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

Re: [XP] Collocation.

Expand Messages
  • Owen Thomas
    Hello David. ... wrong , it very much ... You re right. But an hypothesis can be proven false, so I ll try to rephrase what I want to know: Is there a
    Message 1 of 151 , Jan 1, 2009
      Hello David.

      --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "David H." <dmalloc@...>

      > I doubt an opinion [in favour of collocation] can easily be declared
      "wrong", it very much
      > depends on the situation at hand.

      You're right. But an hypothesis can be proven false, so I'll try to
      rephrase what I want to know:
      Is there a relationship between the physical proximity of team members
      and overall software quality that cannot be overcome with ICT?
      This might lead one to have to define what productivity will be. I
      believe that defining quality in software development creates a paradox
      when one considers that a lot of what we make is used in subsequent
      development cycles. The process philosophy used to design component
      software tools will create such component tools that can best be used in
      a similar development process.

      > Is virtual collocation inferior to
      > "true" collocation, yes it absolutely is.

      I have to admit that I don't believe you. That's a bold statement to
      make, I know. I make it because inferior lacks a definition that is
      acceptable to me.


      [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
        On 5 Jan 2009, at 09:45, Adam Sroka wrote:
        > 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.

        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


        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."


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