You could always go with a waterfall approach, but you're going to end up with a system that meets a lot of requirements, but doesn't deliver value.
7
2
22
It's stupid to follow the waterfall process. Period. Actually I'm not sure anyone ever really recommended it.
2
I can imagine it (or something like it) might make sense for, say, a nuclear power plant control system
3
1
The original Royce paper recommended several iterations. He worked in air & space, not unlike nuclear. The paper is from 1970. It was wrongly cited as the paper that described waterfall for the first time.
4
4
Sure. I just wanted to point out that agile development’s “learning from trying out things in production” might not be the best choice for every context :)
4
2
That is actually part of the problem: Agilist fight against a strict waterfall process that in fact nobody ever recommended.
1
Replying to @ewolff @fmueller_bln
While that’s 100% true, I still maintain that in some contexts it’s good to gather feedback about some feature’s value in production, and in some it’s not

Oct 2, 2021 · 8:21 AM UTC

1
Replying to @stilkov @fmueller_bln
Yes, that is why it is important to realize the difference between working on iterations and agile.