ESSENCE2 — Change Why a Kernel Language to active voice

Issues

The following text is may need refinement, uses the passive voice, and uses the past tense.

• https://issues.omg.org/browse/ESSENCE2-2 - Passive Voice
• https://issues.omg.org/browse/ESSENCE2-3 - Present Tense
• https://issues.omg.org/browse/ESSENCE2-5 - Streamline text

Original Text

The successful development of systems benefits from the application of effective methods and well-defined practices. Traditionally, methods have been defined up-front before a team starts to work. They are then instantiated so that the activities – created from the definition – are ready to be executed by practitioners (e.g., analysts, developers, testers, project leads) in a predefined order to get the result specified by the definition. Methods defined in this way are often considered by development teams to be too prescriptive, heavyweight and inflexible. The view – “the team is the computer, the process is the program” – is not suitable for creative engineering work, which is agile, trial-and-error based and collaboration intensive.

What has been missing is a simple way to bootstrap a method, one that allows a team to experiment and evolve a way of working that meets their needs while they do their work. A living method that they can continuously inspect and adapt so that it learns as they learn and reflects what the team is actually doing rather than what the team thought they would be doing before they started work. A living method where the set of practices the team uses can change over time as their systems mature and they continuously improve their way of working.

Suggestion

The successful development of systems benefits from applying effective methods and well-defined practices. Traditionally, methods are defined up-front before a team starts to work. They are then instantiated so the activities – created from the definition – are ready for practitioners (e.g., analysts, developers, testers, and project leads) in a predefined order to get the result specified by the definition. Development teams often consider methods definitions built this way too prescriptive, heavyweight, and inflexible. The view – “the team is the computer, the process is the program” – is unsuitable for creative engineering work, which is agile, trial-and-error based, and collaboration intensive.

What is missing is a simple way to bootstrap a method that allows a team to experiment and evolve a way of working that meets their needs while continuing to work. It is a living method that continuously inspects and adapts so that it learns as the team learns and reflects what the team is doing rather than what the team thought they would be doing before work started. A living method is one where the set of practices the team uses changes over time as the systems mature and continuously improve their working methods.