3 ms·

Ok but I believe the burden of proof is on you. I'll claim that adhering to some principles has given us quantifiably better results, and that the time scale is

by marcusf 15y ago

Ok but I believe the burden of proof is on you. I'll claim that adhering to some principles has given us quantifiably better results, and that the time scale is long enough that any Hawthrone Effect would've worn out by now. Also, "productivity hack" is not a label I'd use to describe e.g. automated testing. YMMV.

jerf 15y ago
My personal theory on XP, and to a lesser extent Agile, is that about 90%, if not 120%, of the benefit is in the pervasive use of automated testing, and the rest is either marginal in comparison, or even harmful but propped up by the benefit you scored by using automated testing so it all looks net positive in the end. (Hence the 120%; the benefit of just using automated testing is indeed greater than the whole package.) I can't prove it. And I do like iterations in the sense of "produce a deliverable product every N weeks" for keeping you from wandering too far down the wrong path, though from what I've seen one of the most popular things to do with agile is just break your calender up by "iterations" then keep doing the same thing you did before. It's sort of hard to get a real sense of the utility of agile because hardly anybody really seems to really try it. (I do not necessarily think every aspect of it should be kept, but much of what it proposes is at least worth a real try. And "trying" shouldn't be a matter of smearing new words over the same procedures.)
pdubroy 15y ago
Actually, the burden of proof should be on you. The null hypothesis is that adhering to agile principles has no positive affect on the outcome of software projects. In order to show that these principles have worth, you should disprove the null hypothesis.
- marcusf 15y ago
  I disagree. I've laid out my arguments best as I can, pointing to how we've measured and that we've seen improvements. In response to that, the commenter compares the post to scientology. The hypothesis under discussion here isn't "these principles have value", it's "even though implementing these principles gave measurable value, they're still snake oil comparable to scientology".

by marcusf 15y ago

jerf 15y ago

My personal theory on XP, and to a lesser extent Agile, is that about 90%, if not 120%, of the benefit is in the pervasive use of automated testing, and the rest is either marginal in comparison, or even harmful but propped up by the benefit you scored by using automated testing so it all looks net positive in the end. (Hence the 120%; the benefit of just using automated testing is indeed greater than the whole package.) I can't prove it. And I do like iterations in the sense of "produce a deliverable product every N weeks" for keeping you from wandering too far down the wrong path, though from what I've seen one of the most popular things to do with agile is just break your calender up by "iterations" then keep doing the same thing you did before. It's sort of hard to get a real sense of the utility of agile because hardly anybody really seems to really try it. (I do not necessarily think every aspect of it should be kept, but much of what it proposes is at least worth a real try. And "trying" shouldn't be a matter of smearing new words over the same procedures.)

pdubroy 15y ago

Actually, the burden of proof should be on you. The null hypothesis is that adhering to agile principles has no positive affect on the outcome of software projects. In order to show that these principles have worth, you should disprove the null hypothesis.

marcusf 15y ago
I disagree. I've laid out my arguments best as I can, pointing to how we've measured and that we've seen improvements. In response to that, the commenter compares the post to scientology. The hypothesis under discussion here isn't "these principles have value", it's "even though implementing these principles gave measurable value, they're still snake oil comparable to scientology".