Iconix experience

[SomersetGraham]

Hi Everyone
I am considering how to tackle my next project and whether or not to adopt the ICONIX process.
I was wondering if anyone has any experiences of this process that they could share with me (and everyone else).
My last project to the Cockburn view of use cases but ICONIX porcess seems to disagree with his approach. Has anyone got any feelings on this matter?
It seems to me that the ICONIX process is ideally suited to smaller teams but could provide a quicker way to the 'Code' - what do you think?

Thanks fot your time

Graham

[beginner]

Cockburn is "just" for the Use Cases (very roughly spoken). If you're about to document your UCs, this is the way it should be done. Cockburn focuses very much on writing UCs as text. With the new EA8 version you will find a very nice dialogue unleashing the ever since hidden potential of EA to capture these activities. Furthermore you can generate activity diagrams from these scenarios and keep them in synch with the textual description. So you have two views which helps capturing correct UCs.

ICONIX is covering MOST of the process from Use Case to Code. Once I started with UML I had great difficulties finding the thread. Through Sparx I found the ICONIX site where I bought that neat tutorial where Dough Rosenberg leads to the ICONIX process. After that many things made much more sense to me and helped me to find my way. I still use quite some process steps from ICONIX when working on todays projects.

There's obviously more than Cockburn and ICONIX in the whole UML world. The process to be used is still not standardized. To get in spheres of DoDAF/MODAF it takes years of practice. And I guess even the cracks just understand parts of that stuff.

b.