-
- The antithesis as presented by Marc is rather extraordinary, and it does not reflect the approach that many product development companies apply, nor does it reflect the approach of modern (S)CM tool vendors.
Actually, I agree with the antithesis Marc speaks of. I disagree that it is of
CM versus SCM. I think both CM and SCM are about DEcomposition and REcomposition of a product along its various dimensions (physical, functional, historical, environmental, and managerial).
(
Marc's reply)
The creation of any large complex system requires mechanisms for managing such complexity: we break down "big chunks" into smaller and more manageable ones. Then we have to coordinate putting all the pieces back together into a cohesive, coherent, and consistent result. That is
very hard. And control and coordination are often at odds with one another, as are safety (product integrity/stability) and liveness (productivity visible progress), as are accountability and cooperation.
I think Marc speaks to the tension from when these opposing forces are not successfully balanced and all too often we see control or accountability or safety emphasized to the extreme of severely compromising coordination or cooperation or liveness. The fact is that a delicate dynamic "equilibrium" must be reached between all these competing concerns. Focusing on any of them to the exclusion (or "starvation") of one or more of the others "breaks" the balance and throws things "out of whack" (causing some dysfunction).
But I don't think it's an antithesis between CM and SCM, just between competing concerns of all software and large systems development. Some of what Marc attributes to "focus of SCM" is the focus of agile methods, which many believe that the traditional or 'classical' approach to (insert any of "software development", "project management" or "configuration management") pay homage to in theory but not enough of it goes into practice.
--
BradAppleton? - 02 Jun 2003
[Moved to a new page by
MarcGirod - 06 Feb 2007]