another truth from C3

another truth from C3

Post by Gerold Keefe » Sat, 05 Jan 2002 21:46:22



hello my friends,

i would very much welcome comments on the referenced
article by chet hendrickson, a member of the C3 team.
it seems that at least one individual on C3, the "customer"
Marie Dearment, worked somewhat more then 40 hours
and thereby developed  serious health problems. plus  it
was not possible to replace her adequately after she left
the project due to burn out.

i conclude:
as we buried the XP pair programming legend and
the XP 100% test coverage legend, we can now bury the
XP 40 hour legend and the XP customer legend.
clever move to start this "agile" thing. it will probably survive
the rapid deterioration of extreme programming.

regards,

gerold

source:
http://www.veryComputer.com/
conferences/oopsla2001/agileWorkshop/hendrickson.html

chet hendrickson writes (about the XP customer):

"The C3 Project began with someone who, seemingly, could do
all these things. Marie Dearment was the supervisor of monthly
and biweekly payroll for Chryslers Corporate Disbur*ts
Department. When C3 was restarted under Kent Becks coaching,
Marie sat down and wrote the user stories we needed for the
first release plan. She was able to explain how the stories fit
together. She assigned their priority. She questioned our estimates.
She would have made the estimates, if we had let her, and she
would have down about as well as we did. She approved every
acceptance test. She did a hundred other things that we eventually
took for granted.

We dont know how Marie learned to do all of this. Marie didnt
know how she knew it. She must have known before we started
the project, because we dont know how Marie knew these things,
we were not able to help her do them. And, because Marie didnt
know, she wasnt able to teach others how to help her.

Eventually, it became too much.

A few months after the launch of C3s first phase Marie developed
a * tick, it was the most visible symptom of too many hours at
the office, too much stress and too much time away from her family.
Marie was able to transfer to a less stressful job and her place was
taken by a very bright and dedicated man named Paul Kowalski.

At the beginning, we thought Paul was an improvement. He was less
stressed out and since he didnt have Maries vision of the final
system,
he was amenable to our suggestions for making our lives easier.

In due course, we realized that Paul didnt know how to be an XP
customer. It should not have been a surprise; we had done nothing
to teach him. We didnt know how to teach him, since we didnt know
how Marie had done it."

 
 
 

another truth from C3

Post by Ralph Johns » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 00:18:54



>i would very much welcome comments on the referenced
>article by chet hendrickson, a member of the C3 team.

Thanks a lot for pointing that out!  I had never seen it
before, and I try to keep on on XP topics.  It supports
one of my fairly frequent claims, which is that XP is
woefully short on advice on how to be a good customer,
and that is probably its weakest link.  Chet obviously
agrees with me.

Quote:>i conclude:
>as we buried the XP pair programming legend and
>the XP 100% test coverage legend, we can now bury the
>XP 40 hour legend and the XP customer legend.

That is nonsense.  Obviously she SHOULD have worked
40 hours.  If she had, the project might have progressed
slower but would have been more likely to succeed.  And
I didn't need that story to know that the XP customer is
the weak spot in the process.  You are just making insults
and not making points.

-Ralph

Quote:>source:
>http://www.coldewey.com/publikationen/conferences/oopsla2001/agileWor...


 
 
 

another truth from C3

Post by Robert A Crawfo » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 00:33:26




>>i would very much welcome comments on the referenced
>>article by chet hendrickson, a member of the C3 team.
>Thanks a lot for pointing that out!  I had never seen it
>before, and I try to keep on on XP topics.  It supports
>one of my fairly frequent claims, which is that XP is
>woefully short on advice on how to be a good customer,
>and that is probably its weakest link.  Chet obviously
>agrees with me.

        Isn't one of the books supposed to address this?
I've heard this a few times, and I think it is an important
aspect that needs to be investigated.

Quote:>>i conclude:
>>as we buried the XP pair programming legend and
>>the XP 100% test coverage legend, we can now bury the
>>XP 40 hour legend and the XP customer legend.
>That is nonsense.  Obviously she SHOULD have worked
>40 hours.  If she had, the project might have progressed
>slower but would have been more likely to succeed.  And
>I didn't need that story to know that the XP customer is
>the weak spot in the process.  You are just making insults
>and not making points.

        That's what Gerald does.

