Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 12/02/2013 10:24 AM, Thomas Passin wrote: 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?On 12/2/2013 2:09 AM, Stephen Cameron wrote: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 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. -Mike
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
