Hi Scott
I enjoyed your article and will be spending some time following the links to get some more background. I have a few comments that I would like to hear your opinion on.
Code and fix is often the way maintenance programmers have to work when they have to fix something or introduce a "simple" new feature and get it into production yesterday. This works well in an unbelievable number of cases but no-one who cares about what their doing wants to work this way for long.
Taking a toolkit approach is how I like to work as well. Some clients I've had don't include use cases in their required artifacts lists, but I use them for my own benefit on the way to delivering the requirement artifact in the format required by the client.
Its strange that when we're building software we'll look to re-use code; search out design
patterns and new algorithms; and pick up third party APIs to help build better software but rarely do organisations allow this approach to their development methodologies. If you�re following DSDM you can not start creating use case diagrams! But if they are useful to you at that point then why not?
I try to find the best techniques to fit the people involved as you advocate. But I'm also happy to combine things from various methodologies if they work as I need them to. One example is uses cases. Use cases are a great way to document requirements but they can be put together in a very "flexible" manner (i.e. they are difficult to structure). I find that designing the structure (i.e. the template and guidelines) of a use case based on how the stakeholders are describing the requirements to me always works best. For instance if a stakeholder can only make a requirement clear with the aid of a diagram that is peculiar to him I'll always include that in a use case. Obviously an explanation of what it means and how to read it is needed but it keeps everyone who is working from the use case in touch with the domain experts way of thinking.
An organisation needs to pick a methodology that suits a project type. But I would say they also need to be flexible and bring in elements from other methodology�s and devise their own artifacts if required. However, there are benefits to be gained from sticking to a methodology with some rigour as it can allow junior employees to be used well and if you suffer from high staff turnover (lots of contractors or off-shoring) a fixed and predictable methodology is easier to get into than a bespoke methodology.
As you say its always about finding the sweet spot. Listen to a particular methodology�s evangelists and then take the best bits back to the real world to use.
Andrew