--

 kloognome.com| and minds' only makes sense if by that you mean,
--------------+ literally, capturing their hearts and minds and
                putting them in mason jars." -- Jonah Goldberg

 
 
 

another truth from C3

Post by Gerold Keefe » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 03:32:47



> That is nonsense.  Obviously she SHOULD have worked
> 40 hours.  If she had, the project might have progressed
> slower but would have been more likely to succeed.  And
> I didn't need that story to know that the XP customer is
> the weak spot in the process.  You are just making insults
> and not making points.

no.
i am trying to get a clear picture about what was really going
on in C3 and i am continuing to check the claims of extreme
programming. thats all.

C3 was widely promoted as a tremendous success. the more
i investigate, the more information comes up that indicates
that C3 does not differ much from dozens or hundreds of
other software development projects, with the exception of its
public promotion.

i am not making insults, i am making points and it seems that
i have to repeat them.

point 1:
i showed how parts of the williams dissertation (that included
an experiment on pair programming) were changed (to avoid
the word manipulated) in the IEEE software article "strengthening
the case for pair programming" july/august 2000 issue in favour
of the authors intention.

point 2:
i triggered the change of XP web-pages that recommended
"no documentation". those changes were done overnight without
notification in the XP newsgroup that had an ongoing discussion
on those issue.

point 3:
i have repeatedly stated that albeit i welcome the "test first"-approach
of XP, the general testing approach is far from being sufficient
for quality software and that short release cycles will kill any serious
testing effort. btw.: thanks to bob binder other testing basics are being
revealed to the XP people.



> >i am somewhat scared by the fact that even university lecturers like ralph
> >publicly favour the quick buck more than personal, professional
> >and scientific integrity.

> I never said that.  You are putting words in my mouth.  I said
> that marketing and hype are necessary to get ideas out.  You can
> hype good ideas or bad ideas.  I was focusing on the importance
> of marketing and not on whether XP is good or bad.

ralph, do you think that "editorial changes" like the ones i named are
adequate means to "get ideas out." ? do you think that the propaganda
make-up of C3 is based on the faintest idea of personal and professional
or scientific integrity ?

regards,

gerold

 
 
 

another truth from C3

Post by Ron Jeffrie » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 04:17:31


On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 13:46:22 +0100, Gerold Keefer


>i would very much welcome comments on the referenced
>article by chet hendrickson, a member of the C3 team.
>it seems that at least one individual on C3, the "customer"
>Marie Dearment, worked somewhat more then 40 hours
>and thereby developed  serious health problems. plus  it
>was not possible to replace her adequately after she left
>the project due to burn out.

I consider the reference to be in poor taste as I would not care to
have my health problems discussed in a public forum.

Marie was a high-stress individual and was not good at delegating to
her helpers (she always had two or three). I have many times seen her
delegate a task and take it away in the same day.

There was no doubt that she knew more about payroll than any other
five people in the company. She could have managed her time better and
not hurt herself. The project would have benefited.

The customer job is hard. There is reportedly a team at ThoughtWorks
that has as many analyst/customers as it has programmers, just to keep
up with how fast the programmers are going.

Marie, and most customers, would do better to work at a sustainable
pace rather than burn themselves out.

Quote:>i conclude:
>as we buried the XP pair programming legend and
>the XP 100% test coverage legend, we can now bury the
>XP 40 hour legend and the XP customer legend.
>clever move to start this "agile" thing. it will probably survive
>the rapid deterioration of extreme programming.

Nonsense. Go write your own methodology. You're not helping with this
one.

Ronald E Jeffries
http://www.XProgramming.com
http://www.objectmentor.com

 
 
 

another truth from C3

Post by Mike Smit » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 05:58:30



Quote:

> Nonsense. Go write your own methodology. You're not helping with this
> one.

Indeed.  I keep seeing this Keefer fellow bash XP, without providing any
concrete suggestions as to what would be the *right* way to develop
software.  Kind of like that "Bad Managers" website - they sure are good at
trashing *other* people's ideas.

--
Mike Smith

 
 
 

another truth from C3

Post by Eric Rizz » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 06:14:58


<snip>
 >> <quoting someone else>

Quote:>> i conclude:
>>as we buried the XP pair programming legend and
>>the XP 100% test coverage legend, we can now bury the
>>XP 40 hour legend and the XP customer legend.
>>clever move to start this "agile" thing. it will probably survive
>>the rapid deterioration of extreme programming.

> Nonsense. Go write your own methodology. You're not helping with this
> one.

RJ, I've been reading about XP for a long time, and I believe that is the best
response yet you have written to the close-minded, misinformed,
selective-hearing "detractors."
Believe it or not, some of us ARE listening.

