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

Re: [good] [XP] Preparing XP for the big projects

Expand Messages
  • Adam Sroka
    ... I m not currently a member of IEEE, and I m not inclined to pay to read this. However, I wanted to point out that your abstract is incorrect. The
    Message 1 of 30 , Jul 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:53 PM, zdnfa<zdnfa@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Dear all,
      > thanks for your reply
      >
      > your questions could be answered through reading this article
      > www.ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4520396/4529902/04530347.pdf
      >

      I'm not currently a member of IEEE, and I'm not inclined to pay to
      read this. However, I wanted to point out that your abstract is
      incorrect. The statement, "agile methods suffer from the lack of
      disciplined planning" shows a lack of fundamental understanding of the
      XP approach. Also, XP is neither the oldest nor the most well known of
      the Agile methods. At least Scrum and FDD predate XP, and Scrum is
      more widely adopted and understood. Further, you stated that your
      intent was to extend XP beyond the limit of "ten to twenty developers"
      and yet your study only used eleven.
    • Steven Gordon
      ... Every project encounters obstacles. In the vast majority of cases, the obstacles can be cleared given determination, courage and organizational support
      Message 2 of 30 , Jul 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 8:49 PM, zaidoun alzoabi<zdnfa@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Dear all,
        > thanks for your reply
        >
        > your questions could be answered through reading this article
        > www.ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4520396/4529902/04530347.pdf
        >
        > but for te time I will answer your main questions;
        >
        >
        > We have used XP in a big project that intended to computerize the tax
        > autority processes in Syria. The system is considered very complex due to
        > the many laws, regulations, decrees, and procedures used.
        > we had to modify the lifecycle of XP in order to deal with the complexity of
        > the system, this happened through adding a clear analysis phase before any
        > release, and breaking the system into smaller modules each taken by pair
        > developers.

        Every project encounters obstacles. In the vast majority of cases,
        the obstacles can be cleared given determination, courage and
        organizational support (and sometimes small adaptations of the
        methodology). In a few cases, the team may have to make major changes
        to their methodology instead.

        Just because one particular team in one particular circumstance did
        not have the determination, courage and organizational support to make
        XP work does not necessarily mean XP could not have been made to work.
        If you had brought in an experienced XP consultant who was unable to
        find a way to make XP work, then maybe there would be some credibility
        to your premise.

        Did the team deliver working software periodically to these "tax
        experts and managers" for feedback and use that feedback to improve
        the software and the shared understanding of the requirements (and
        even modify future requirements or their relative priority)? If so,
        how frequently did this feedback loop occur. If this feedback loop
        did not occur monthly at the very least, then the team did not do a
        modified form of XP or even Agile, but instead just gave up and
        reverted to Waterfall when they encountered resistance.

        That waterfall can work a little better when the phases are done by
        pairs working together would not be a surprising result to the Agile
        world, but maybe the Waterfall community would find it significant.
      • Tim Ottinger
        Tim Ottinger http://agileinaflash.blogspot.com/ http://agileotter.blogspot.com/
        Message 3 of 30 , Jul 4, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Tim Ottinger
          http://agileinaflash.blogspot.com/
          http://agileotter.blogspot.com/



          ----- Original Message ----
          > From: Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...>
          > To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2009 1:53:47 AM
          > Subject: Re: [XP] Preparing XP for the big projects
          >
          > On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:48 PM, zdnfawrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > Dear all,
          > >
          > > i want to share with you the idea of my PhD. research
          > >
          > > the idea is that Kent Beck says that XP works fine for projects of 10 to 20
          > > programmers, but not for the big ones.
          > >
          >
          > 10-20 programmers is /huge/. In my experience XP teams are successful
          > with far fewer.
          >
          > > our research is that some modifications on XP may well make it fine with big
          > > ones. these modifications are as follows:
          > >
          >
          > Why? Why would you want your team to be bigger than that? What
          > advantage does having a large team provide?
          >
          > > 1. XP focuses on tacit knowledge sharing but on explicit, we need to increse
          > > our focus on explicit knowledge by increasing the amount of documentation
          > > but rationally.
          > >
          >
          > Is running code with tests a form of "explicit knowledge?" Might we
          > perhaps be more successful with more of that rather than more
          > documentation (rational or otherwise?)
          >
          > > 2. if we add an analysis phase per iteration we increase the amount of
          > > explicit knowledge sharing with customers.
          > >
          >
          > We analyze continuously. How would separating analysis from other
          > day-to-day activities give us any advantage?
          >
          > > 3. we introduce the concept of pair development over instead of pair
          > > programming, that is instead of doing the programming in pairs, we do the
          > > analysis, design, and coding in pairs.
          > >
          >
          > We already do this. Analysis, design, and coding are all part of the
          > existing pair programming/TDD paradigm.
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
          >
          > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
          > extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
          >
          > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.comYahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • Phlip
          ... How about you locate the 10 biggest, most successful projects you can, and then study what they actually did? Not what ideology they worshiped! ... Look at
          Message 4 of 30 , Jul 5, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            zdnfa wrote:

            > the idea is that Kent Beck says that XP works fine for projects of 10 to 20 programmers, but not for the big ones.

