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

Re: [XP] Collocated vs Dispersed...which is better?

Expand Messages
  • John A. De Goes
    Hi Scott, I haven t looked in detail at the survey, but I do think it has value. What it tells me is that in companies who responded to the survey, projects
    Message 1 of 471 , Aug 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Scott,

      I haven't looked in detail at the survey, but I do think it has value.
      What it tells me is that in companies who responded to the survey,
      projects that are distributed are failing more often than projects
      that aren't. That's useful information, but at the same time, it can't
      be taken as a prescription. Instead, it's a launch point to lots of
      other questions, whose answers demand a detailed examination of the
      survey and more objective forms of research:

      1. What are the differences between the distributed projects that
      succeed, and those that fail? i.e. what are the causative factors
      behind the failures?

      2. Can those causative factors be mitigated, or perhaps eliminated
      altogether?

      3. What do costs look like for all the different options? Successful
      distributed versus successful collocated? Unsuccessful distributed
      versus successful collocated? Etc.

      4. What's happening in all the teams not surveyed? i.e. what is the
      nature and extent of survey bias?

      Regards,

      John A. De Goes
      N-BRAIN, Inc.
      http://www.n-brain.net
      [n minds are better than n-1]

      On Aug 1, 2008, at 7:38 AM, Scott Ambler wrote:

      > In DDJ's 2008 Agile Adoption Survey, see
      > http://www.ambysoft.com/surveys/agileFebruary2008.html , we actually
      > explored this issue. We found that:
      > - Co-located agile teams had a 83% success rate
      > - Near-located agile teams had a 72% success rate
      > - Far-located agile teams had a 60% success rate
      >
      > Co-located == everyone in same room
      > Near-located == You could get together relatively easily if you had
      > to, but some people could be in cubes/offices, on different floors,
      > in different buildings (but close by), or working from home
      > Far-located == planes would be involved to get people together
      >
      > We also discovered that a fair number or organizations are not doing
      > agile in a co-located manner, something we should all observe with
      > interest.
      >
      > Not surprisingly, there appears to be a bit of a risk premium when
      > you distribute people. To address this risk your best strategy is
      > not to take it on in the first place. Failing that you need to apply
      > more sophisticated processes (see
      > http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/ambler for several blog
      > postings on this subject) and more sophisticated tooling.
      >
      > Also, I just wanted to point out the value provided by surveys (or
      > better yet other forms of research for that matter). Instead of
      > having a religious-based discussion we can now have a fact-based one.
      >
      > - Scott
      > Practice Leader Agile Development, IBM Rational
      >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Keith Ray
      By the way, Classes and Objects referring to patterns of electrical charges in modern day CPU and Memory chips (or past and future equivalents) is a
      Message 471 of 471 , Sep 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        By the way, "Classes" and "Objects" referring to patterns of
        electrical charges in modern day CPU and Memory chips (or past and
        future equivalents) is a metaphor too.

        --
        C. Keith Ray, IXP Coach, Industrial Logic, Inc.
        http://industriallogic.com 866-540-8336 (toll free)
        Groove with our Agile Greatest Hits: http://www.industriallogic.com/elearning/
        http://agilesolutionspace.blogspot.com/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.