--
Eric Rizzo
-----------------------------
"A man talking sense to himself is not more insane
than a man talking nonsense not to himself."
                       - Rosencrantz & Guildenstern

 
 
 

another truth from C3

Post by Richard MacDonal » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 07:29:33





> > Nonsense. Go write your own methodology. You're not helping with this
> > one.

> Indeed.  I keep seeing this Keefer fellow bash XP, without providing any
> concrete suggestions as to what would be the *right* way to develop
> software.  Kind of like that "Bad Managers" website - they sure are good at
> trashing *other* people's ideas.

You might be interested in:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1760538200d&selm=3B548170.D124...

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1760538200d&selm=_5457.41515%2...

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1760538200d&selm=3B559DA8.D781...

Personally, I took his "i am certainly willing to publish any kind of misinformation about XP"

literally, especially when he never apologized nor corrected himself.

 
 
 

another truth from C3

Post by Ralph Johns » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 07:33:08



>C3 was widely promoted as a tremendous success. the more
>i investigate, the more information comes up that indicates
>that C3 does not differ much from dozens or hundreds of
>other software development projects, with the exception of its
>public promotion.

What you mean is, it was not any more successful than dozens
or hundreds of other software development projects.  That is
probably true.  But C3 was different.  Other projects didn't
use pair programming.  No other project took simple design
to such an extreme and relied on refactoring to get out of
the corners it puts you in.  (Actually, I'm trying to think of other
practices that are unique to XP and can't think of any.  And
there are some groups that use pair programming some of the time.)
Other projects weren't following a set of rules dreamed up by Kent.
From Kent's point of view, this project was the one that showed
him that he had hit upon the right set of rules.

C3 is important because that was where Kent figured out XP
and where Ron got turned on to it.  But it doesn't prove XP.
No single project proves much of anything.  XP will succeed
only if people try it and think it works for them.

Quote:>point 1:

So, the IEEE article published after the thesis differed
from the thesis.  The language was changed to make the
points more strongly.  As long as what was said was true,
this is good, not bad.  I expect an article published from
a thesis to be improved.  An author is lazy if he just
cuts his thesis into pieces and publishes the pieces.

Quote:>point 2:

XP web pages got updated without telling you.  I am not
sure what the problem is here.  That they are changing
their story?  I expect all methodologists to keep
changing their story, because no methodology is perfect.
It would be more of a problem if they did NOT change
their story.  That they didn't tell you when they changed
their web pages?  Come on!

Quote:>point 3:

The XP view of testing is not viewed as adequate by testing experts.
Lots of aspects of XP are not viewed as adequate by someone.  The
XP people will either make them adequate, show that they are already
adequate, or figure out when they are adequate and when they are not.  
Or admit defeat.  But that doesn't seem likely.  :-)

I've seen a bunch of methodologies arise.  They follow a common
pattern, with RUP being an exception, but OMT and Booch's
original one following the pattern.  There is a good designer
who builds stuff that works, and wonders why other people don't.
So, he starts helping other people build systems.  Some things
work, some don't.  Eventually he hits on a set of things to tell
people that help them to build systems that work, too.  He is
thrilled!  He has discovered the secret of developing software!
So, he writes a book and goes out to tell the world of his great
discovery.  The world has a tendency not to listen. The book is
liked by some people, and disliked by others.  He gives tutorials
at conferences, gathers a following, writes magazine articles.
He keeps improving his shpiel, and eventually the book is out of
date.  Time for a second edition!  Actually, by this time probably
he is on to other things.  XP follows this pattern.

The difference between XP and other methodologies is that it is
much more public.  We know about the projects that gave rise to
it.  We can see it change as the authors both learn how to tell
their story better, and learn a better story.  Kent also got a
lot of other people to help him tell his story, so we get to see
a kind of hidden debate between the authors.  XP is an
"internet" methodology because it was developed on the internet
and spread by the internet.   But the development of XP really
wasn't that different from the development of other methodologies.

In contrast, RUP was an industrial project.  Rational wanted to
sell a methodology, so they hired a bunch of methodologists to
develop one.  And the Crystal families of methodologies are
different, too.  Alistair*burn is not so much a designer
as an anthropologist.  But XP was developed like the others.

I like XP because it is a constrast to the earlier OO methodologies.
It is light on pictures.  It emphasizes refactoring.  (Which I like,
because I've been studying refactoring for over 12 years)  It is
fairly small, and easy to teach.  It seems to work reasonably well.
I do NOT think it is the end-all and be-all of methodologies, that
everybody should use it, or even that I will use it on my
next project.  Though I might.  I expect that there will be a much
better methodology in ten years that is based on it, but with a
less objectionable name.

