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

Re: [XP] XP and Scrum

Expand Messages
  • Gary Brown
    ... From: Steven Gordon To: Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 6:52 PM Subject: Re: [XP] XP and Scrum ...
    Message 1 of 138 , May 2 5:51 PM
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Steven Gordon" <sgordonphd@...>
      To: <extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 6:52 PM
      Subject: Re: [XP] XP and Scrum

      > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Gary Brown <glbrown@...> wrote:
      >> ----- Original Message -----
      >> From: "Steven Gordon" <sgordonphd@...>
      >> To: <extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com>
      >> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 5:44 PM
      >> Subject: Re: [XP] XP and Scrum
      >> > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Max Guernsey, III <max@...>
      >> wrote:
      >> >>
      >> >> This will probably cause your stock to fall, Gary, but I agree with
      >> you
      >> >> about the "Don't like it? Don't work here" policy.
      >> >>
      >> >
      >> > For a department with an already established process, that policy is
      >> > fine going forward especially when made clear in the hiring process.
      >> >
      >> > However, that kind of policy would be counterproductive for a
      >> > department undergoing a change of processes to XP. The people who
      >> > would not do something just because they are told to are exactly the
      >> > people you should want to retain. The people who would
      >> > unquestioningly do what they are told just to keep their jobs are
      >> > exactly the people who could follow the XP practices but not attain
      >> > any agility.
      >> I will explain yet again, why we adopted XP, and will allow you to
      >> decide
      >> if
      >> we did the right thing for the company and the people.
      >> We were using an obsolete procedural language that would not be
      >> supported
      >> on
      >> the next generation of the hardware and operating system. Our VP decided
      >> that he wanted to move to Java and object-oriented programming. He and I
      >> had worked in another company that tried to retrain procedural
      >> programmers
      >> to be object-oriented programmers. About half of them could not make the
      >> transition.
      >> We needed to move to a new language, but we didn't want to lose the
      >> people
      >> with the business application knowledge. We believed that XP would a
      >> provide support system, allowing us to bring in new people with the
      >> language
      >> and object-oriented programming skills, sit them with our business
      >> application experts, and let them to learn from each other. Traditional
      >> management practices had allowed knowledge silos to form. Projects had
      >> become unmanageable, because they had to be worked around those
      >> knowledge
      >> silos. Quality was acceptable. Productivity was not.
      >> After four years, we have about a dozen teams doing XP. We have had
      >> about
      >> ten percent of the original staff leave or take non-development
      >> prositions,
      >> because they didn't want to work in XP style. We were sorry to see them
      >> leave, but we wish them the best. XP is not for everyone.
      >> Quality is up. Productivity is up. We rank at the 98th percentile of all
      >> companies in employee satisfaction. We must be doing something right ...
      > This description is much less dictatorial than the way you have been
      > making it sound.
      > Abruptly telling people we are changing to XP and leave if you do not
      > like it is far from the attrition to be expected when job requirements
      > evolve due to technology and market changes.

      I have never done that, and anyone who is paying the slightest bit of
      attention knows that. Over and over, I have explained what we do, how I
      think we are coming up short and asking how to improve. Over and over, the
      what and how get deleted and I get pummled for imposing or forcing XP. I
      have been a member of this group since 03/2000. Don't check the membership
      list, because I have used different email addresses, but I have been here.
      Ron can verify.

    • Manuel Klimek
      Chris, On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Chris Wheeler ... 1. if you have a measurable dependent variable, which we haven t. 2. if you have enough consistent
      Message 138 of 138 , May 14 10:06 AM

        On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Chris Wheeler
        <christopher.wheeler@...> wrote:
        > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek@...> wrote:
        >> From what I know about maths, combining metrics about which we have no
        >> idea how strongly they are correlated with the dependent variable /and
        >> each other/ means that we can't say anything about it. The 'errors'
        >> might cancel out, they might multiply, and I think the basic problem
        >> is to find the correlation of the independent variables. If we knew
        >> these, we could create a metric that explains the dependent variable
        >> in a better way.
        >> I don't think regression analysis applies here because of the
        >> interdependence of the errors of the independent variables.
        > Ok. Like I said, read up on it. There are ways to discern multicollinearity
        > amongst independent variables and ways to deal with it. Regression analysis
        > is helpful in determining how much variation in your dependent variable is
        > accounted for by your independent variables.

        1. if you have a measurable dependent variable, which we haven't.
        2. if you have enough consistent data that you can do sound
        statistical analysis, which is moot if you don't have (1), but which
        is hard to come by, even if you have (1). With consistent I mean that
        the environment does not change in a way that the metrics change
        without the target metric changing. Which would lead to all that
        repeatability that CMMI seems to be about, which seems to lead to
        making the same error over and over again, just to be able to prove
        that you made it.
        3. I said interdependence of the errors, which I think is something
        else than covariance of the independent variables, whilst related to
        it and probably computable if you could find out the covariances. But
        I confess that I am not on firm ground here.

        > Or, don't read up on it. Whatever suits you.

        I already read up on it since you hinted me to do so, and I knew about
        it before, having had some graduate math during CS and finance
        studies. Just thought I'd mention it :-)


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.