            How about you locate the 10 biggest, most successful projects you can, and then
            study what they actually did? Not what ideology they worshiped!

            > 1. XP focuses on tacit knowledge sharing but on explicit, we need to increse our focus on explicit knowledge by increasing the amount of documentation but rationally.

            Look at online repositories like GitHub. They share a huge amount of data, all
            of them implicitly, with minimal documentation. This does not always work
            perfectly - like anything in Open Source land - but when it does the results are
            amazing.

            > 2. if we add an analysis phase per iteration we increase the amount of explicit knowledge sharing with customers.

            Why would spending a period of time guessing what the technical architecture
            will be improve the knowledge sharing on the business side? Seems to me that
            standardizing the storytests, like Cucumber does, would be more useful.

            > 3. we introduce the concept of pair development over instead of pair programming, that is instead of doing the programming in pairs, we do the analysis, design, and coding in pairs.

            The problem with that is pair programming without TDD and emergent design is
            very painful. This is why most knowledge-work always was - and still is - from a
            desk built for one.

            Imagine, for example, pair Googling. One pair want to click on one citation,
            while another pair wants to click on another. The friction simply is not worth
            the slight benefit in synergy. The pair might as well Google for overlapping
            topics, from two workstations, and then merge their findings!

            > can i hear from you your point of view on these points.

            Please do not go here:

            http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BigAgileUpFront

            --
            Phlip
            http://twitter.com/Pen_Bird
          • kentb
            Dear Zaidoun, It sounds like you made a sensible local adaptation of XP for your situation. That s what XPers do. The question of whether those adaptations are
            Message 5 of 30 , Jul 5, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Zaidoun,

              It sounds like you made a sensible local adaptation of XP for your
              situation. That's what XPers do. The question of whether those adaptations
              are more generally applicable is worth careful study. Please keep me
              apprised of your progress.

              Regards,

              Kent Beck
              Three Rivers Institute

              _____

              From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
              [mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of zaidoun alzoabi
              Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 8:49 PM
              To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [good] [XP] Preparing XP for the big projects







              Dear all,
              thanks for your reply

              your questions could be answered through reading this article
              www.ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4520396/4529902/04530347.pdf

              but for te time I will answer your main questions;


              We have used XP in a big project that intended to computerize the tax
              autority processes in Syria. The system is considered very complex due to
              the many laws, regulations, decrees, and procedures used.
              we had to modify the lifecycle of XP in order to deal with the complexity of
              the system, this happened through adding a clear analysis phase before any
              release, and breaking the system into smaller modules each taken by pair
              developers.
              in the analysis phase we used formal meeting sessions with tax experts and
              managers and we used DFD and ERD to communicate with them.
              These people did not have time to communicate with us on frequent basis and
              in many cases they had conflicting ideas, this why we needed formal
              communication with them.
              pair development is different from pair programming as the pair here will
              not only sit at the same computer and do the coding, our pair will do the
              analysis for their module, desing the solution, integrate with the design of
              other pairs modules and then do the coding
              development=analysis+desing+programming+testing
              the research goes beyond Boehm and Turner "balancing Agility with
              Discipline" by saying how to do that in reality, and that too by focusing on
              Nonake spiral knowledge sharing model SECI
              best regards

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Adam Sroka
              Always an optimist. I love that. Whenever someone says to me, The way you described turned out to be sub-optimal. So I modified it. And then in the course of
              Message 6 of 30 , Jul 5, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Always an optimist. I love that.

                Whenever someone says to me, "The way you described turned out to be
                sub-optimal. So I modified it." And then in the course of discussion
                they say things that make me suspect it is possible that they hadn't
                fully understood or adopted my suggestions, I am concerned that the
                adaptations are not local optimizations but simply a substitution for
                missing skills/knowledge needed to do it the way that was suggested.

                If that is the case it is okay. However, we are also talking about
                academic research (And, as Steven pointed out PhD level research is
                supposed to be on the cutting edge - moving the state of knowledge
                forward.) I think that it is even more important in an academic
                context to fully grok a concept before you attempt to change it.

