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

Re: Pair Programming Measures

Expand Messages
  • MarvinToll.com
    Thank you Rob... my impression was that the quantitive metrics available are not establishing a strong case for pairing. I remain hopeful that some day we
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 11, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you Rob... my impression was that the quantitive metrics available are not establishing a strong case for pairing.

      I remain hopeful that some day we might have qualitative measures useful for making the case.

      _Marvin

      --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Myers" <rob.myers@...> wrote:
      >
      > The only quantitative metrics I recall reading about were done by Laurie Williams, and were taken in an academic setting.
      >
      > She found that the defect rates were much lower, but the development time was a little higher. It was shown to be a net win.
      >
      > In my experience, paired development time is not slower, but faster, for a whole list of qualitative, behavioral reasons. When it comes to knowledge work (surgery, flying an airliner, writing production-ready code), on average, two people will complete two tasks faster together than separately.
      >
      > I'd love it if someone could fund more industry research. I have plenty of hypotheses that need testing. ;-)
      >
      >
      > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "MarvinToll.com" <MarvinToll@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Has the dust ever settled on this topic? My understanding is that there is some consensus that quantitative metrics in this area are not all that useful... however, there may be more validity to qualitative measures.
      > >
      > > _Marvin
      > >
      >
    • Curtis Cooley
      ... team velocity as it is, so how could you use it to measure pair programming efficiency. All the issues we have with estimation and planning will still be
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 11, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:05 AM, MarvinToll.com <MarvinToll@...>wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > Thank you Rob... my impression was that the quantitive metrics available
        > are not establishing a strong case for pairing.
        >
        > I remain hopeful that some day we might have qualitative measures useful
        > for making the case.
        >
        > What qualitative metrics would you use? We already have issues measuring
        team velocity as it is, so how could you use it to measure pair programming
        efficiency. All the issues we have with estimation and planning will still
        be there.

        I agree with Steve, it is unlikely to happen.

        "Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and
        support they need and TRUST them to get the job done."

        If your team of motivated individuals believes pair programming will help
        them get the job done, you should trust them and not make them prove it's
        more effective.
        --
        --------------------------------------
        Curtis Cooley
        curtis@...


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Steven Gordon
        Agile teams should try pairing because they have a problem with quality and/or knowledge silos and believe it may help them address their problem. And then
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 11, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Agile teams should try pairing because they have a problem with quality
          and/or knowledge silos and believe it may help them address their problem.
          And then they try it and retrospect on it to see if it helps and if not
          whether they should try to do it better or abandon the idea. This goes for
          other practices as well.

          Doing something because somebody else "proved" that it work for them is
          backwards. Doing something because some manager tells them to do it
          because somebody else "proved" that it work for them is double backwards.

          Metrics are so context-sensitive that they just do not translate from one
          situation to another. They are useful for seeing if a specific team is
          getting better over time, but they are not good for comparing teams or
          deciding if a practice works well in general.

          The expense of taking the context-sensitivity out of metrics is only
          warranted for things like drugs and medical procedures, not software
          development.

          Agile opens the door for each team to take responsibility of using their
          own metrics to improve their own process - promote that. Providing
          guidelines and feedback for how to do that is conducive to agility. In my
          opinion, attempting to do it generally it for all teams is prohibitively
          expensive to do validly and inhibits the long term agility of individual
          teams.

          Steven Gordon

          On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:05 AM, MarvinToll.com <MarvinToll@...>wrote:

          > **
          >
          >
          > Thank you Rob... my impression was that the quantitive metrics available
          > are not establishing a strong case for pairing.
          >
          > I remain hopeful that some day we might have qualitative measures useful
          > for making the case.
          >
          > _Marvin
          >
          >
          > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Myers" <rob.myers@...>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > The only quantitative metrics I recall reading about were done by Laurie
          > Williams, and were taken in an academic setting.
          > >
          > > She found that the defect rates were much lower, but the development
          > time was a little higher. It was shown to be a net win.
          > >
          > > In my experience, paired development time is not slower, but faster, for
          > a whole list of qualitative, behavioral reasons. When it comes to knowledge
          > work (surgery, flying an airliner, writing production-ready code), on
          > average, two people will complete two tasks faster together than separately.
          > >
          > > I'd love it if someone could fund more industry research. I have plenty
          > of hypotheses that need testing. ;-)
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "MarvinToll.com" <MarvinToll@>
          > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Has the dust ever settled on this topic? My understanding is that
          > there is some consensus that quantitative metrics in this area are not all
          > that useful... however, there may be more validity to qualitative measures.
          > > >
          > > > _Marvin
          > > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jeff Langr
          Few people ever quantify things like the true cost of a defect. Here s why I pair: http://pragprog.com/magazines/2011-07/pair-programming-benefits Jeff L.
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 11, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Few people ever quantify things like the true cost of a defect.

