| > Does this lead to the same sort of problems with the development of physical systems? I would argue that physical systems aren’t developed in a “waterfall” method. In mechanical design classes in engineering school, we learned to start with low fidelity sketches to capture customer intent. We come up with several options, build those into increasingly higher fidelity 3D models, use simulation to refine, take a few candidates and get physical prototypes, do physical testing (strength, endurance, integration, etc.), determine the best one, then go into limited production to prove out and establish the production process, then go into full production. We are taught (and in the automotive industry it’s a requirement) to have cross functional teams involved in the design stages of both the item and the manufacturing process. To your point about inadequate spec: My opinion is there are so many different backgrounds coming into software that there is no common language or background. I think everyone thinks their way is better and it’s hard to communicate technical ideas when you need to constantly recreate and translate between terminology and documentation methods. This lack of convergence and common knowledge is what I think results in poor specs. |