It's not all bad. I'm pleased to see Ivar Jacobson repeat his call to move beyond "process" to "practices". On the other hand, I'm dismayed to see the SEMAT programme described at it's highest level by these streams: definitions, theory, universals, kernel language, assessments.
Really? Definitions, theory, universals? Are these really the things that the software industry is lacking? The problem here, I think, is that just as at the original "Software Engineering" conferences in the 60's the SEMAT folks have confused the retrospective coherence with which engineering (that is, the mechanical, chemical, electrical, electronic and other flavours) is described with how engineering is actually done.
Similarly, the presence of a spring bow compass in the SEMAT logo worries me. The 60's effort at SE also confused the contingent artefacts produced by engineers (which at the time were actual drawings produced with things like spring bow compasses) with the essence of what engineers do. With this logo SEMAT are associating themselves not just with tools and outputs rather than principles and practices, but with mightily outdated tools. They might as well have put a slide rule in their logo.
It really seems as if an historic mistake is about to be repeated. I need to study SEMAT more, but for now Alistair Cockburn's commentary resonates strongly with me.
He urges that SEMAT does these to things:
I can hope.
- Look at what engineers ‘do’, not what they build.
- Catch up with the state of the art in what is conventionally called engineering.