3 ms·

"Big Design Up Front never works" Seems to work for NASA and others doing way more complex projects than I am .

by collyw 10y ago

monodeldiablo 10y ago
They have much larger budgets and tighter tolerances than all but a few domains. Nevertheless, their approach is more modular than you think. They do a lot of designing to interfaces, especially where the necessary tech doesn't currently exist. EDIT: Forgot to mention how little engineering (relatively speaking) NASA does these days. They farm a lot of projects and sub-projects out to contractors, devoting most of their engineering expertise to the requirements phase. Now imagine if your clients spent that kind of time communicating upfront! Software would be a lot better across the board.
pjc50 10y ago
And yet people praise SpaceX for doing much better and cheaper with their iterative refinement. BDUF can work if you have a single organisation with a single stable set of requirements that's reasonably compact. The Kennedy "man on the moon" speech was such an example. Where it falls down is trying to meet the needs to the 7 billion distinct human individuals, which are inevitably vague and shifting and change in response to publication of software.
- braveo 10y ago
  SpaceX also doesn't have the track record NASA does, and cannot be compared. In 50 years when they've been working alongside each other, maybe, but not right now.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    NASA has also used iterative refinement in the past.
gozur88 10y ago
But the cost is enormous and flexibility nonexistent.
pif 10y ago
In general, it works if you decide what you want before starting the development. I'm not talking about knowing what you want: I'm talking about deciding what you want. Much like buying a car: no way you can think to all the possible detailed preferences of yours before choosing a new car, but when you sign the check you are voluntarily giving up any further discussion.

"Big Design Up Front never works" Seems to work for NASA and others doing way more complex projects than I am .

by collyw 10y ago

"Big Design Up Front never works" Seems to work for NASA and others doing way more complex projects than I am .

They have much larger budgets and tighter tolerances than all but a few domains. Nevertheless, their approach is more modular than you think. They do a lot of designing to interfaces, especially where the necessary tech doesn't currently exist. EDIT: Forgot to mention how little engineering (relatively speaking) NASA does these days. They farm a lot of projects and sub-projects out to contractors, devoting most of their engineering expertise to the requirements phase. Now imagine if your clients spent that kind of time communicating upfront! Software would be a lot better across the board.

pjc50 10y ago

And yet people praise SpaceX for doing much better and cheaper with their iterative refinement. BDUF can work if you have a single organisation with a single stable set of requirements that's reasonably compact. The Kennedy "man on the moon" speech was such an example. Where it falls down is trying to meet the needs to the 7 billion distinct human individuals, which are inevitably vague and shifting and change in response to publication of software.

braveo 10y ago
SpaceX also doesn't have the track record NASA does, and cannot be compared. In 50 years when they've been working alongside each other, maybe, but not right now.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  NASA has also used iterative refinement in the past.

gozur88 10y ago

But the cost is enormous and flexibility nonexistent.

pif 10y ago

In general, it works if you decide what you want before starting the development. I'm not talking about knowing what you want: I'm talking about deciding what you want. Much like buying a car: no way you can think to all the possible detailed preferences of yours before choosing a new car, but when you sign the check you are voluntarily giving up any further discussion.