            Here's why I pair:
            http://pragprog.com/magazines/2011-07/pair-programming-benefits

            Jeff L.

            Langr Software Solutions
            http://langrsoft.com
            http://agileinaflash.com - Agile in a Flash: A top 20 agile book!
            (http://www.noop.nl/2010/08/top-100-agile-books.html)


            On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:05 AM, MarvinToll.com <MarvinToll@...> wrote:
            > Thank you Rob... my impression was that the quantitive metrics available are not establishing a strong case for pairing.
            >
            > I remain hopeful that some day we might have qualitative measures useful for making the case.
            >
            > _Marvin
            >
            > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Myers" <rob.myers@...> wrote:
            >>
            >> The only quantitative metrics I recall reading about were done by Laurie Williams, and were taken in an academic setting.
            >>
            >> She found that the defect rates were much lower, but the development time was a little higher. It was shown to be a net win.
            >>
            >> In my experience, paired development time is not slower, but faster, for a whole list of qualitative, behavioral reasons. When it comes to knowledge work (surgery, flying an airliner, writing production-ready code), on average, two people will complete two tasks faster together than separately.
            >>
            >> I'd love it if someone could fund more industry research. I have plenty of hypotheses that need testing. ;-)
            >>
            >>
            >> --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "MarvinToll.com" <MarvinToll@> wrote:
            >> >
            >> > Has the dust ever settled on this topic? My understanding is that there is some consensus that quantitative metrics in this area are not all that useful... however, there may be more validity to qualitative measures.
            >> >
            >> > _Marvin
            >> >
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > 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
            >
            >
            >
          • Francis Fish
            ... +1 - the very important point there, which is often missed, is improving your own and other s capability. If you re relatively new and there are idiomatic
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 12, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Jeff Langr <jeff@...> wrote:

              > **
              >
              >
              > Few people ever quantify things like the true cost of a defect.
              >
              > Here's why I pair:
              > http://pragprog.com/magazines/2011-07/pair-programming-benefits
              >
              > Jeff L.
              >
              >
              +1 - the very important point there, which is often missed, is improving
              your own and other's capability. If you're relatively new and there are
              idiomatic ways of doing things that you don't know then you need to pair
              with someone who does. When you question the idioms you will be helping the
              more experienced person understand them better too, and maybe even change
              them if they aren't quite right.

              I did a talk on YAGNI a while back and one of the things I said was we
              often go off down rabbit holes and start working on things that don't work
              or are a bad choice. Pairing helps stop this in its tracks, and it also
              stops yak shaving. I have abso no idea how you would measure this but I'd
              bet that this is why it seems much more productive: the code that's written
              is solving the right problem because it needs two minds agreeing to justify
              its existence. In terms of lines per day (or some other useless metric)
              there may well be less, but in terms of *relevant* lines per day quite
              likely far more. I suppose a metric around defects (or more likely uncaught
              defects that testers find) might give some indirect indication.

              If you go down the metrics route, any kind of metric that at least gives
              you an idea is better than none at all. But you also need to understand
              statistics and the ineluctable fact that measurements falling within three
              standard deviations of the mean actually indicate there is little room for
              improvement without changing the "system" as a whole. I'd suggest people
              track down a copy of "4 days with Dr Deming" if they want this explained in
              more detail. For example, Deming ridiculed the idea of performance reviews
              - if 95% of the variability of anyone's performance comes from the tools
              and training they've been given and the overall system they're forced to
              work with, marking them up or down is really unfair. <sarcasm> For some
              reason the command & control management types don't like this. Probably
              because the overall system is their responsibility and improving it would
              mean they'd have to do something other than bully people, like thinking and
              some real work. </sarcasm>


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Daniel Wildt
              In my experience, pairing must come together with a purpose. We found that the team is learning much more when doing pairing sessions. We were able to improve
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 12, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                In my experience, pairing must come together with a purpose. We found that
                the team is learning much more when doing pairing sessions.

                We were able to improve much faster our business knowledge doing pairing
                sessions. Same thing happened with technical knowledge creation where
                people with more experience paired more often with people with less
                experience.

