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

Re: [XP] Collocation.

Expand Messages
  • Owen Thomas
    Hello Charlie ... Well, it is my experience that with maybe a few random exceptions, I haven t seen any employment opportunities. I could be looking in the
    Message 1 of 151 , Jan 1, 2009
      Hello Charlie

      --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Charlie Poole" <charlie@...>
      wrote:

      > That's a surprising statement, given the number of companies
      > I know of with distributed teams. But I'll take it that you
      > mean "among advocates of exteme programming." :-)

      Well, it is my experience that with maybe a few random exceptions, I
      haven't seen any employment opportunities. I could be looking in the
      wrong places. My criteria is that I would like to look for a permanent,
      salaried role as a developer extending into designer if there were any
      such openings in the project(s) I would be working on.

      > I'd suggest that we simply don't yet know how to do it well.

      I believe this is the truth of the matter. Still, it is apparent that
      others would like to differ.

      > If you
      > have specific techniques to overcome the handicaps that
      > come from working in a distributed environment, I for
      > one would be very glad to learn about them. I'm hoping
      > they won't all be technical solutions though. :-(

      I do in fact happen to have a few thoughts of my own. They are slightly
      technical because they do require a software system to be built. However
      in terms of complexity, the software system is very scalable. Contact me
      privately if you want to know more.

      I don't think I'm all that good at "non-technical" solutions. :)

      Owen.
    • 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:
        [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.