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

RE: [XP] Re: Distributed XP

Expand Messages
  • Philip Doherty
    Thanks for implying I dont understand. You reiterated in 100 lines what I did in 4 in my previous post, thanks again but I ve already got it. What I was
    Message 1 of 82 , Apr 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for implying I dont understand.

      You reiterated in 100 lines what I did in 4 in my previous post, thanks again but I've already got it.

      What I was concerned about was the fact you stated that organisations should stop focusing on costs. What I was saying was that you have to keep costs in mind. A simplified formula - Profit = Revenue - Costs. If I increase my revenue through using XP and my costs increase on the same level or a higher degree (for whatever reason) what happens to my profit? Does this makes my concerns more apparent?

      You answered one of my questions in these 100 lines - do you charge more for XP Projects? The answer is yes you charge more because you deliver value faster or in higher quantities. This has to be linked to a none fixed price contract which rewards value delivered, which you kinda mentioned in this reponse. Am I correct in thinking this?

      If I'm not and XP can work in fixed price contracts which are priced at a comparable level to what they are in an non XP methodology then the only thing which would make it more profitable is a reduced cost!!

      XP can reduce costs while increasing quality, Yes? So I could have a more profitable project without charging more? This doesnt fit with the analogy you used hence my dissatisfaction with it.

      I don't want to imply you didn't understand my viewpoint becuase that would just be plain rude.. ;-)


      Phil




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jason Nocks
      ... ... ... The book, Slack: Getting Past Burnout, Busywork, and the Myth of Total Efficiency strikes me as oddly relevant, particularly the
      Message 82 of 82 , Apr 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tuesday 04 April 2006 6:05 am, Keith Braithwaite wrote:
        > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Keith Ray" <keith.ray@...>
        >
        > wrote:
        <snip>

        > Lets be careful with these numbers. I find the paper a bit incoherent,
        > seems to jump around a lot between the general, the specfic, personal
        > anecdote and focused experience reoprt, but section 6 seems to be the
        > meat.
        >
        > It states that an (unspecified, no citation) colocated SCRUM team did
        > 959 Function Points in 54 person months, or 17.8 FP/person-month.
        > Whereas the distributed team described in the paper did (via a
        > slightly fishy reverse lookup) 12673 FPs in 827 person months, or 15.3
        > FP/person-month. A 16% difference. How bad is that? Depends on your
        > prefered figure of merit.
        >
        > Interestingly, the paper compares these figures against an industry
        > average FP/person-month for projects _of that size_, whereby the
        > colocated SCRUM team is 42% more productive that the industry average
        > for projects of 1000FPs or so. But the distributed team is around 400%
        > more productive than the industry average for projects in the 10,000's
        > of FPs.
        >
        > Assuming that the colocated team could maintain their 17.8 FP/pm for
        > the whole duration, and all other things being equal, the 4.5 person
        > [sic] co-lo team would have taken slightly less than 160 months to
        > complete the 12000+ FPs. The distributed team took 14.5 months.
        >
        <snip>

        >
        > Something to think about.

        The book, "Slack: Getting Past Burnout, Busywork, and the Myth of Total
        Efficiency" strikes me as oddly relevant, particularly the "Myth of Total
        Efficiency" part. Just my $.02.

        > Keith

        Cheers,
        Jason Nocks
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.