Originally posted by Junilu Lacar:
Not really sure what the point of such a study would be. I don't think a comparison of failure rates will really help us learn anything. Wouldn't that be like a study of what percentage of trips by air are completed and comparing that with non-air trips? Things happen and projects will fail for various reasons.
To borrow Lasse's logic: non-air trips are trips!
Well, there is no (non-anecdotal) evidence that XP produces better results, just people claiming that "well because we do A, B, and C, it works better." Now in fairness, there's no evidence that alternative methods are better, either. A number of studies have yielded project failure rates. Most studies with which I'm familiar predate XP.
You are right that ideally you would want to isolate variables (e.g. 50 similar projects, with similar processes, except one uses pair programming and the other does not). The reality is, you pretty much can only make general classifications on project size and process type.
--Mark