Talk:Microsoft Solutions Framework

Methodology

MSF is not a methodology for software development. It defines a a framework of phases and roles which can apply to many scenarios in IT projects . Interestingly, MSF has the concept of releasing the software product and then stabilising it with corrective actions (bug fixes for SW) . Anyone who has worked in the SW industry for any length of time will know that releasing an untested product to a user base is a disastorous process and should be avoided always. Summary , MSF is of little value ..

PS. No wonder its not used internally in Microsoft ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.235.156 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is blatantly false. The Stabilizing phase comes before the deploying stage. 204.210.193.197 02:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoever made the comment above does not know MSF at all (and could use a bit of spell-checking). MSF has been based on Microsoft internal processes summarized by Michael Cusumano as "Synch-and-stabilize" in books and several articles. Those keywords should be enough for you to do a search and find out about the original "Microsoft Development Framework" described by Cusumano and McCarthy. This was later generalized to include other types of IT projects, but primarily MSF was a development framework in the beginning (circa 1993). 70.122.34.130 02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Merged article "Microsoft Solution Framework" into article "Microsoft Solutions Framework"

I have merged a redundant article "Microsoft Solution Framework" (without the s) into this one. Someone with more knowledge about this framework should evaluate to make sure everything is accurate.--Afpre (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda

Can we just add a header stating, that this article tries too hard to conceal the emptiness of meaning and method behind a kind of Microsoft'ical mumbo-jumbo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.8.58 (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we could find a place in this article for criticism of MSF as "empty of meaning and method", but only if we can find a reliable source that is making this claim. If there's an appearance of propoganda, I think it is likely the unintentional result of unclear writing that relies too heavily on company jargon. Much better than adding a header would be editing the article to improve it. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality not in question

This article does little to promote Microsoft. It seems quite factual and is based upon widely published information.

Further, this isn't about a Microsoft product. There is nothing to buy here. The article does not advocated MSF over other methodologies.

I personally feel that all methodologies are pretty vacuous, but this one is no more so than others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.223.184.254 (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

History - what about MSF 2.0?

In the "History" section, whatever happened to MSF 2.0? Presumably it was released after MSF 1,0 and before MSF 3.0 which "modified version 2.0 in the following ways...". 124.168.141.229 (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Simon Cullen

MSF and PMBOK

I just wonder if it is worth mentioning in the "MSF Project Management Process" section that the nine process areas in the MSF (Integrate planning and conduct change control; Define and manage the scope of the project; Prepare a budget and manage costs; Prepare and track schedules; Ensure that right resources are allocated to the project; Manage contracts and vendors and procure project resources; Facilitate team and external communications; Facilitate the risk management process; Document and monitor the team's quality management process) are exactly the same (apart from rewording) as the pre-existing nine knowledge areas of PMBOK - i.e. Project Integration Management; Project Scope Management; Project Time Management; Project Cost Management; Project Quality Management; Project Human Resource Management; Project Communications Management; Project Risk Management; and Project Procurement Management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.141.229 (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)