Slide 14 of 17
Notes:
In, Toward Maturity Model for extreme Programming, Nawrocki, Walter and Wojciechowki observe, “our experience is that many people find XP a good excuse for not using approved programming practices. They do not [sic] follow neither classical practices nor XP ones.” Mark C Paulk states, “Most of XP consists of good practices that should be thoughtfully considered for any environment. While the merits of any of these practices can be debated in comparison with other ways of dealing with the same issues, none of them should be arbitrarily rejected.” The dangers of XP are that some of the practices are atypical, some are too risky or too expensive, and others have hidden underlying assumptions. Particular dangers of note are that XP projects risk lacking necessary written documentation and that the XP process, as a whole does not have practices covering management and organizational infrastructure issues. These risks can be mitigated through the use or development of a process that will be compliant with the CMMI and incorporate the practices and spirit of the XP methodology. Such a process is possible to construct or tailor from existing processes such as RUP. The biggest danger is generalizing extreme programming and accepting some of its "rewards" as good practices for all projects. The CMMI can be tailored and instantiated to incorporate the key practices of extreme programming but extreme programming can not be used on projects of all types and sizes.
