Timeline for Is it a fallacy to say that system migrations don't suit an agile methodology as the requirements are known up front?

4 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Jun 19, 2017 at 18:11	comment	added	John Wu		I'm well aware of Brooke's law, but I would suggest it has limited applicability in many migration projects, where the type of software development is different from projects where you are actually building an application. And yes, you did mention waterfall, implicitly, by suggesting that all methodologies that are not agile have no ability to adjust their plan (waterfall is a methodology, and is not agile, and is therefore a member of that set). I am pointing out that they can adjust, even if the way they do it isn't very good.
Jun 19, 2017 at 11:45	comment	added	binskits		I recommend reading the Mythical Man Month. It outlines how "staffing up" is an unsuitable reaction to a change in requirements. Also note that I said nothing about waterfall.
Jun 17, 2017 at 7:09	comment	added	John Wu		Waterfall has different ways of adjusting to changes. In Agile you reject any requirements you cannot meet in the iteration; you don't really add staff. In waterfall you are more likely to staff up in response to unforeseen problems. Nobody likes it, but sometimes a migration has a fixed date, e.g. if the software you are abandoning has a license fee and would cost millions of dollars if you went another year, or if you are in danger of losing your compliance.
Jun 17, 2017 at 2:17	history	answered	binskits	CC BY-SA 3.0