Talk:Chrysler Comprehensive Compensation System

This article is a bit of a shambles - the timeline is not chronological and it doesn't really explain what happened.
 * I've reworked the article and added a little more detail, but there's obviously need for more details. However, I think it's cleran enough to remove the cleanup notice, which I have now done. &mdash; Stumps 15:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline troubles
"In March 1996 the development team estimated that the system would be ready to go into production around one year later. In 1997 the development team adopted a way of working which is now formalized as Extreme Programming.[3] The one-year delivery target was nearly achieved, with the actual delivery being a couple of months late..."

"...C3 never managed to make another release despite two more year's development."

"DaimlerChrysler stopped the C3 project on 1 February 2000."

The estimate in 1996 was one year to production. In 1997, the team adopted/invented XP. In 1998, the team delivered the first funcitoning system. Is this right? Then how can it constitute achieving the target? It sounds like a one-year slip. If the team re-grouped in 1997 and said "one year from today, and this time, we mean it," and they went on to come within 16%- 25% of this target, then the article should reflect that. Can someone shed some light here? --Craigkbryant 20:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the assertion that DaimlerChrysler resumed XP programming practice is somewhat suspect. The reference to a usenet thread leads nowhere. Also, in 2005, I was consulting there and asked around about XP practices. As far as I was informed, no one was using them, but it is also quite a large and diverse tech environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titoson (talk • contribs) 01:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

From martinfowler.com
A reference which could be used with the article: C3 Mathmo Talk 21:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll also note, that it mentions the wikipedia article. In a critical manner, should be helpful to point out what parts of the article should be more closely looked at. Mathmo Talk 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "... the entry in Wikipedia is misleading and incomplete, much of its comments seem to be based on a paper from a determined XP critic whose sources are unclear. Certainly its comments on performance are a misleading interpretation of material in my Refactoring book."