                I'm also a little weary of what direction "forward" is in this
                context. Creating something more RUP-like is not "forward" in my
                humble opinion. I worked for a guy who claimed to be doing a blend of
                Scrum and RUP, but what he was really doing was failing to understand
                Scrum at all and just doing an iterative sort of RUP (WIth daily
                meetings where we had to listen to him talk for half-an-hour.) That's
                fine, until you start selling it to others as some sort of "improved
                Scrum" when you've yet to actually try what Scrum suggests.

                On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 10:03 PM, kentb<kentb@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > Dear Zaidoun,
                >
                > It sounds like you made a sensible local adaptation of XP for your
                > situation. That's what XPers do. The question of whether those adaptations
                > are more generally applicable is worth careful study. Please keep me
                > apprised of your progress.
                >
                > Regards,
                >
                > Kent Beck
                > Three Rivers Institute
                >
                > _____
                >
                > From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                > [mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of zaidoun alzoabi
                > Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 8:49 PM
                > To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [good] [XP] Preparing XP for the big projects
                >
                > Dear all,
                > thanks for your reply
                >
                > your questions could be answered through reading this article
                > www.ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4520396/4529902/04530347.pdf
                >
                > but for te time I will answer your main questions;
                >
                >
                > We have used XP in a big project that intended to computerize the tax
                > autority processes in Syria. The system is considered very complex due to
                > the many laws, regulations, decrees, and procedures used.
                > we had to modify the lifecycle of XP in order to deal with the complexity of
                > the system, this happened through adding a clear analysis phase before any
                > release, and breaking the system into smaller modules each taken by pair
                > developers.
                > in the analysis phase we used formal meeting sessions with tax experts and
                > managers and we used DFD and ERD to communicate with them.
                > These people did not have time to communicate with us on frequent basis and
                > in many cases they had conflicting ideas, this why we needed formal
                > communication with them.
                > pair development is different from pair programming as the pair here will
                > not only sit at the same computer and do the coding, our pair will do the
                > analysis for their module, desing the solution, integrate with the design of
                > other pairs modules and then do the coding
                > development=analysis+desing+programming+testing
                > the research goes beyond Boehm and Turner "balancing Agility with
                > Discipline" by saying how to do that in reality, and that too by focusing on
                > Nonake spiral knowledge sharing model SECI
                > best regards
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
              • kentb
                Dear Adam, I ve been working on a way to respond positively to your message below. I hope I have it. What I appreciate about the work Zaidoun is doing is that
                Message 7 of 30 , Jul 13, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Adam,

                  I've been working on a way to respond positively to your message below. I
                  hope I have it.

                  What I appreciate about the work Zaidoun is doing is that it takes XP into a
                  context unlike the one in which XP was created (government development) and
                  blends ideas from a familiar development style with what is new about XP. I
                  trust that he and his colleagues will evolve from the style they have now
                  based on their experiences, much as I hope to evolve my style.

                  What I heard in the responses to his query was, "You haven't earned all the
                  merit badges. Don't even bother talking to us until you have." I think
                  responses of that form discourage new ideas and participants to XP.

                  I wish the community here was more accepting and encouraging. I can't force
                  that to happen so I do what I can to accept and encourage. I don't think
                  that makes me an "optimist" (which it sounds like you mean as a pejorative,
                  strangely enough), just someone who is curious about what the other 15
                  million programmers on the planet are thinking about.

                  Regards,

                  Kent Beck
                  Three Rivers Institute

                  _____

                  From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                  [mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adam Sroka
                  Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 11:38 PM
                  To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [good] [XP] Preparing XP for the big projects





                  Always an optimist. I love that.

                  Whenever someone says to me, "The way you described turned out to be
                  sub-optimal. So I modified it." And then in the course of discussion
                  they say things that make me suspect it is possible that they hadn't
                  fully understood or adopted my suggestions, I am concerned that the
                  adaptations are not local optimizations but simply a substitution for
                  missing skills/knowledge needed to do it the way that was suggested.

                  If that is the case it is okay. However, we are also talking about
                  academic research (And, as Steven pointed out PhD level research is
                  supposed to be on the cutting edge - moving the state of knowledge
                  forward.) I think that it is even more important in an academic
                  context to fully grok a concept before you attempt to change it.

                  I'm also a little weary of what direction "forward" is in this
                  context. Creating something more RUP-like is not "forward" in my
                  humble opinion. I worked for a guy who claimed to be doing a blend of
                  Scrum and RUP, but what he was really doing was failing to understand
                  Scrum at all and just doing an iterative sort of RUP (WIth daily
                  meetings where we had to listen to him talk for half-an-hour.) That's
                  fine, until you start selling it to others as some sort of "improved
                  Scrum" when you've yet to actually try what Scrum suggests.

