Steve wrote:
What is the reason for all of these other methodologies?
I think all of them exist so management can have a more tangible guideline for development, but I don't think they are necessary. I have worked on dozens of projects from conception to completion and the only time I employed an XP methodology (Scrum in my case) was because management insisted on it (we had some lazy engineers on the team who needed micro-management, at least according to managers). In all the other cases, just having smart, motivated people work on the project has been sufficient, and that includes project leadership. But since it's apparently very hard for management to find smart people and to motivate them (and to be smart and motivated themselves), they fall back on some laundry-list methodology to make their jobs easier. My current company excels in this area. Management doesn't even seem to know about XP methodologies, because what they do just works. We have a good working relationship with our customers, and we have gotten pretty good at managing projects.
I like Joel Spolsky's take on the topic. He contends that you have to be smart, and that no methodology can replace that. Here's the article:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000356.html --Dave /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
