Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

2
  • 2
    Wow. There's just so much strange stuff here. Waterfall is viable on the basis of being around longer? Waterfall is justified on the basis of use in defense contracts? Is every opportunity to minimize change really in the customer's best interest, or does it lead to delivering what he thought he wanted rather than what he actually wanted? Since you seem to care about this, I've tried to understand where you are coming from, but I'm missing something. Commented Feb 17, 2012 at 13:41
  • 1
    @EricWilson Waterfall has been around longer and used successfully long before the Agile philosophy was discussed. It is viable because it exists and when applied properly works for those who wish to use it. I did not justify its use, but merely pointed to an example where I've had personal experience where I've seen it work, and yes, I've seen a few spectacular failures too. You don't look for opportunities to minimize change, you want opportunities to introduce change, but you need to do it sensibly, otherwise your customer either gets less than they wanted or a slipped deadline. Commented Feb 17, 2012 at 22:29