                  On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 10:03 PM, kentb<kentb@earthlink.
                  <mailto:kentb%40earthlink.net> net> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > Dear Zaidoun,
                  >
                  > It sounds like you made a sensible local adaptation of XP for your
                  > situation. That's what XPers do. The question of whether those adaptations
                  > are more generally applicable is worth careful study. Please keep me
                  > apprised of your progress.
                  >
                  > Regards,
                  >
                  > Kent Beck
                  > Three Rivers Institute
                  >
                  > _____
                  >
                  > From: extremeprogramming@ <mailto:extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
                  yahoogroups.com
                  > [mailto:extremeprogramming@ <mailto:extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
                  yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of zaidoun alzoabi
                  > Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 8:49 PM
                  > To: extremeprogramming@ <mailto:extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
                  yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [good] [XP] Preparing XP for the big projects
                  >
                  > Dear all,
                  > thanks for your reply
                  >
                  > your questions could be answered through reading this article
                  > www.ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4520396/4529902/04530347.pdf
                  >
                  > but for te time I will answer your main questions;
                  >
                  >
                  > We have used XP in a big project that intended to computerize the tax
                  > autority processes in Syria. The system is considered very complex due to
                  > the many laws, regulations, decrees, and procedures used.
                  > we had to modify the lifecycle of XP in order to deal with the complexity
                  of
                  > the system, this happened through adding a clear analysis phase before any
                  > release, and breaking the system into smaller modules each taken by pair
                  > developers.
                  > in the analysis phase we used formal meeting sessions with tax experts and
                  > managers and we used DFD and ERD to communicate with them.
                  > These people did not have time to communicate with us on frequent basis
                  and
                  > in many cases they had conflicting ideas, this why we needed formal
                  > communication with them.
                  > pair development is different from pair programming as the pair here will
                  > not only sit at the same computer and do the coding, our pair will do the
                  > analysis for their module, desing the solution, integrate with the design
                  of
                  > other pairs modules and then do the coding
                  > development=analysis+desing+programming+testing
                  > the research goes beyond Boehm and Turner "balancing Agility with
                  > Discipline" by saying how to do that in reality, and that too by focusing
                  on
                  > Nonake spiral knowledge sharing model SECI
                  > best regards
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Adam Sroka
                  ... I appreciate that. As I said, I don t see how what he is doing or purporting to have done moves our knowledge forward. But, if you do see that, then that
                  Message 8 of 30 , Jul 13, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:09 AM, kentb<kentb@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > Dear Adam,
                    >
                    > I've been working on a way to respond positively to your message below. I
                    > hope I have it.
                    >
                    > What I appreciate about the work Zaidoun is doing is that it takes XP into a
                    > context unlike the one in which XP was created (government development) and
                    > blends ideas from a familiar development style with what is new about XP. I
                    > trust that he and his colleagues will evolve from the style they have now
                    > based on their experiences, much as I hope to evolve my style.
                    >

                    I appreciate that. As I said, I don't see how what he is doing or
                    purporting to have done moves our knowledge "forward." But, if you do
                    see that, then that is good. I don't know everything, and I won't
                    begin to claim to know that what you are seeing isn't there. All I am
                    saying is that I don't see it.

                    > What I heard in the responses to his query was, "You haven't earned all the
                    > merit badges. Don't even bother talking to us until you have." I think
                    > responses of that form discourage new ideas and participants to XP.
                    >

                    Sort of... There are a lot of people out there who claim that what we
                    do can't or doesn't work. Very few of them seem to have completely
                    understood or attempted what we have actually described. Further, many
                    of us, myself included, have witnessed situations where these things
                    didn't work and it was clearly attributable to a lack of skill or
                    understanding. Perhaps some of us are too quick to conclude that
                    someone who sees our approach as incomplete hasn't really had a
                    thorough look.

                    > I wish the community here was more accepting and encouraging. I can't force
                    > that to happen so I do what I can to accept and encourage. I don't think
                    > that makes me an "optimist" (which it sounds like you mean as a pejorative,
                    > strangely enough), just someone who is curious about what the other 15
                    > million programmers on the planet are thinking about.
                    >

                    I did not intend it as a pejorative. I meant precisely what I said
                    above: that you are able to see positive things where I have failed to
                    see any.
                  • Tim Ottinger
                    ... Adam, As people who pride themselves on quick thinking and quick learning, we tend to jump to ha and ri without much shu . I mostly worry about
                    Message 9 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message ----
                      > From: Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...>
                      >
                      > Whenever someone says to me, "The way you described turned out to be
                      > sub-optimal. So I modified it." And then in the course of discussion
                      > they say things that make me suspect it is possible that they hadn't
                      > fully understood or adopted my suggestions, I am concerned that the
                      > adaptations are not local optimizations but simply a substitution for
                      > missing skills/knowledge needed to do it the way that was suggested.
                      >

                      Adam,

                      As people who pride themselves on quick thinking and quick learning, we tend to jump to 'ha' and 'ri' without much 'shu'. I mostly worry about people who want to "improve" XP by making it into waterfall or undisciplined nonsense. But they have a right. Who knows? Perhaps they are as smart as they think, and will give us something we never had before.

