Talk:Dynamic Systems Development Method

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

81.146.43.237 16:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Method engineering.
	Please note that the use of Wikipedia to host this project has been questioned. Please read this discussion and, if you wish, contribute your thoughts there.

Contents 1 Image 2 what? 3 Illegible diagrams 4 Meaning of MOSCOW 5 Buzzword removal efforts 6 Overall flow of Method under-described?

[edit] Image

The key image referred to in the text is missing 213.86.200.19 15:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC) James@doctor-it.co.uk

The image is now there, but completely illegible, whether viewed in a web browser or MS Photo Editor. Mattmm 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what?

What is "([The Deane], Wizdeane Corporation)" that I was finding in the article? RJFJR 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illegible diagrams

The two diagrams in the article are both unreadable. Can someone upload clearer versions of these (assuming the copyright situation is ok, of course). Otherwise I think we should remove them from the article. Stumps 15:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the diagrams are VERY DIFFICULT to read and that the original poster should realize that this gives a substantial negative impression to casual users of the entire subject. In spite of their poor quality, they should not be removed until replacements arrive. Actually, the fact that it is even possible to create illegible diagrams may mean that they are too complicated to begin with. I doubt the DSDM elders are listening though... 169.229.200.176 (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of MOSCOW

From experience I prefer the meaning "Won't have this time" (i.e. this Iteration) - it's more useful than 'Would' as it helps get agreement on what to leave out--81.146.43.237 16:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC) GBAC 10/1/06

I don't know if this is too much of a nit-pick or not. It seems to me that the phrase "MoSCoW approach," as it's first introduced in the "Phase 2: The Project life-cycle" section, is not actually an approach. It's a mnemonic for the categorization of requirements. And in general why relegate the definition of MoSCoW (as well as all the other "Core Techniques,") to a separate section? That's prime time stuff, part of what defines the actions in the various phases. I'd say include those techniques where they're first used, then link to the first use in the other places the technique is used. (As a side note, technique isn't the right description of MoSCoW either, I think.) As I stated below, I'm not qualified to make these edits, as someone learning about this topic from the article, but it seems like something that would improve the article. BenODen (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buzzword removal efforts

To cleanse this article of its buzzwords would sterilize beyond usability, so I would recommend removing only those which lay persons in a boardroom might understand. I move to supplant the word "baseline" as the first candidate, and relegate it to parenthesis. Any other candidates? N8mills (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just coming by as a reader trying to learn what DSDM is all about, I concur with the concern about buzzwords. One example in is in the topic summary in the Principles section:

There are 9 underlying principles consisting of four foundations and five starting-points.

It's not clear to me that Principles means the same thing that is usually does. Are they "Principles of Design" or "Principles of Development" or what? The word principles usually needs a category to be meaningful. In addition, the section on principles doesn't describe how foundations and starting points are different. I would argue against simply removing the buzzwords and argue that turning them into terminology by defining the buzzwords instead of just dropping them as words that "any dummy should know." An encyclopedia article should define any terms that are not general knowledge for the target audience, in this case, software developers. I have no expertise to do this, but some editor of the wikipedia does. BenODen (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I guess I neglected to say that my perspective on the buzzword complaint is that it's is really about undefined jargon rather than about buzzword use. BenODen (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overall flow of Method under-described?

It seems like for all the details given, this article doesn't actually describe how a prototype in the development section becomes an actual product to be implemented in the Implementation phase. There are certainly some things beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article, but simply implying that the prototype magically becomes part of the project without spending any time on it seems odd. A prototype is usually an incomplete implementation, a step above a proof of concept, so fleshing it out and integrating a prototype into the main product seems like a step that could take some time and should be at least mentioned in the method.

Is this vague transition from prototype to product just a weakness of this particular article on the subject or is it a general weakness of the Method? BenODen (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)