methodology guys from Redmond struggles to catch that train. They abandoned “common sense methodology” which for me was MSF 3 and moved to delivering tools for “your own lightweight methodology” which has only one advantage over other tools: it is much better integrated with MS development tools than anything else.

To be honest I can’t say I like where Microsoft is heading with that part of their business.

]]> By: Anonymous http://blog.brodzinski.com/2006/07/msf-version-40-versus-version-31.html#comment-1720 Anonymous Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:05:00 +0000 http://blog.brodzinski.com/2006/07/msf-version-4-0-versus-version-3-1.html#comment-1720 It's been years since I've worked with MSF and I've just popped back in to see what's up. From just poking around the resources available I entirely agree with your assessment. Thanks for the post. I'll be passing on 4.0 and going back to 3.1 and grabbing those whitepapers.<br/><br/>Cheers,<br/>Gwaine It’s been years since I’ve worked with MSF and I’ve just popped back in to see what’s up. From just poking around the resources available I entirely agree with your assessment. Thanks for the post. I’ll be passing on 4.0 and going back to 3.1 and grabbing those whitepapers.

Cheers,
Gwaine

]]>