                      The good thing about freedom is that anything can happen. The bad thing about freedom is the same. :-)

                      Tim Ottinger
                      http://agileinaflash.blogspot.com/
                      http://agileotter.blogspot.com/
                    • Adam Sroka
                      ... Perhaps you are right. On the other hand, I don t feel terribly guilty about thinking the former in absence of any evidence of the latter. I also don t
                      Message 10 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Tim Ottinger<linux_tim@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message ----
                        >> From: Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...>
                        >>
                        >> Whenever someone says to me, "The way you described turned out to be
                        >> sub-optimal. So I modified it." And then in the course of discussion
                        >> they say things that make me suspect it is possible that they hadn't
                        >> fully understood or adopted my suggestions, I am concerned that the
                        >> adaptations are not local optimizations but simply a substitution for
                        >> missing skills/knowledge needed to do it the way that was suggested.
                        >>
                        >
                        > Adam,
                        >
                        > As people who pride themselves on quick thinking and quick learning, we tend
                        > to jump to 'ha' and 'ri' without much 'shu'. I mostly worry about people who
                        > want to "improve" XP by making it into waterfall or undisciplined nonsense.
                        > But they have a right. Who knows? Perhaps they are as smart as they think,
                        > and will give us something we never had before.
                        >

                        Perhaps you are right. On the other hand, I don't feel terribly guilty
                        about thinking the former in absence of any evidence of the latter. I
                        also don't feel particularly guilty when someone says, "look what I
                        did," and I ask them, "how/why is that better?"

                        > The good thing about freedom is that anything can happen. The bad thing
                        > about freedom is the same. :-)
                        >

                        I absolutely think that people have the right to do whatever they
                        want. I also think that we have the right to challenge them.
                        Particularly, when they come to us asking for validation (or at least
                        acknowledgment) of what they have changed.
                      • Steven Gordon
                        ... Especially when they call it research and/or hold it up as an exemplar.
                        Message 11 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Adam Sroka<adam.sroka@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Tim Ottinger<linux_tim@...> wrote:
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>
                          >> ----- Original Message ----
                          >>> From: Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...>
                          >>>
                          >>> Whenever someone says to me, "The way you described turned out to be
                          >>> sub-optimal. So I modified it." And then in the course of discussion
                          >>> they say things that make me suspect it is possible that they hadn't
                          >>> fully understood or adopted my suggestions, I am concerned that the
                          >>> adaptations are not local optimizations but simply a substitution for
                          >>> missing skills/knowledge needed to do it the way that was suggested.
                          >>>
                          >>
                          >> Adam,
                          >>
                          >> As people who pride themselves on quick thinking and quick learning, we
                          >> tend
                          >> to jump to 'ha' and 'ri' without much 'shu'. I mostly worry about people
                          >> who
                          >> want to "improve" XP by making it into waterfall or undisciplined
                          >> nonsense.
                          >> But they have a right. Who knows? Perhaps they are as smart as they think,
                          >> and will give us something we never had before.
                          >>
                          >
                          > Perhaps you are right. On the other hand, I don't feel terribly guilty
                          > about thinking the former in absence of any evidence of the latter. I
                          > also don't feel particularly guilty when someone says, "look what I
                          > did," and I ask them, "how/why is that better?"
                          >
                          >> The good thing about freedom is that anything can happen. The bad thing
                          >> about freedom is the same. :-)
                          >>
                          >
                          > I absolutely think that people have the right to do whatever they
                          > want. I also think that we have the right to challenge them.
                          > Particularly, when they come to us asking for validation (or at least
                          > acknowledgment) of what they have changed.

                          Especially when they call it research and/or hold it up as an exemplar.
                        • Chris Wheeler
                          ... I got the impression that the original poster was presenting a hypothesis, formed from his experiences, which he hadn t tested but wanted to further
                          Message 12 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:

                            > I absolutely think that people have the right to do whatever they
                            > want. I also think that we have the right to challenge them.
                            > Particularly, when they come to us asking for validation (or at least
                            > acknowledgment) of what they have changed.
                            >

                            I got the impression that the original poster was presenting a hypothesis,
                            formed from his experiences, which he hadn't tested but wanted to further
                            research. I didn't get the impression that his email was the end of his
                            research nor the basis of any proof.

