Think of waterfall as being similar in concept to the old USSR central planning of the economy. Think of Scrum as similar to a market economy.

— Ken Schwaber

Great sequence of posts on the scrumdevelopment Yahoo group . . .

Person A says the number one rule of business is that the customer is always right.

Person B says the customer is NOT always right, like his customer who wants an auction system like eBay on a budget of $1,500.

Person A says Person B needs to shut up and listen to the customer.

Person B says

I AM listening. They want something like Ebay for $1500. They want me to build a full Ebay clone this weekend and then tweak it until they’re happy over the next two weeks. I have listened carefully and diligently and have confirmed multiple times. This is definitely what they want. They’d also like time travel, but they don’t need that until April.

The point I’m making is that there are many reasons why just listening to your customer and giving them what they ask for is often not a good idea - for you or for the customer.

Project X hit a milestone called Vision/Scope seven months ago, 99 days late. It’s 312 days late on the current milestone, which is called Definition.

To date, the project has consumed 36,000 labor hours — 18 person-years — and $2.5 million.

At this morning’s enterprise-level status meeting, it was decided that Project X will be put on indefinite hold, as it is no longer a strategic priority.

This reminded me a lot of an article I read a few days ago:

What the waterfall does well is to keep useless projects from resulting in useless code that needs to be maintained. I’m not sure if that’s the real purpose, but it’s certainly a great side benefit. It may sound inefficient to pay a lot of engineers to get started on projects, do a bunch of analysis and design, and finally abandon the whole thing when something else becomes a higher priority, but every line of code they don’t write is another line that can’t break!

OK . . . you could make a case that waterfall “worked” here — clearly if, after 18 years of effort, people can’t even define the project, that sounds like a project that has no chance of success and shouldn’t be attempted — but it worked at a cost of $2.5 million.

That doesn’t seem very efficient.

What I find is that if you put the customer, the technical team and other appropriate representatives together for as little as four to eight hours, à la a Sprint Planning Meeting, it should be obvious whether or not anyone understands the problem well enough to go ahead and attempt a software solution.

Thus spoke The Programmer.