| Thanks for the great comment! I am hard pressed to consider its development spiral (which requires frequent releases, if not as frequent as Agile). With an aircraft you really don't iterate on airframes the way you might even with OS releases. > This makes is sufficiently different to the software development process discussion, that I think it's really an apples-to-oranges comparison. Despite the prime's assertion that it was "spiral", really it was in the end a classic waterfall as I said. But you make a better point: is there really any other way with a mechanical device (especially as demanding a one as an aircraft)? We do see coarse iterations with various adaptations of aircraft that change length, power plant etc (consider all the versions of 747, 737, A350, et al). It's a stretch to try to consider that spiral, much less agile. The iterations are slow, comprehensive (involving much interconnection) and not really back compatible. More like OS/360 releases (which is the origin of the waterfall metaphor). I do remember the objective of the program, but it wasn't really grasped adequately (composable elements), a point I think you are making. And there was no feedback in the development process; rather the opposite, with Lockheed given essentially a blank check. The Clinton military-industrial-complex restructuring has a lot to answer for. |