                            Seems like a sound way to proceed, no?

                            Chris.


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Steven Gordon
                            On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Chris ... That would depend on what the OP means by the word is . My reading is that the research is well under way, if not
                            Message 13 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Chris
                              Wheeler<christopher.wheeler@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >> I absolutely think that people have the right to do whatever they
                              >> want. I also think that we have the right to challenge them.
                              >> Particularly, when they come to us asking for validation (or at least
                              >> acknowledgment) of what they have changed.
                              >>
                              >
                              > I got the impression that the original poster was presenting a hypothesis,
                              > formed from his experiences, which he hadn't tested but wanted to further
                              > research. I didn't get the impression that his email was the end of his
                              > research nor the basis of any proof.
                              >
                              > Seems like a sound way to proceed, no?
                              >

                              That would depend on what the OP means by the word "is".

                              My reading is that the research is well under way, if not already done
                              and currently being written up.

                              I find it a huge stretch to read the OP's original post as a mere
                              research proposal. Can you really read it that way?

                              > Chris.
                              >
                            • Tim Ottinger
                              ... It would only be the exemplar thing that bothers me in the least. But I was convinced of a lot of things when I first read of XP, too. Tim Ottinger
                              Message 14 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > Especially when they call it research and/or hold it up as an exemplar.

                                It would only be the exemplar thing that bothers me in the least.
                                But I was convinced of a lot of things when I first read of XP, too.

                                Tim Ottinger
                                http://agileinaflash.blogspot.com/
                                http://agileotter.blogspot.com/
                              • Chris Wheeler
                                ... Yes I can read it that way, once I factored in the OP s English-as-a-second-language. Chris. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Message 15 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Steven Gordon <sgordonphd@...> wrote:

                                  >
                                  > I find it a huge stretch to read the OP's original post as a mere
                                  > research proposal. Can you really read it that way?


                                  Yes I can read it that way, once I factored in the OP's
                                  English-as-a-second-language.

                                  Chris.


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • zdnfa
                                  Dear all, Thanks for your comments on the topic, but I was a bit surprised at the extremism I saw about XP, something I don t think Kent Beck really meant by
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear all,

                                    Thanks for your comments on the topic, but I was a bit surprised at the extremism I saw about XP, something I don't think Kent Beck really meant by EXTREME PROGRAMMING.
                                    I find it compulsory to develop XP if we are really XPers, and here I want to expose what some of what we have found in a survey we conducted in IADIS Informatics 2009 conference in Portugal.
                                    1. 95.5 of the surveyed IT experts (taught, practiced, or at least have good knowledge of XP) say knowledge sharing enhances software quality.
                                    2. More than 80% said that we need both explicit and tacit knowledge sharing.
                                    3. 68% said that an analysis phase will enhance explicit and tacit knowledge sharing in XP.
                                    So the modification we made is seen in the following figure:


                                    And we emphasized principles like:
                                    • Use always balanced pairs. Try to make the pair look like pair developers rather than pair programmers.
                                    • Use rationalized documentation that keeps project within the control of the project manager or coach.
                                    • Perform one analysis phase per one release. This eases the job of the on-site-customer
                                    Is there any problem in that?!!!
                                  • Ron Jeffries
                                    Hello, zdnfa. On Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 10:48:03 PM, you ... Yes. It is surely possible to be successful using the approach you ve talked about: it s
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hello, zdnfa. On Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 10:48:03 PM, you
                                      wrote:

                                      > Is there any problem in that?!!!

                                      Yes. It is surely possible to be successful using the approach
                                      you've talked about: it's possible to be successful with almost any
                                      approach.

                                      What is your plan for comparing your approach to other more
                                      "classic" approaches, such as a more pure version of XP, or a more
                                      pure version of waterfall, and so on?

                                      Or, without such comparisons, what valid conclusions do you think
                                      you might be able to draw?

                                      Ron Jeffries
                                      www.XProgramming.com
                                      www.xprogramming.com/blog
                                      It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare,
                                      it is because we do not dare that they are difficult. --Seneca
                                    • Steven Gordon
                                      ... agreed. ... agreed. ... Agile does away with phases by rotating the traditional process 90 degrees. Instead of doing phases in order such as these: -
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 7:48 PM, zdnfa<zdnfa@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Dear all,
                                        >
                                        > Thanks for your comments on the topic, but I was a bit surprised at the
                                        > extremism I saw about XP, something I don't think Kent Beck really meant by
                                        > EXTREME PROGRAMMING.
                                        > I find it compulsory to develop XP if we are really XPers, and here I want
                                        > to expose what some of what we have found in a survey we conducted in IADIS
                                        > Informatics 2009 conference in Portugal.
                                        > 1. 95.5 of the surveyed IT experts (taught, practiced, or at least have good
                                        > knowledge of XP) say knowledge sharing enhances software quality.

