Capable Leader and Skilled and Motivated Team Practices to Introduce eXtreme Programming

  • Lech Madeyski
  • Wojciech Biela
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5082)

Abstract

Applying changes to software engineering processes in organisations usually raises many problems of varying nature. Basing on a real-world 2-year project and a simultaneous process change initiative in Poland the authors studied those problems, their context, and the outcome. The reflection was a need for a set of principles and practices to help introduce eXtreme Programming (XP). In the paper the authors extend their preliminary set, consisting of the Empirical Evidence principle, exemplified using DICE®, and the practice of the Joint Engagement of management and the developers. This preliminary collection is being supplemented with the Capable Leader, as well as the Skilled and Motivated Team practices based on the DICE® framework as well.

Keywords

Extreme programming Agile adoption Process change  Software process improvement DICE® framework 

References

  1. 1.
    Williams, L., Maximilien, E.M., Vouk, M.: Test-Driven Development as a Defect-Reduction Practice. In: ISSRE 2003: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 34–48. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Müller, M.M.: Are Reviews an Alternative to Pair Programming? Empirical Software Engineering 9(4), 335–351 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Madeyski, L.: Preliminary Analysis of the Effects of Pair Programming and Test-Driven Development on the External Code Quality. In: Zieliński, K., Szmuc, T. (eds.) Software Engineering: Evolution and Emerging Technologies. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 130, pp. 113–123. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Madeyski, L.: The Impact of Pair Programming and Test-Driven Development on Package Dependencies in Object-Oriented Design - An Experiment. In: Münch, J., Vierimaa, M. (eds.) PROFES 2006. LNCS, vol. 4034, pp. 278–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hulkko, H., Abrahamsson, P.: A Multiple Case Study on the Impact of Pair Programming on Product Quality. In: ICSE 2005: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 495–504. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arisholm, E., Gallis, H., Dybå, T., Sjøberg, D.I.K.: Evaluating Pair Programming with Respect to System Complexity and Programmer Expertise. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 33(2), 65–86 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Madeyski, L.: On the Effects of Pair Programming on Thoroughness and Fault-Finding Effectiveness of Unit Tests. In: Münch, J., Abrahamsson, P. (eds.) PROFES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4589, pp. 207–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Madeyski, L.: Impact of pair programming on thoroughness and fault detection effectiveness of unit test suites. Software Process: Improvement and Practice (accepted), DOI: 10.1002/spip.382Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nosek, J.T.: The Case for Collaborative Programming. Communications of the ACM 41(3), 105–108 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams, L., Kessler, R.R., Cunningham, W., Jeffries, R.: Strengthening the Case for Pair Programming. IEEE Software 17(4), 19–25 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nawrocki, J.R., Wojciechowski, A.: Experimental Evaluation of Pair Programming. In: ESCOM 2001: European Software Control and Metrics, London, pp. 269–276 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Müller, M.M.: Two controlled experiments concerning the comparison of pair programming to peer review. Journal of Systems and Software 78(2), 166–179 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nawrocki, J.R., Jasiński, M., Olek, L., Lange, B.: Pair Programming vs. Side-by-Side Programming. In: Richardson, I., Abrahamsson, P., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3792, pp. 28–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bloch, J.: Effective Java: Programming Language Guide. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beck, K.: Test Driven Development: By Example. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Madeyski, L., Biela, W.: Empirical Evidence Principle and Joint Engagement Practice to Introduce XP. In: Concas, G., Damiani, E., Scotto, M., Succi, G. (eds.) XP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4536, pp. 141–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sirkin, H.L., Keenan, P., Jackson, A.: The Hard Side of Change Management. Harvard Business Review 83(10), 108–118 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beck, K., Andres, C.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Derby, E., Larsen, D.: Agile Retrospectives: Making Good Teams Great. Pragmatic Bookshelf (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with SCRUM. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lech Madeyski
    • 1
  • Wojciech Biela
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Applied InformaticsWroclaw University of TechnologyWroclawPoland
  2. 2.ExOrigo Sp. z o.o., Krucza 50WarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations