Re: Full life cycle development
- From: "Phlip" <phlip_cpp@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 06:46:08 GMT
corba.object wrote:
> Collecting all the requirements itself is an ongoing activity because
> of changes in business in time.
>
> I think water fall is more of academic exercise which could never would
> have materialized at any time.
Big Design Up Front is mostly harmless. It turns out that Big _Requirements_
Up Front is closely linked with project failure. The bigger the requirement
gathering phase, the higher the risk.
However, BRUF is a common reaction to fear. The last project ran into
trouble with changing requiments, so this time we will work harder to get
them right. This is not academic - it is a business-side response to fear
and disappointment.
> It has always to be iteration.
Even if a team iterates the design, the temptation to over-specify
requirements is very strong.
--
Phlip
http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand
.
- References:
- Full life cycle development
- From: Rof
- Re: Full life cycle development
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: Full life cycle development
- From: Phlip
- Re: Full life cycle development
- From: James D Carroll
- Re: Full life cycle development
- From: Phlip
- Re: Full life cycle development
- From: corba.object
- Full life cycle development
- Prev by Date: Re: Full life cycle development
- Next by Date: Re: How to express conditional dependency between components in UML?
- Previous by thread: Re: Full life cycle development
- Next by thread: Re: Full life cycle development
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|