                The "ramp up" process had also a big benefit from pairing. Every new person
                on the team is asked to try to pair 100% of the time when touching
                production code. Which they start doing on day 1.

                Pairing was also very important integrating business analysts and
                developers.

                And everything started with Coding Dojos. Where developers could practice
                programming and also pairing, test automation, respect, they learn that
                they can learn and teach other people. They learn how to create knowledge
                while delivering a feature.

                -- Daniel Wildt - @dwildt <http://twitter.com/dwildt>


                On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Steven Gordon <sgordonphd@...> wrote:

                > Agile teams should try pairing because they have a problem with quality
                > and/or knowledge silos and believe it may help them address their problem.
                > And then they try it and retrospect on it to see if it helps and if not
                > whether they should try to do it better or abandon the idea. This goes for
                > other practices as well.
                >
                > Doing something because somebody else "proved" that it work for them is
                > backwards. Doing something because some manager tells them to do it
                > because somebody else "proved" that it work for them is double backwards.
                >
                > Metrics are so context-sensitive that they just do not translate from one
                > situation to another. They are useful for seeing if a specific team is
                > getting better over time, but they are not good for comparing teams or
                > deciding if a practice works well in general.
                >
                > The expense of taking the context-sensitivity out of metrics is only
                > warranted for things like drugs and medical procedures, not software
                > development.
                >
                > Agile opens the door for each team to take responsibility of using their
                > own metrics to improve their own process - promote that. Providing
                > guidelines and feedback for how to do that is conducive to agility. In my
                > opinion, attempting to do it generally it for all teams is prohibitively
                > expensive to do validly and inhibits the long term agility of individual
                > teams.
                >
                > Steven Gordon
                >
                > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:05 AM, MarvinToll.com <MarvinToll@...
                > >wrote:
                >
                > > **
                > >
                > >
                > > Thank you Rob... my impression was that the quantitive metrics available
                > > are not establishing a strong case for pairing.
                > >
                > > I remain hopeful that some day we might have qualitative measures useful
                > > for making the case.
                > >
                > > _Marvin
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Myers" <rob.myers@...>
                > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > The only quantitative metrics I recall reading about were done by
                > Laurie
                > > Williams, and were taken in an academic setting.
                > > >
                > > > She found that the defect rates were much lower, but the development
                > > time was a little higher. It was shown to be a net win.
                > > >
                > > > In my experience, paired development time is not slower, but faster,
                > for
                > > a whole list of qualitative, behavioral reasons. When it comes to
                > knowledge
                > > work (surgery, flying an airliner, writing production-ready code), on
                > > average, two people will complete two tasks faster together than
                > separately.
                > > >
                > > > I'd love it if someone could fund more industry research. I have plenty
                > > of hypotheses that need testing. ;-)
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "MarvinToll.com"
                > <MarvinToll@>
                > > wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > Has the dust ever settled on this topic? My understanding is that
                > > there is some consensus that quantitative metrics in this area are not
                > all
                > > that useful... however, there may be more validity to qualitative
                > measures.
                > > > >
                > > > > _Marvin
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > 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]
              • Ian Mitchell
                My experience has led me to the following: 1. The biggest source of errors is not understanding the problem before inventing the solution. Not understanding
                Message 7 of 12 , Oct 13, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  My experience has led me to the following:
                  1. The biggest source of errors is not understanding the problem before
                  inventing the solution. Not understanding includes not thinking deeply
                  enough and not spotting ambiguities. Two people discussing a problem often
                  help clarify it and ensure that they understand its true width. Defects
                  like this survive into production and hence are the most expensive.
                  2. Always enforce pre- and post- assertion approaches.
                  3. Then write the test harness so the criteria for a correct solution is
                  agreed before much code is written.
                  4. Another major factor is that if we make a typo we often do not see it
                  [if it is compilable] because we see what we knew we wrote whereas someone
                  else immediately sees that that is not what they would have written.
                  5. Personality impacts pair programming - sometimes two people work
                  effectively together but sometimes one person effectively just watches the
                  other person - particularly if one is experienced and the other a newbie.
                  6. Also if the code follows a familiar pattern the second member of the
                  pair cannot contribute much.

