Warning: Bluntness ahead

Point me to the study that proves...point me to the study that proves...point me
to the study that proves...<yawn>

There is no answer that will satisfy the person who demands studies as proof.

Studies aren't proof. Studies are analyses of observed phenomena. The thing a
study analyzes has already happened before the study is performed.

Point me to the study that proves...sounds just like the knee-jerk resistance to
agile itself that we used to hear, 8+ years ago. The proof is in the doing.

If the described approach worked for Arlo, I want to know how it was done and
what the necessary conditions for success might be, so that I can add it to my
toolkit and use it at the appropriate times and in the appropriate way.

If academicians want to publish a study about it someday, I won't stop them. But
I won't wait for them, either.

I don't base my work on studies. Studies base their results on my work (and
everyone else's work, of course). Point is, results come first, studies come
later.

Dave


--- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Chris Wheeler
<christopher.wheeler@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Jeff,
> >
> > What you and others seem to be missing is that Arlo reported actual,
> > measured, productivity under this "promiscuous pairing" practice.
> > All out concerns about would it be more interruptions etc etc cannot
> > change the fact that he actually tried many ways of doing things and
> > of them all, this one really was fastest for his team.
> >
> > I don't suggest that this means that you and I should switch pairs
> > every 90 minutes ... but it sure does suggest that our hypothesizing
> > about it not working is faulty ... since it really did work.
>
>
> It really worked...once. Seems as though the results haven't been replicated
> consistently. Perhaps someone could point me to a writeup of the study that
> includes data and results - always a skeptic, I'd like to see for myself
> what really happened.
>
> Chris.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>