                                        agreed.
                                        > 2. More than 80% said that we need both explicit and tacit knowledge
                                        > sharing.

                                        agreed.
                                        > 3. 68% said that an analysis phase will enhance explicit and tacit knowledge
                                        > sharing in XP.

                                        Agile does away with phases by rotating the traditional process 90 degrees.

                                        Instead of doing phases in order such as these:
                                        - domain modeling for the whole system,
                                        - analysis for the whole system,
                                        - design for the whole system,
                                        - coding for the whole system,
                                        - testing for the whole system,
                                        - deployment for the whole system,
                                        - getting feedback from the users on the whole system,
                                        agile does all of the above for just a few thin functional slices of
                                        the whole system in just 2 weeks, and then all of the above for a few
                                        more functional slices the next two weeks, etc, always delivering
                                        working software, learning from successes and failures, and applying
                                        that learning to the next 2 week iteration.

                                        > So the modification we made is seen in the following figure:
                                        >
                                        > And we emphasized principles like:
                                        > • Use always balanced pairs. Try to make the pair look like pair developers
                                        > rather than pair programmers.
                                        > • Use rationalized documentation that keeps project within the control of
                                        > the project manager or coach.

                                        The people doing the work keep it under control because they cannot go
                                        too far wrong in 2 weeks and get feedback from each delivery of
                                        working software. The overhead and misunderstandings of communication
                                        via documentation is avoided.

                                        > • Perform one analysis phase per one release. This eases the job of the
                                        > on-site-customer

                                        Too long to wait for feedback and recover from mistakes and misunderstandings.

                                        > Is there any problem in that?!!!
                                        >
                                      • Adam Sroka
                                        ... That s dangerously close to an ad hominem. No one here has said anything that extreme thus far. ... It s rare that 95.5% of people agree on anything. The
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Jul 17, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:48 PM, zdnfa<zdnfa@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Dear all,
                                          >
                                          > Thanks for your comments on the topic, but I was a bit surprised at the
                                          > extremism I saw about XP, something I don't think Kent Beck really meant by
                                          > EXTREME PROGRAMMING.

                                          That's dangerously close to an ad hominem. No one here has said
                                          anything that extreme thus far.

                                          > I find it compulsory to develop XP if we are really XPers, and here I want
                                          > to expose what some of what we have found in a survey we conducted in IADIS
                                          > Informatics 2009 conference in Portugal.
                                          > 1. 95.5 of the surveyed IT experts (taught, practiced, or at least have good
                                          > knowledge of XP) say knowledge sharing enhances software quality.

                                          It's rare that 95.5% of people agree on anything. The term "knowledge
                                          sharing" without further elucidation is vacuous. Those who promote
                                          document-centric methods would consider what they are doing "knowledge
                                          sharing" and believe that it "enhances quality." Most Agile proponents
                                          believe the same thing about their own notion of "knowledge sharing."
                                          Neither group necessarily believes that the other's method of
                                          "knowledge sharing" is effective.

                                          > 2. More than 80% said that we need both explicit and tacit knowledge
                                          > sharing.

                                          That agrees with a basic tenet of Agile. Tacit knowledge, by
                                          definition, can't be shared in a document-centric way. We believe that
                                          document-centric approaches are flawed and direct interpersonal
                                          communication is necessary. The above statistic supports that.
                                          However, explicit knowledge can be shared verbally as well as written
                                          down. So, the need for explicit knowledge does not necessitate a
                                          document-centric approach.

                                          > 3. 68% said that an analysis phase will enhance explicit and tacit knowledge
                                          > sharing in XP.

                                          I can't address that. If the question were posed to me I would refuse
                                          to answer until I had sufficient definitions of "analysis phase" and
                                          "knowledge sharing in XP". Assuming I knew what was being suggested, I
                                          would have to try it alongside the existing practices to know if it
                                          added anything or took anything away.

                                          > So the modification we made is seen in the following figure:
                                          >
                                          > And we emphasized principles like:
                                          > • Use always balanced pairs. Try to make the pair look like pair developers
                                          > rather than pair programmers.

