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

Re: [XP] XP and Scrum

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    ... I am not writing about Gary s teams, but about the words he, you, and others have used to describe a situation, as applied to teams in general. As a rule,
    Message 1 of 138 , May 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello, Max. On Friday, May 2, 2008, at 7:30:35 PM, you wrote:

      > That is all true and I think that Gary framed it a little differently. It's
      > not that "you have to do this to keep your job;" which is presented as a
      > threat. It's more like (if I may be so bold as to speak for you, Gary)
      > "this is what we are doing but you live in [an ostensibly] free country and
      > can choose to work somewhere else or not at all." I think that sets a
      > healthy tone from the get go. In order to enjoy work (which, I gather, is a
      > big part of XP), they need to understand that they are choosing it over
      > other things. If they are happier doing work than the next best
      > alternative, then it's a winning proposition. If they are not, then they
      > should look for something else to do.

      I am not writing about Gary's teams, but about the words he, you,
      and others have used to describe a situation, as applied to teams in

      As a rule, I think "my way or the highway" is less than an ideal way
      to run an organization. I would want to see an attitude that did two
      things a little differently from that:

      1. XP is the best we know now, and we are always looking for
      better ways ...

      2. Let's focus mostly on the results we expect from the team, not
      much on the means whereby they are attained.

      In general, if a team had been doing XP for a while, and the
      attitude of management was as described in your words or mine above,
      I would expect that the team might experience a decent level of
      improvement and that they would then level out.

      I would expect that some experienced observers in the organization
      might feel that it should be possible to do much better, but might
      not know just how.

      I would expect to find a substantial minority of people who were in
      grudging, or trudging, compliance rather than spirited exploration
      of ways to do better.

      There may be a time for "that's the way we work here," but in my
      opinion it would at best be used on a team who was in the Shu state.
      If we ever want to get beyond that level, we have to let go.

      Again, I'm just talking about teams and leadership in general, not
      any particular teams anywhere.

      Ron Jeffries
      Show me the features!
    • 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, 2008
      • 0 Attachment

        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.