When the driver needs to contribute an idea, they must relinquish the keyboard to the navigator and then do the directing from the navigator position. In “strong-style” pairing, the driver does nothing that the navigator did not tell them to, or as Llewellyn puts it, “For an idea to go from your head to the computer it must go through someone else’s hands.” This fully engages the navigator. One is “strong-style” pairing, described by Llewellyn Falco in Llewellyn’s strong-style pairing. What can be done? There are a couple of approaches for getting the navigator more engaged. Often what happens is the navigator follows along as best they can for a while as the driver takes complete control, then their ability to concentrate weakens over time, eventually leading to “zoning out”. This confusion, besides leading to resistance to pairing in general, can also weaken the benefits of pairing. What happened? Perhaps you could have been more clear about what pair programming entailed.įor starters, many people are confused on what the navigator, that is, the person who is not doing the typing, is supposed to do. This confused state looks a lot like resistance.įor example, say you’re trying to influence your team to take up pair programming because of its many benefits (as listed in Pair Programming Illuminated):Įveryone agrees to take an afternoon to try pair programming, so you block everyone’s calendars, but when the day comes, everyone suddenly has somewhere else to be.
Lack of Clarity, we saw that when trying to institute a change, a lack of clear direction confuses people about what the new behavior should look like. In the video linked in the previous blog post, Resistance vs. I’ll explain why pair-programming often intimidates and two tips that reduce the fear. I’m going to apply the concept of distinguishing resistance from lack of clarity as in Monday’s post/video.
0 kommentar(er)