                                          I don't understand that. What is the difference between a "programmer"
                                          and a "developer" in your estimation? How does one "balance" a pair?
                                          Can I still work with someone who is substantially lighter or heavier
                                          than I am? ;-)

                                          > • Use rationalized documentation that keeps project within the control of
                                          > the project manager or coach.

                                          This statement scares me a lot. Project managers don't "control"
                                          anything, nor should they try. That goes at least double for coaches.
                                          In my experience, unless documentation provides some direct business
                                          value it is usually wasteful. Even when it does provide value,
                                          maintaining it is more expensive than most realize.

                                          > • Perform one analysis phase per one release. This eases the job of the
                                          > on-site-customer

                                          How does this ease the job for the Customer? Is the Customer's job too hard now?
                                        • Chris Wheeler
                                          Adam, you appear quite passionate about research and XP. Since this research clearly isn t up to your standard, or even necessary, would you suggest a few
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Jul 18, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Adam, you appear quite passionate about research and XP. Since this research
                                            clearly isn't up to your standard, or even necessary, would you suggest a
                                            few topics that may be worthy of further academic research? That may be
                                            more helpful than this dismissive approach you are taking.

                                            Chris.

                                            On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:

                                            > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:48 PM, zdnfa<zdnfa@...> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > Dear all,
                                            > >
                                            > > Thanks for your comments on the topic, but I was a bit surprised at the
                                            > > extremism I saw about XP, something I don't think Kent Beck really meant
                                            > by
                                            > > EXTREME PROGRAMMING.
                                            >
                                            > That's dangerously close to an ad hominem. No one here has said
                                            > anything that extreme thus far.
                                            >
                                            > > I find it compulsory to develop XP if we are really XPers, and here I
                                            > want
                                            > > to expose what some of what we have found in a survey we conducted in
                                            > IADIS
                                            > > Informatics 2009 conference in Portugal.
                                            > > 1. 95.5 of the surveyed IT experts (taught, practiced, or at least have
                                            > good
                                            > > knowledge of XP) say knowledge sharing enhances software quality.
                                            >
                                            > It's rare that 95.5% of people agree on anything. The term "knowledge
                                            > sharing" without further elucidation is vacuous. Those who promote
                                            > document-centric methods would consider what they are doing "knowledge
                                            > sharing" and believe that it "enhances quality." Most Agile proponents
                                            > believe the same thing about their own notion of "knowledge sharing."
                                            > Neither group necessarily believes that the other's method of
                                            > "knowledge sharing" is effective.
                                            >
                                            > > 2. More than 80% said that we need both explicit and tacit knowledge
                                            > > sharing.
                                            >
                                            > That agrees with a basic tenet of Agile. Tacit knowledge, by
                                            > definition, can't be shared in a document-centric way. We believe that
                                            > document-centric approaches are flawed and direct interpersonal
                                            > communication is necessary. The above statistic supports that.
                                            > However, explicit knowledge can be shared verbally as well as written
                                            > down. So, the need for explicit knowledge does not necessitate a
                                            > document-centric approach.
                                            >
                                            > > 3. 68% said that an analysis phase will enhance explicit and tacit
                                            > knowledge
                                            > > sharing in XP.
                                            >
                                            > I can't address that. If the question were posed to me I would refuse
                                            > to answer until I had sufficient definitions of "analysis phase" and
                                            > "knowledge sharing in XP". Assuming I knew what was being suggested, I
                                            > would have to try it alongside the existing practices to know if it
                                            > added anything or took anything away.
                                            >
                                            > > So the modification we made is seen in the following figure:
                                            > >
                                            > > And we emphasized principles like:
                                            > > � Use always balanced pairs. Try to make the pair look like pair
                                            > developers
                                            > > rather than pair programmers.
                                            >
                                            > I don't understand that. What is the difference between a "programmer"
                                            > and a "developer" in your estimation? How does one "balance" a pair?
                                            > Can I still work with someone who is substantially lighter or heavier
                                            > than I am? ;-)
                                            >
                                            > > � Use rationalized documentation that keeps project within the control of
                                            > > the project manager or coach.
                                            >
                                            > This statement scares me a lot. Project managers don't "control"
                                            > anything, nor should they try. That goes at least double for coaches.
                                            > In my experience, unless documentation provides some direct business
                                            > value it is usually wasteful. Even when it does provide value,
                                            > maintaining it is more expensive than most realize.
                                            >
                                            > > � Perform one analysis phase per one release. This eases the job of the
                                            > > on-site-customer
                                            >
                                            > How does this ease the job for the Customer? Is the Customer's job too hard
                                            > now?
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ------------------------------------
                                            >
                                            > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
                                            >
                                            > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                            > extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
                                            >
                                            > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.comYahoo! Groups Links
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.