Originally posted by Stan James:
I emphasized the wrong words. I was more concerned about the nine weeks with no code at the front. The description sounds purely phasist with the code phase (very nicely) broken into iterations.
XP *does* have an Exploration Phase, where initial requirements are gathered, a system methaphor is thought up, architectural spikes are implemented and a first rough release plan is formulated.
It sounds like they used a little bit too much design without feedback from code and spent a little bit long on the requirements. The author even seems to see it in a similar way. Nevertheless it doesn't sound *too* bad, in my humble opinion...
Requirements are often "frozen" in phasist methods, but usually thaw out in the heat of development (cringe) ... or maybe they break into shards of ice first.
Yeah - but from the text it doesn't sound like it happened to that team. Seems they accepted and implemented new feature requests every iteration.
I worked (exactly) one project that was the furthest possible opposite of iterative. The manager refused to show the customer any work in process, wanted to wait until everything was absolutely finished, perfected and polished. Those requirements stayed in the deep freeze for sure. Of course the customer hated it. Made me a believer!
I can believe that...
But, again, it doesn't sound much like the project from the article. Seems they *did* do frequent, early releases to the users and accepted feedback.
Am I reading something different from the article than you?