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

Re: [XP] Collocation.

Expand Messages
  • Tathagat Varma
    I think working remotely is not fair or practical or doable - it is the real world. A business runs because of the economies of that business,
    Message 1 of 151 , Jan 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I think working remotely is not 'fair or practical or doable' - it is the
      real world. A business runs because of the economies of that business,
      nothwithstanding its internal processes (or lack thereof). To that end, if
      there are compelling reasons to geo-locate or time-locate teams, that will
      happen and internal production processes shall be required to support it.

      So, the question is not whether virtual colocation is better, or something
      else is. The fact is: remote collaboration as a business model makes sense
      for a certain class of problems, and is here to stay, whether we like it or
      not. So, how can our processes evolve to address need of the hour ?

      regards,
      Tathagat

      http://managewell.net


      On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Owen Thomas <owen.paul.thomas@...>wrote:

      > For those who don't know me (my name is quite common and there may be
      > others, better known than myself, who answer to the same name - speak to
      > my parents if you wish to complain) I affirmatively believe in Virtual
      > Collocation. I am of the opinion that working remotely is fair,
      > practical, and eminently doable in agile development. The only thing it
      > lacks is a critical mass of favourable opinion.
      >
      > As it appears that I have been hobbled on another group (maybe I was
      > speaking off-topic, but I'd beg to differ if I thought it would make a
      > difference to the outcome) it's probably more appropriate that this
      > debate be had here.
      >
      > What are the opinions of this forum? Am I wrong? Can you convince me?
      >
      > Owen.
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Adrian Howard
      On 5 Jan 2009, at 09:45, Adam Sroka wrote: [snip] ... [snip] Just to comment on the terms... and with the disclaimer that I ve not been keeping close track of
      Message 151 of 151 , Jan 9, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On 5 Jan 2009, at 09:45, Adam Sroka wrote:
        [snip]
        > BTW, "Collaborative Work" is a much *much* more useful term that
        > "Virtual Collocation". Collaborate denotes people doing things
        > together. Collocate denotes placing things together as in
        > side-by-side. Thus "Virtual Collocation" is not useful, except insofar
        > as it makes it sound like you've come up with something new. Which you
        > *still* haven't demonstrated.
        [snip]

        Just to comment on the terms... and with the disclaimer that I've not
        been keeping close track of CSCW terms/research since the nineties, so
        things may be different now :-)

        Collaborative Work is the more general term. Virtual Collocation is,
        as I understand it, the more specific term used in the field when folk
        are talking about technologies and techniques that aim to reproduce
        (to a greater or lesser extent) the sense of "being in the same place"
        - verses others methods of supporting collaborative work.

        The "radical collocation" term is used in the CSCW world to refer to
        environments like XP's prototypical team room - a collocated space
        with everybody working on the same project. As opposed to other co-
        located environments (e.g. a cube farm).

        There was a workshop at CWCW 2008 looking at some of this stuff last
        year if folk are interested. Don't know if the results are written up
        anywhere.

        http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhncd3jd_343cmcr7mcm

        There are some great references in there for the _next_ time this
        discussion starts up :-)

        I'll pick one paragraph from the workshop description:

        "It doesn't take much distance before a team feels the negative
        effects of distribution - the effectiveness of collaboration degrades
        rapidly with physical distance. People located closer in a building
        are more likely to collaborate (Kraut, Egido & Galegher 1990). Even at
        short distances, 3 feet vs. 20 feet, there is an effect (Sensenig &
        Reed 1972). A distance of 100 feet may be no better than several miles
        (Allen 1977). A field study of radically collocated software
        development teams, i.e. where the teammates share a large open-plan
        room, showed significantly higher productivity and satisfaction than
        industry benchmarks and past projects within the firm (Teasley et al.,
        2002). Another field study compared interruptions in paired,
        radically-collocated and traditional, cube-dwelling software
        development teams, and found that in the former interruptions were
        greater in number but shorter in duration and more on-task (Chong and
        Siino 2006). Close proximity improves productivity in all cases."

        Cheers,

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