> outline every anticipated step along the way, all the tiny minutiae that you foresee yourself encountering and how you'll deal with it
waterfall by any other name smells just as bad.
I think the reason is that senior management has no trust in the developers, which is the ultimate cause of the need to have waterfall. Each reporting level wants to show concrete evidence that those under them are "doing their best", rather than to have trust that they are.
Of course, it is understandable that people want concrete "evidence". But waterfall is the result, and you end up with big-bang designs, RFCs that are out of date because a change in circumstances necessitate a change that is not documented in an RFC.
It is a management problem, not a software development problem, imho.
waterfall by any other name smells just as bad.
I think the reason is that senior management has no trust in the developers, which is the ultimate cause of the need to have waterfall. Each reporting level wants to show concrete evidence that those under them are "doing their best", rather than to have trust that they are.
Of course, it is understandable that people want concrete "evidence". But waterfall is the result, and you end up with big-bang designs, RFCs that are out of date because a change in circumstances necessitate a change that is not documented in an RFC.
It is a management problem, not a software development problem, imho.