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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 30 , Jul 5, 2009
      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 2 of 30 , Jul 5, 2009
        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 3 of 30 , Jul 13, 2009
          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 4 of 30 , Jul 13, 2009
            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 5 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
              ----- 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 6 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                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 7 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                  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 8 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                    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 9 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                      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 10 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                        > 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 11 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                          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 12 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                            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 13 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                              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 14 of 30 , Jul 14, 2009
                                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 15 of 30 , Jul 17, 2009
                                  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 16 of 30 , Jul 18, 2009
                                    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.