<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: With requirements, discussions matter most</title>
	<atom:link href="http://practicalanalyst.com/2008/02/01/with-requirements-discussions-matter-most/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://practicalanalyst.com/2008/02/01/with-requirements-discussions-matter-most/</link>
	<description>Practical Insight for Business Analysts and Project Professionals</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 05:50:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Babcock</title>
		<link>http://practicalanalyst.com/2008/02/01/with-requirements-discussions-matter-most/comment-page-1/#comment-8118</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Babcock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:32:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanbabcock.com/2008/02/01/with-requirements-discussions-matter-most/#comment-8118</guid>
		<description>&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_comment&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_twitter_username&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_content&quot;&gt;From the blog archive: With requirements, discussions matter most  http://bit.ly/cJPih #baot&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="topsy_trackback_comment"><span class="topsy_twitter_username"><span class="topsy_trackback_content">From the blog archive: With requirements, discussions matter most  <a href="http://bit.ly/cJPih" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/cJPih</a> #baot</span></span></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JB</title>
		<link>http://practicalanalyst.com/2008/02/01/with-requirements-discussions-matter-most/comment-page-1/#comment-5492</link>
		<dc:creator>JB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:56:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanbabcock.com/2008/02/01/with-requirements-discussions-matter-most/#comment-5492</guid>
		<description>Welcome to the blog, and thanks for the comment, Mike.  
 
A card system veteran, eh? That&#039;s great. We have several guys around the office that tell stories of the coding sheets and punch cards.. Typically the stories involve dropping a stack of ordered cards or some other nightmare, and are always accompanied by the 5 mile walk to work - in waist deep snow - uphill both ways..... :) 
 
The &quot;old-school waterfall&quot; as you describe it may well be in danger, but I think that there will always be a place for the heavier, more document-centric methodologies. Regulated industries, distributed teams, large (or multiple) development organizations, and business stakeholders that are difficult to get time with, for example, are all factors that seem to push an organization toward a more traditional methodology as opposed to the &quot;Agile&quot; methodologies that are all the rage right now.  
 
And if you want to head up the &quot;Waterfall Preservation Society&quot; I&#039;ll pitch in a buck. Almost sounds like an environmental concern, doesn&#039;t it? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome to the blog, and thanks for the comment, Mike.  </p>
<p>A card system veteran, eh? That&#039;s great. We have several guys around the office that tell stories of the coding sheets and punch cards.. Typically the stories involve dropping a stack of ordered cards or some other nightmare, and are always accompanied by the 5 mile walk to work &#8211; in waist deep snow &#8211; uphill both ways&#8230;.. <img src='http://practicalanalyst.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  </p>
<p>The &quot;old-school waterfall&quot; as you describe it may well be in danger, but I think that there will always be a place for the heavier, more document-centric methodologies. Regulated industries, distributed teams, large (or multiple) development organizations, and business stakeholders that are difficult to get time with, for example, are all factors that seem to push an organization toward a more traditional methodology as opposed to the &quot;Agile&quot; methodologies that are all the rage right now.  </p>
<p>And if you want to head up the &quot;Waterfall Preservation Society&quot; I&#039;ll pitch in a buck. Almost sounds like an environmental concern, doesn&#039;t it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Allen</title>
		<link>http://practicalanalyst.com/2008/02/01/with-requirements-discussions-matter-most/comment-page-1/#comment-5488</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Allen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:48:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanbabcock.com/2008/02/01/with-requirements-discussions-matter-most/#comment-5488</guid>
		<description>An interesting article, recently I have come to think that the Waterfall method has become an endangered methodology and has been for some time. I don&#039;t agree with Bill&#039;s comment about project management office, mainly because I&#039;ve worked in them, and it was always collaborative; although I do sometimes wonder if outsourcing can cause  Waterfall. 
 
I&#039;ve been in the IT development business for far to long and most of my  projects have been &#039;staged&#039; where you do a bit, review a bit, deliver a bit and work in teams. The only real old-school Waterfall was back in the days when the analyst wrote a spec, I coded (using a pencil) onto coding sheets, which were then punched to card etc. Batch processes lend themselves to waterfall development, although it&#039;s not compulsory! 
 
Anyway if Waterfall is endangered, we should establish the environment that it thrives in so that we may preserve this cultural icon and oddity. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An interesting article, recently I have come to think that the Waterfall method has become an endangered methodology and has been for some time. I don&#039;t agree with Bill&#039;s comment about project management office, mainly because I&#039;ve worked in them, and it was always collaborative; although I do sometimes wonder if outsourcing can cause  Waterfall. </p>
<p>I&#039;ve been in the IT development business for far to long and most of my  projects have been &#039;staged&#039; where you do a bit, review a bit, deliver a bit and work in teams. The only real old-school Waterfall was back in the days when the analyst wrote a spec, I coded (using a pencil) onto coding sheets, which were then punched to card etc. Batch processes lend themselves to waterfall development, although it&#039;s not compulsory! </p>
<p>Anyway if Waterfall is endangered, we should establish the environment that it thrives in so that we may preserve this cultural icon and oddity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Morgan</title>
		<link>http://practicalanalyst.com/2008/02/01/with-requirements-discussions-matter-most/comment-page-1/#comment-659</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Morgan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:21:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanbabcock.com/2008/02/01/with-requirements-discussions-matter-most/#comment-659</guid>
		<description>This is a fantastic article.  Waterfall is becoming old-school, and the requirements development profession is evolving to meet the needs of an iterative/AGILE approach.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a fantastic article.  Waterfall is becoming old-school, and the requirements development profession is evolving to meet the needs of an iterative/AGILE approach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill</title>
		<link>http://practicalanalyst.com/2008/02/01/with-requirements-discussions-matter-most/comment-page-1/#comment-643</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:26:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanbabcock.com/2008/02/01/with-requirements-discussions-matter-most/#comment-643</guid>
		<description>I believe much of this behavior is a consequence of the project management office and the sharp division of concerns that the industry has morphed into. Everyone becomes narrowly concerned about their own focused function, but for a team to work well there needs to be tremendous overlap of concern.  That&#039;s the foundation of teamwork.

For most of my career I worked on projects where all the cross functional team members were direct reports to the development manager.  We never experienced these problems. There was always a lot of collaboration on these teams more than i&#039;ve ever seen in PMO organized projects.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe much of this behavior is a consequence of the project management office and the sharp division of concerns that the industry has morphed into. Everyone becomes narrowly concerned about their own focused function, but for a team to work well there needs to be tremendous overlap of concern.  That&#8217;s the foundation of teamwork.</p>
<p>For most of my career I worked on projects where all the cross functional team members were direct reports to the development manager.  We never experienced these problems. There was always a lot of collaboration on these teams more than i&#8217;ve ever seen in PMO organized projects.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Sehlhorst</title>
		<link>http://practicalanalyst.com/2008/02/01/with-requirements-discussions-matter-most/comment-page-1/#comment-618</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Sehlhorst</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:56:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanbabcock.com/2008/02/01/with-requirements-discussions-matter-most/#comment-618</guid>
		<description>Great article.  I am about to kick off the requirements for a business capability that has a pretty narrow scope and an &quot;agile feel&quot; in a waterfall world.  I&#039;ll definitely do the quick-iteration approach you outline for cycling between implementation teams and principal / end-user stakeholders.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article.  I am about to kick off the requirements for a business capability that has a pretty narrow scope and an &#8220;agile feel&#8221; in a waterfall world.  I&#8217;ll definitely do the quick-iteration approach you outline for cycling between implementation teams and principal / end-user stakeholders.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
