[tchaffee]

> how do you know if there is any change if you didn't start with a plan?

Easy. The designs change. The requirements change. A plan is not a design. A plan is not the requirements. A plan is a step by step description of how you are going to implement the designs and requirements, and in what order. And if the designs or requirements change enough, you now have to throw out that part of your plan.

[kelnos]

> A plan is a step by step description of how you are going to implement the designs and requirements, and in what order.

I think you have a very narrow definition of "plan" that does not correspond to how most people use it.

[tchaffee]

Could you give some sources where plan means something different in the context of software development methodologies (the topic in question) and that most people in software engineering use that different meaning?

More importantly, is there a definition of "plan" in the context of software development where my claim fails? The claim that if requirements or designs change enough, some parts of your plan have to be thrown out?

The meaning I used is also a primary definition and often enough the first definition you'll find in dictionaries. [1] [2] [3]

[1] https://www.wordnik.com/words/plan

[2] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/plan

[3] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/plan

[kelnos]

Your first link seems to contradict you. "A proposed or intended course of action" covers everything from the roughest outlines to the most detailed sequences of steps.

Regardless, I'm not particularly interested in the dictionary definition. This is English, and what matters in English is how people actually use the word. You are literally the first person I've ever heard of who believes that "plan" is restricted to high levels of detail.

[lenkite]

Obligatory Eisenhower quote: “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”