On 12/02/2013 10:24 AM, Thomas Passin wrote:
> On 12/2/2013 2:09 AM, Stephen Cameron wrote:
>> I think you are getting to the heart of it, but the analogy I like is
>> making a movie, the final result is very open-ended and coordinating the
>> activity of getting a result very complex, also, whether the end result
>> is a success is very much dependant on intimate knowledge of the humans
>> who will view (use) the outcome.
>
> I think that a better analogy is a large construction project like an
> office building or a large bridge. They often run over budget and
> schedule, and often develop unforeseen problems. Some of them are
> almost exactly like previous ones, and some have many new elements.
> During construction, unexpected problems arise, and once completed,
> usage patterns may turn out to be quite different from those
> anticipated. Many of the implementation details are routine and
> implemented by tradesmen who don't know much about the overall
> architecture.
I've operated with that idea for many years, but I'm coming to believe
it's actively destructive because it leads to pure waterfall thinking:
design, architect, engineer, build. Where is there a place for an
iterative design, build, test cycle in building construction?
-Mike
