Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

121020RE: [Moderator] Re: [XP] Re: Convincing the business

Expand Messages
  • Kent Beck
    Jul 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't see a contradiction. Isaac is talking about a book. You are talking
      about a software process. It seems to me that Isaac has made a contribution
      by doing his homework and asking for higher standards of scholarship. As an
      author, I will try to take this to heart. Perhaps now it is time to return
      the discussion to software development.


      Kent Beck
      Three Rivers Institute


      From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Kelly
      Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 5:06 PM
      To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Moderator] Re: [XP] Re: Convincing the business

      From: "igouy2" <igouy2@yahoo. <mailto:igouy2%40yahoo.com> com>
      > Is it possible that those people, who agreed that it was obvious the
      > agile approach was producing better software but were unable to find
      > any significant difference in the data, were simply wrong and there
      > really was no difference?

      What about QWAN? :)

      Well, I can relate from firsthand experience it made a huge
      difference on _our_ project when we switched from waterfall
      to XP.

      We even had names for the differences it made:

      Delivered on time
      No death march / crunch mode
      Bug-tracking software no longer needed for software bugs

      In contrast, our previous releases had:

      Schedule overruns
      Massive overtime death march / crunch mode
      Heavy reliance on bug tracking software



      (QWAN: http://en.wikipedia
      .org/wiki/Quality_without_a_name ,
      http://c2.com/ <http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?QualityWithoutaName>
      cgi/wiki?QualityWithoutaName )

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 37 messages in this topic