From Extreme Programming to Extreme Organization_
Enrico Zaninotto
Traditional models of software development uncritically mimic the
organisation structure formed during the long history of second industrial
revolution, associated with the names of Ford and Taylor.
The stress on modular development and reuse update software engineering models
in order to increase the degree of variability that can be economically managed,
but it rests on same concepts.
In this lecture I maintain that XP models of software production rest on an
entirely new "technology" of the process, that asks for a breakthrough in
organisational concepts supporting it. Part of those concepts can be found
in "Japanese style" models of manufacturing and factory organisation, that
greatly succeeded during the decades 1970 and 1980 (Coriat, 1991);
partly are completely new, and help to advance in the understanding of what a
"post-fordist" factory could be. While in the past, software engineering
was an awkward imitation of manufacturing models, presently XP can lead
manufacturing and service producers toward the building of an eXtreme
organisation, the one which can cope with the growing variety in demand and
permits to fully exploit flexible technologies of production.
In the first part of the lecture I will resume basic organisation problems
faced by a production system. Organisation structures help to manage complex
production systems giving order and structure to three kinds of flows, needed
to support the complex interdependencies arising from a production flow:
information, decision and knowledge. I will show how fordist organisation
succeeded in supporting a process and product decomposition that dramatically
reduced the variety accepted by the system and stressed the importance of
economies of replication, with a coherent organisation design that univocally
maps the three organisation flows (information, decision and knowledge) needed
to build up an infrastructure for co-ordination.
Different paths were followed in order to adapt manufacturing production systems
to the emerging variety of needs. Among them, one of the most successful -
widely adopted in software industry - was rooted on the concept of modularity.
Modular production preserves the stress on replication economies and standardisation,
but looking for a better trade-off between replication economies and adaptation to
variety. This new infrastructure for co-ordination limits standardisation to a
minimal set of variables (interface standards), decoupling both static and
dynamic adaptation of subsystems by "information hiding " (Parnas, 1971). This
way to cope with complex production system has a long tradition, rooted in
Simon (1996, 3rd) and Alexander (1964), and was enthusiastically adopted by
software engineers. But emerging interdependencies and "imperfect hiding"
(Devetag and Zaninotto, 2001) proved modularity and module reusability a
less manageable tool than it was hoped and a unique and coherent pattern
for information, decision and knowledge flows supporting modular decomposition
proved to be unaffordable.
The way taken by software engineers with X-Programming rests on completely
different instruments of complexity management. While fordist standardisation
(and modularity) stressed a design aimed at reducing complexity by affecting
the dimensionality of the design, flexibility and XP, while leaving a high
degree of computational complexity, act on irreversibilities. Reduction of
irreversibilities is obtained by methods which reduce adaptation and integration
costs, and methods aimed at delaying irreversible actions. Less
irreversibilities mean that to manage uncertainty a less hierarchical decision
structure is needed. On the other side, dimensionality of production system,
both static and dynamic, is still high (and possibly increases). This requires
speed and efficient methods to transmit information and knowledge. As for
information XP rests on concepts like local information transmission and the
spreading of local adaptation. As for knowledge, search and experimentation
patterns are co-ordinated by methods helping knowledge sharing. Finally, risks
of misalignements are reduced by a tight control of timing (decomposition is
leaded by timing rule, and not vice versa), which preserves a smooth flowing
of the process, and of work rules, aimed at assuring a wide spreading of local
knowledge. Finally, coherence is loosely assured by the adherence to meta, high
level standards, which substitute the low level, interface standardisation.
Organisation theory helps to gain a better understanding of the rational of
apparently dispersed prescriptions present in the cookbooks for XP.
In particular, the opposition between actions on dimensionality and actions on
reversibility highlights two different approaches to complexity management
having strong consequences in the design of decision, information and knowledge
flows. While this removes some flavour of magic from XP, it helps to:
1. understand to what software projects XP fits better: using various dimensions of complexity
it would be possible to classify software projects in order to find a better
fitting between the nature of complexity and the software engineering methods;
2. extend the logic of XP to other manufacturing and service processes:
it is time, for software engineering, to stop mimic exhausted operation methods
and to lead the way out of fordism.
Born the 22nd december 1953.
Present position: professor of Operations Management at the University of Trento - Italy.
Dean of the Faculty of Economics.
He partecipate to the faculty and the steering committee of the Scuola Superiore
S. Anna (Pisa) Doctoral School in Economics and Management.
Studies: graduated in Economia Aziendale (Economics and Management) at
the University of Venice (1977);
Cértificat d'études avancés en Sciences Economiques at the Université Catholique de
Louvain (Belgio) (1986).
Former positions: Head of the Department of computer and management science
(DISA) of the University of Trento (1996-7).
Professor of Operations Management at the University of Venice (years 1989-93);
professor of Industrial Organization and Competition Policy at the University
L. Bocconi (Milan) (years 1986-90).
Research fellow at the University of Venice (1984-89) and at the
University L. Bocconi (1981-1985).
Research interests: Main interests have been in co-ordination mechanisms both
in markets and organizations
("Co-operation in distributive channels", 1990; Games and management, 1992),
a topic which is treated both from a theoretical and an applied point of view.
Main fields of applications were: power and co-ordination in distributive channels;
standards and standardization processes,
("Standardisation and post-fordist production models", with L. Gaio)
and modularity in design. On this last subject he directed a national research (1999-2001)
whose results are going to be presented in a special track of the
Euram 2002 Conference (Stockolm, 9-11 may 2002).
Office adress:
DISA - Università di Trento - via Inama, 5
I-38100 Trento - Italy
Ph. +39-0461-882270-2238
Fax +39-0461-882199
e-mail: ezani@cs.unitn.it
