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

Re: [XP] pairing

Expand Messages
  • Adrian Howard
    ... Just as a personal experience report I ve found that short bursts of pairing (max three hours) has worked well when I ve introduced people to pairing for
    Message 1 of 68 , Aug 26, 2009
      On 25 Aug 2009, at 12:26, D. André Dhondt wrote:

      > Maybe so, but I think Arlo's team is quite advanced in the
      > practice. I
      > wouldn't recommend that a team new to pairing do this before they have
      > figured out how to deliver high quality in small increments.
      > Otherwise, I
      > think they're likely to thrash and lose effectiveness.

      Just as a personal experience report I've found that short bursts of
      pairing (max three hours) has worked well when I've introduced people
      to pairing for the first time.

      I started trying it as an experiment in the if-it-is-hard-do-it-more-
      often tradition before I'd come across Arlo's experiment - and it
      seemed to work well.

      Yes - it highlighted problems (like "only Adrian knows how this bit
      works" :-) - but having had them highlighted we could address them
      explicitly. Which was nice.

      In addition to the stuff Arlo talked about, my own theory is that the
      shorter periods had the additional advantage that it was harder to
      fall back into the "old way" of doing it. It's harder to sit back and
      watch somebody code if you know that you're going to be in front of
      the code with somebody else later on that day.

      When I'd previously tried introducing pairing with one-pair-per-story
      I found it much harder because:
      1) They were also in the process of figuring out how to write short
      stories. So stories were long - and the information didn't spread
      around.
      2) It was easier to fall back into having one "expert" per story, with
      the other person just kibitzing[1] occasionally rather than actively
      contributing/understanding.

      Because of this they didn't see much advantage to pairing - so didn't
      want to continue. Short regular pair changes seemed to fix that.

      Cheers,

      Adrian

      [1] I can't believe I managed to spell "kibitzing" correctly first
      time - woot!

      --
      http://quietstars.com - twitter.com/adrianh - delicious.com/adrianh
    • Adam Sroka
      Hi Chris: I, for one, am more for trying it and seeing what results I get. Analyzing someone else s data is considerably less interesting to me. It is possible
      Message 68 of 68 , Sep 6, 2009
        Hi Chris:

        I, for one, am more for trying it and seeing what results I get.
        Analyzing someone else's data is considerably less interesting to me.
        It is possible that mine is more representative of the views here, but
        I'm not sure that's true. In any case, I'm fairly sure you're not
        alone, you're just the most vocal representative of that view.

        On the other hand, if you can't get access to Arlo's data in a way
        that would make it possible for you to reliably verify it, you could
        always design your own experiment to prove the part of the problem
        that is interesting to you.

        On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Chris
        Wheeler<christopher.wheeler@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:20 AM, jeffgrigg63132
        > <jeffgrigg@...>wrote:
        >
        >>
        >> I think that the problem is that we are dealing with social issues: We're
        >> not trying to determine the trajectory of a missile through space, or the
        >> effect of a drug on (typical) patients. We're really trying to determine
        >> what environmental factors result in the most creative and effective work
        >> products produced by groups of human beings.
        >>
        >> I would certainly like there to be more rigorous scientific research. And
        >> I would like it if more people would measure and report what they're
        >> experiencing in real-world projects. But until someone magically makes
        >> those miracles happen, I find that I must continue to make decisions based
        >> only on the best information available at the time -- which, for this
        >> industry, has been mostly experience reports and personal experience.
        >>
        >
        > <sigh>
        >
        > I think this will be my last post on this matter - I doubt we are getting
        > further down any road. Here's what I was asking for:
        > 1) a more detailed description of the method that was used
        > 2) access to the data so that I could verify it.
        >
        > Previous posts describe why I wanted this information. I'm not looking for
        > double blind studies or formulation of a theoretical model. I am looking for
        > more information that would lead to the characterization of factors that are
        > significant in the experiment that Arlo conducted.
        >
        > It may be the case that I am the only person in this discussion group that
        > cares about this, and that is fine by me: I'm not going to attempt to
        > convince you that there is more that you could learn from Arlo's experiment.
        > On the other hand, I'm not going to budge from my own position just because
        > many of you eschew such an approach.
        >
        > To each his own, I suppose.
        >
        > Chris.
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.