On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:48 PM, zdnfa<zdnfa@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> i want to share with you the idea of my PhD. research
>
> the idea is that Kent Beck says that XP works fine for projects of 10 to 20
> programmers, but not for the big ones.
>

10-20 programmers is /huge/. In my experience XP teams are successful
with far fewer.

> our research is that some modifications on XP may well make it fine with big
> ones. these modifications are as follows:
>

Why? Why would you want your team to be bigger than that? What
advantage does having a large team provide?

> 1. XP focuses on tacit knowledge sharing but on explicit, we need to increse
> our focus on explicit knowledge by increasing the amount of documentation
> but rationally.
>

Is running code with tests a form of "explicit knowledge?" Might we
perhaps be more successful with more of that rather than more
documentation (rational or otherwise?)

> 2. if we add an analysis phase per iteration we increase the amount of
> explicit knowledge sharing with customers.
>

We analyze continuously. How would separating analysis from other
day-to-day activities give us any advantage?

> 3. we introduce the concept of pair development over instead of pair
> programming, that is instead of doing the programming in pairs, we do the
> analysis, design, and coding in pairs.
>

We already do this. Analysis, design, and coding are all part of the
existing pair programming/TDD paradigm.