Ambler on the risks of traditional development methods.
http://www.ddj.com/architect/202101049?cid=Ambysoft.
The purpose of the article is to reset the debate on the risks of adopting agile methods; sure he says, Agile has risks, but define them against the risks of our current model and they don’t stand out so sharply.
The key to the discussion seems to centre around BRUF – big requirements up front and the costs associated with locking down your requirements early.
What of things change? What if your assumptions were wrong? You are now committed.
What Ambler writes is all true, but there are limits to his argument.
The first is an assumption that the cost+risk associated with just-in-time design are lower than the costs associated with rework and I am just not sold on this principle.
This article challenges the way analysis do business, and possibly the fundamental value of business analysts. It’s written from a developer centric view. Any comments?
I believe that the agile approach as with any methodology is in its early years and thus one has to let more water run under the bridge before the cost+risk factor is fully assessed. I think that the article challenges some common mistakes that occur in the traditional methodologies particularly when people miss the woods for the trees.
The traditional approach has gained a "monopoly". In a way this has been of benefit as we have been able to learn from the many war stories .... On the other hand having a new kid in the block - if I may respectfully refer to those gurus who support agile approach - is healthy in the same way as it is healthy to have two products competing in the market place.....
Nice points.
The agile evangelists put a lot of people off. The truth is tht there is room for several methoologies, and some suit particular cirumstances better than others. Of course good requirements analysis and management are critical to success in any complex project.
brought to you by enabling practitioners & organizations to achieve their goals using: