I was confused when I first heard an experienced and respected (by me anyway) practitioner say that he was attracted to XP because it provided an unambiguous set of rules that if conscientiously followed leads to the best in software development. It confounded me because it seemed to contradict much of what attracted me: its flexibility; people over process; embrace change over plan. Actually there is no contradiction: it's all about simple rules, emergence, and complexity; that's not what I'm writing about, though. It's interesting that people who are mostly in agreement on details can feel so differently about the essence of XP. I think this is an example of Micheal Feather's P/J divide. On a Radio 4 In Business programme I heard the divide described as "J types feel relief when a decision has been made; they can put that behind then and concentrate on other things; P types are relieved when a decision is not made; they don't like to close their options down". I think of it in terms of Mary Poppendieck's "last responsible moment": "J"s are prone to premature decision making; "P"s tend to leave it too late. What Micheal Feathers says about having a good P/J balance in teams is also applicable to the XP community, although as in teams the gap can cause friction. From listening to the arguments, I strongly suspect that the divisions over the new edition of The White Book, mirror the P/J divide. PS I'm "INTP". PPS Posted this on the GNER traveling South for XP Day. :-)

Saturday, November 26, 2005 | Permalink | 0 Comments