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

Re: [XP] Re: Distributed XP

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    ... I was hoping they meant scaled up. Haven t read the article yet. Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com Only the hand that erases can write the true thing. --
    Message 1 of 82 , Apr 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sunday, April 2, 2006, at 10:36:43 AM, Keith Ray wrote:

      > On 4/2/06, Steve Bate <steve@...> wrote:
      >> "The SirsiDynix/StarSoft 56-person distributed Java team was as
      >> productive as a 6 person colocated team using Scrum."
      >>
      >> http://tinyurl.com/oo8hb

      > 6 person collocated team == X productivity == 56 person distributed team

      > so a person on the distributed team was 6/56 ( 0.107 ) times as
      > productive as one
      > on the collocated team?

      > or the collocated person was 56/6 ( 9.33 ) times as productive as one
      > on the distributed team?

      I was hoping they meant scaled up. Haven't read the article yet.

      Ron Jeffries
      www.XProgramming.com
      Only the hand that erases can write the true thing. -- Meister Eckhart
    • 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.