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

Re: [XP] Re: Xp in Game Development

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    ... Yes. I would agree that we should only sign contracts that we believe we can fulfill fairly to all parties. I also believe that there are companies who use
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 1:59:25 PM, Chris Hanson wrote:

      > On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 08:17 AM, Ron Jeffries wrote:
      >> In what you've been writing on this fixed-everything topic, Chris, you
      >> have
      >> raised issues, things that can go wrong. And they can go wrong. But it
      >> seems that you're raising them as objections to XP in fixed
      >> situations, and
      >> I'm not understanding that.

      > I have perceived a message or attitude in this thread that I'll restate
      > as "It's OK to take on a fixed-everything project, even if you have a
      > lot of uncertainty about it, because you can use XP and get a result
      > the customer is happy with even if you don't live up to the contract."

      > My point is that you have to be careful about the contracts you sign,
      > and have the intention of honoring both their letter and spirit when
      > you sign them, or not sign them. There are customers out there who
      > will litigate if you don't meet the letter of the contract. (I have
      > never actually been on the receiving end of this, thankfully. Part of
      > the reason is that I try not to take fixed-everything projects because
      > I *know* scope can change during a project's lifetime and up-front
      > estimation accuracy is extremely limited.)

      > This isn't anything to do with XP explicitly. I just don't think it's
      > reasonable to knowingly sign a fixed-everything contract that you're
      > uncertain you can meet the letter of, and then try to use XP (or any
      > other methodology) to "deliver what the customer really wants" rather
      > than what's specified in the contract for the price and in the
      > timeframe specified.

      > It may satisfy the customer *more* to use agile methods and actually
      > have something usable but scope-limited on the date the full project is
      > supposed to be delivered than it would to use waterfall and have
      > something unusable. But you still run the risk of not meeting the
      > contract; if this is a significant enough risk, you'd do best to try
      > and use or get a different type of contract.

      > Am I making sense?

      Yes. I would agree that we should only sign contracts that we believe we
      can fulfill fairly to all parties. I also believe that there are companies
      who use a different approach from that.

      My point, and I do have one, is only that XP and similar agile approaches,
      in my opinion, offer better chances of fulfilling the contract to
      everyone's satisfaction.

      I think it would be a very rare customer who would turn down what he really
      wants to get what the contract said, at the same price. I am aware of zero
      real-world examples, but I don't work in that domain. Has it ever happened?

      Ron Jeffries
      www.XProgramming.com
      Do only what is necessary. Keep only what you need.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.