All this is an answer to your question about the honesty of Kent
and company.  I am convinced that they invented XP because they
were trying to find a better way of developing software, and
that they honestly think it is a better way.  They are not doing
it for the money, though they (like we all) have to make a living
and being the experts of a new methodology helps a lot.  On the
other hand, once people learn a particular way of doing something
and start to advocate a particular position, it becomes harder for
them to see the other side of things.  This is just as true for
them as for you.  So, sometimes it is hard for them to see the
problems that others have with XP.  But they expect to keep making
XP better and are constantly trying new things.  I think that is
good, though you seem to think it is bad.

Every methodologist I know thinks his methodology is suitable for
all kinds of problems.  In reality, each one is good for some particular
kind of problem.  It is very hard to figure out what a methodology
is good for, and very hard to figure out what methodology is best
for a particular problem.  Michael Jackson (author of the Jackson
Design Method of the 80's) was the first person I saw actually
explain what his methodology was good for, and it was at least 10
years after he invented it.  

One of the things I like about XP is that they admit it isn't good
for every project. Now, they almost certainly think it is suitable
for a wider range of projects than it actually is, and it is hard to
pin them down to exactly what its limitations are, but that is to
be expected.  The very fact that they are willing to discuss the
limits of XP puts them ahead of most methodologists.  

Methodology is not an academic discipline.  There are some
academics who study methodology, but the people who make
methodologies that people actually use are usually not academics.  
So, it is futile to demand that they adhere to academic standards of
rigor.  They are trying to be useful, not rigorous.  (Academics, on the
other hand, ...)  Of course, when they publish papers, they have
to live up to those standards.  It is quite reasonable to expect
Williams to live up to academic standards in her writings.  She is
an academic studying XP.  It isn't reasonable to expect Beck and Jeffries
to do so.  They have a different purpose in life.  Truth and honesty
are still important, of course, but I expect them to be less objective.  
They are out to save the world from bad software development processes!  

-Ralph Johnson

 
 
 

another truth from C3

Post by Robert C. Marti » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 08:19:57


On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 19:32:47 +0100, Gerold Keefer


>C3 was widely promoted as a tremendous success.

Citing?

Robert C. Martin    | "Uncle Bob"              | Software Consultants

PO Box 5757         | Tel: (800) 338-6716      | your projects done.
565 Lakeview Pkwy   | Fax: (847) 573-1658      | www.objectmentor.com
Suite 135           |                          | www.XProgramming.com
Vernon Hills, IL,   | Training and Mentoring   | www.junit.org
60061               | OO, XP, Java, C++, Python|

"One of the great commandments of science is:
    'Mistrust arguments from authority.'" -- Carl Sagan

 
 
 

another truth from C3

Post by Ron Jeffrie » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 08:20:13



>RJ, I've been reading about XP for a long time, and I believe that is the best
>response yet you have written to the close-minded, misinformed,
>selective-hearing "detractors."
>Believe it or not, some of us ARE listening.

Thanks, Eric. That's awfully good to know on some days!

R

Ronald E Jeffries
http://www.XProgramming.com
http://www.objectmentor.com

 
 
 

another truth from C3

Post by Jordan Bor » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 16:40:10




> > Nonsense. Go write your own methodology. You're not helping with this
> > one.

Nonsense, L.Ron.

YOU wrote the book on said methodology. You claimed it came from on
high.

Now you want us to debug your methodology for you?

The fact that your methodology didn't pass unit testing is not our
problem.

The fact that you published your methodology before it was debugged is
not our problem.

If you want advice on how to improve your broken methodology, maybe
you can turn off your professorial ego and learn how to listen for a
change?

Or not. At this point I feel XP is on the ropes and within a few
postings of being proven a complete and total ruse.

If you want advice, at least admit you don't know it all, and get out
your 3x5 cards and be ready to take notes.
Your call,
 Jordan

Quote:

> RJ, I've been reading about XP for a long time, and I believe that is the best
> response yet you have written to the close-minded, misinformed,
> selective-hearing "detractors."
> Believe it or not, some of us ARE listening.

Yes, the sheep.
 
 
 

another truth from C3

Post by Ron Jeffrie » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 19:47:19




Quote:>Nonsense, L.Ron.

Amusing personal insult noted.

