I disagree with the contention that requirements always change. I see it as a euphemism used to excuse laziness in gathering requirements.

Yes and no.

I have never worked on a complex project where requirements didn't change either due to regulatory changes (the IRS puts out additional reporting requirements for example), other technological changes (cost of gene sequencing goes way down so quantity of data goes way up), or business changes ("we want to get into a new market"). These are real requirement changes and they happen.

But part of my point is that on the other hand, people use this as an excuse for laziness in design. Yes, requirements will change. No, you can't always foresee how. But you can with some experience have at least some idea which parts of your project are most likely to be most affected.

If you pay attention to that question then you can make sure that when requirements change (and they will) that the need to re-architect the software is limited because many components are as you described -- technically limited, bounded in responsibility, there to solve a well defined problem.

If there is disagreement here it is with the word "completely." There are all kinds of design decisions one makes while coding and so completion of the design process is only possible at that point (and probably not set in stone until after the initial *testing* process if we are not afraid to go back and revisit decisions). The interfaces will be completely defined but the internals may not be before the coding process begins (this is what I call "work ownership"). Otherwise you have already done your coding....

So what I am arguing is that small teams with defined responsibilities are best equipped to design, develop, and test their own small pieces as deliverables to other teams. I don't actually think we are in substantive disagreement, just quibbling about a few words here and there.

In reply to Re^4: Beyond Agile: Subsidiarity as a Team and Software Design Principle by einhverfr
in thread Beyond Agile: Subsidiarity as a Team and Software Design Principle by einhverfr

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.