3 ms·
The reviews complaining about evidence did have a point. At the time, XP was based on experiences at Chrysler implementing the C3 project - which was canned htt
by bazzargh 13y ago
The reviews complaining about evidence did have a point. At the time, XP was based on experiences at Chrysler implementing the C3 project - which was canned http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ChryslerComprehensiveCompensation http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ChryslerComprehensiveCompensation
Though tbh the same could be said of any of the mountains of methodology books we waded through in the 90s. The word 'evidence' appears precisely once in the RUP white paper, and it's not in reference to evidence for RUP itself being effective.
- robin2 13y agoProjects can be canned for all sorts of reasons, but from what I recall the people involved in C3 blamed the Chrysler management. Perhaps the latter were more interested in having a working payroll system than inventing the future of software development. One of the criticisms I remember some people making of XP when it first came to prominence was that it shifted a lot of the hard work of software development onto the customer, or rather the customer representative; certainly, ever since I heard about what happened to the first XP customer representative (see http://www.coldewey.com/publikationen/conferences/oopsla2001/agileWorkshop/hendrickson.html http://www.coldewey.com/publikationen/conferences/oopsla2001...) I've taken comments about XP being a humane methodology with a pinch of salt.
- bazzargh 13y agoI don't disagree with what you say about C3; my comment is more to do with the "see one-write one" nature of software books. Even though some books turn out surprisingly well, there's a distinct lack of depth and statistical analysis in the field.