Quote:

>YOU wrote the book on said methodology.

I wrote _a_ book (together with Chet and Ann, of course). Have you
read it? Would you mind addressing your comments to things we say in
the book, or that any of us have said in any of the books on the
subject?

Quote:>You claimed it came from on
>high.

No, I claim it came from Chet, Ann, and Ron.

Quote:

>Now you want us to debug your methodology for you?

I don't care what you do. I think you might benefit from learning
about XP and that we might benefit from well-considered criticism and
suggestions based on what it actually is. I'm sure you're going to get
around to both of those things any day now.

Quote:

>The fact that your methodology didn't pass unit testing is not our
>problem.

Neither you nor Gerold have done any unit testing as far as I can
tell.

Quote:

>The fact that you published your methodology before it was debugged is
>not our problem.

Then do feel free to spend your time elsewhere. Since people aren't
computers, XP is not something debuggable. It is a set of practices
which, if folks will do them, will give them information.

Quote:

>If you want advice on how to improve your broken methodology, maybe
>you can turn off your professorial ego and learn how to listen for a
>change?

I'm sure I could be better at that. And certain critics could be
better at saying things worth listening to.

Quote:

>Or not. At this point I feel XP is on the ropes and within a few
>postings of being proven a complete and total ruse.

Right. Any second now.

Quote:>If you want advice, at least admit you don't know it all, and get out
>your 3x5 cards and be ready to take notes.

Since I close about half my posts with "I could be wrong, I frequently
am", I don't mind admitting that I don't know it all.

Speaking of cards, while I personally DO use 3x5 cards, most XP
projects use larger ones than that.

Be sure to get back to us when you have something other than attacks
and insults to offer.

Ronald E Jeffries
http://www.XProgramming.com
http://www.objectmentor.com

 
 
 

another truth from C3

Post by Gerold Keefe » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 21:32:50



> You might be interested in:

> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1760538200d&selm=3B548170.D124...

> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1760538200d&selm=_5457.41515%2...

> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1760538200d&selm=3B559DA8.D781...

> Personally, I took his "i am certainly willing to publish any kind of misinformation about XP"

> literally, especially when he never apologized nor corrected himself.

so what, my initial posting you are referring to was clearly cynical.
in most of my investigations on the credibility of the XP claims
you will find sources and links solidifying my doubts.

regards,

gerold

 
 
 

another truth from C3

Post by Gerold Keefe » Sun, 06 Jan 2002 21:44:32



> Indeed.  I keep seeing this Keefer fellow bash XP, without providing any
> concrete suggestions as to what would be the *right* way to develop
> software.  Kind of like that "Bad Managers" website - they sure are good at
> trashing *other* people's ideas.

dear mike,

i certainly have my own ideas and i am certainly willing to provide
suggestions. the sad point is i reckon that due to their supposedly astronomic
consulting rates based on unfair acquired popularity my friends have more spare

time to write books and other publications.
here is are some suggestions from an older posting:

"my final recommendations:
being your own guru saves you money, time, nerves, and
healthily stimulates you brain activity.
take some ideas and inspiration (for free) out of the guru baskets.
think about how to scale and taylor them to your specific
organization, skills, people, and projects. if you want to claim
improvement you will have to do a sound measurement.
and dont forget to use your most valuable asset: your common sense."

"if "you" emphasize planning/management/customer you will very soon
end up with sound software engineering described in various publications
that have been around for a quarter of a century (Boehm, Brooks,
DeMarco, Weinberg, etc.).
universally known, often quoted, occasionally read, and rarely heeded."

if you scan through my postings you will find numerous others.
if you have specific questions for your problems let me know.

regards,

gerold

 
 
 

1. C3 dead.

I just noticed on Wiki an announcement that I'm suprised has not made
it here ( or perhaps it did and I missed it, in that case sorry). The
C3 project at Chrysler has been terminated. At this point, I don't
know any of the details.

2. New version of DECwindows Cookbook wanted.

3. Hear about Chrysler C3 at Smalltalk Solutions

4. 10 DAY REMINDER: PACT 2003 Workshops [Deadline: June 16, 2003]

5. to C3 participants

6. ORACLE DEVELOPER: New Oracle Newsletter Seeking Writers

7. about C3

8. Warp 3 drive object is broken

9. C3 dead.

10. People in the name of God I want unbiased justice, truth has nothing to fear

11. What's the truth with DGROUP ?

12. the truth about DGROUP :-(

13. Tell me the TRUTH