Re: agile/xp question (formal analysis)

From: Daniel Parker (danielaparker_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/25/04 

Date: 25 Nov 2004 11:08:12 -0800

Robert C. Martin <unclebob@objectmentor.com> wrote in message news:<lgsbq0t9tcje63nnppbq247rm1u2sm2c4a@4ax.com>...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:12:40 +1200, AndyW <foo_@bar_no_email.com>
> wrote:
>
> Waterfall uses
> the completion of the analysis phase, and the design phase, as an
> indication of true project progress. XP does not do this.
>
> XP's *only* measure of progress is: passing acceptance tests. You
> cannot make progress in XP unless you produce real code that passes
> real tests that define real features. No other measure of progress is
> acceptable.
>
I absolutely agree with this point, this is not a caricature. As an
extreme case, I'm currently witnessing a file conversion project which
is being tracked by hours spent on specifications, development, and
testing. For the life of me, I fail to understand why specifications
should be regarded as a trackable item in a project of this nature,
especially in an environments were the tasks are happening in short
iterations. The only thing management should care about are the
results, not whether you're so many hours behind on testing, so many
hours ahead on programming, etc. That's probably all they do care
about, but they're presented with these detailed tracking reports that
they're left to interpret as best they can. I suspect you could make
some serious consulting dollars by offering some high level consulting
focusing only on better ways of performing acceptance testing,
measuring results, and tracking progress, even within the context of
mini waterfall environments - no need to mention XP here, that would
only frighten them.

Regards,
Daniel Parker

Regards,
Daniel Parker

Relevant Pages