                  On 13 October 2012 11:47, Daniel Wildt <dwildt@...> wrote:

                  > **
                  >
                  >
                  > In my experience, pairing must come together with a purpose. We found that
                  > the team is learning much more when doing pairing sessions.
                  >
                  > We were able to improve much faster our business knowledge doing pairing
                  > sessions. Same thing happened with technical knowledge creation where
                  > people with more experience paired more often with people with less
                  > experience.
                  >
                  > The "ramp up" process had also a big benefit from pairing. Every new person
                  > on the team is asked to try to pair 100% of the time when touching
                  > production code. Which they start doing on day 1.
                  >
                  > Pairing was also very important integrating business analysts and
                  > developers.
                  >
                  > And everything started with Coding Dojos. Where developers could practice
                  > programming and also pairing, test automation, respect, they learn that
                  > they can learn and teach other people. They learn how to create knowledge
                  > while delivering a feature.
                  >
                  > -- Daniel Wildt - @dwildt <http://twitter.com/dwildt>
                  >
                  >
                  > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Steven Gordon <sgordonphd@...>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > > Agile teams should try pairing because they have a problem with quality
                  > > and/or knowledge silos and believe it may help them address their
                  > problem.
                  > > And then they try it and retrospect on it to see if it helps and if not
                  > > whether they should try to do it better or abandon the idea. This goes
                  > for
                  > > other practices as well.
                  > >
                  > > Doing something because somebody else "proved" that it work for them is
                  > > backwards. Doing something because some manager tells them to do it
                  > > because somebody else "proved" that it work for them is double backwards.
                  > >
                  > > Metrics are so context-sensitive that they just do not translate from one
                  > > situation to another. They are useful for seeing if a specific team is
                  > > getting better over time, but they are not good for comparing teams or
                  > > deciding if a practice works well in general.
                  > >
                  > > The expense of taking the context-sensitivity out of metrics is only
                  > > warranted for things like drugs and medical procedures, not software
                  > > development.
                  > >
                  > > Agile opens the door for each team to take responsibility of using their
                  > > own metrics to improve their own process - promote that. Providing
                  > > guidelines and feedback for how to do that is conducive to agility. In my
                  > > opinion, attempting to do it generally it for all teams is prohibitively
                  > > expensive to do validly and inhibits the long term agility of individual
                  > > teams.
                  > >
                  > > Steven Gordon
                  > >
                  > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:05 AM, MarvinToll.com <MarvinToll@...
                  > > >wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > **
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Thank you Rob... my impression was that the quantitive metrics
                  > available
                  > > > are not establishing a strong case for pairing.
                  > > >
                  > > > I remain hopeful that some day we might have qualitative measures
                  > useful
                  > > > for making the case.
                  > > >
                  > > > _Marvin
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Myers" <rob.myers@...>
                  > > > wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > The only quantitative metrics I recall reading about were done by
                  > > Laurie
                  > > > Williams, and were taken in an academic setting.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > She found that the defect rates were much lower, but the development
                  > > > time was a little higher. It was shown to be a net win.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > In my experience, paired development time is not slower, but faster,
                  > > for
                  > > > a whole list of qualitative, behavioral reasons. When it comes to
                  > > knowledge
                  > > > work (surgery, flying an airliner, writing production-ready code), on
                  > > > average, two people will complete two tasks faster together than
                  > > separately.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I'd love it if someone could fund more industry research. I have
                  > plenty
                  > > > of hypotheses that need testing. ;-)
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "MarvinToll.com"
                  > > <MarvinToll@>
                  > > > wrote:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Has the dust ever settled on this topic? My understanding is that
                  > > > there is some consensus that quantitative metrics in this area are not
                  > > all
                  > > > that useful... however, there may be more validity to qualitative
                  > > measures.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > _Marvin
                  > > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ------------------------------------
                  > >
                  > > 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]
                  >
                  >
                  >



                  --
                  Regards
                  Ian Mitchell, FIITP ITCP
                  ICT and Management Consultant
                  2/40 Sylvia Road
                  St Heliers
                  Auckland, New Zealand
                  0064 9 5851580
                  http://www.Mitchell.co.nz
                  http://www.AboutIT.co.nz
                  http://www.SoftwareAsAService.co.nz


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Tim Ottinger
                  ... I don t quite understand the question. Are you asking about studies that suggest pairing is more effective? Or whether it s good to measure pair
                  Message 8 of 12 , Oct 15, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Has the dust ever settled on this topic?  My understanding is that there is some 
                    > consensus that quantitative metrics in this area are not all that useful... 
                    > however, there may be more validity to qualitative measures.


                    I don't quite understand the question.

                    Are you asking about studies that suggest pairing is more effective?
                    Or whether it's good to measure pair programming as it happens? 



                     
                    Tim Ottinger <tottinge@...>
                    http://industriallogic.com/
                    http://agileotter.blogspot.com/
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.