"In what follows I’m assuming that we’re talking about a project rather than merely a production line for rolling out bug fixes and features. In the latter case

"In what follows I’m assuming that we’re talking about a project rather than merely a production line for rolling out bug fixes and features. In the latter case you can use Agile tools like Scrum to deliver code incrementally, and come to no great harm. In talking of a ‘project’ however, I’m thinking of a larger program of work in which an entire solution has to be designed and delivered, (more or less) complete. Such projects have distinct beginning, middle and end phases, all of which must complete successfully if the project is to succeed." This doesn't make any sense and is contradictory. It seems you admit that Agile works for "Rolling out bug fixes and features" and to "deliver code incrementally" without "coming to great harm". Then you say that this is somehow different from "an entire solution [that has to be] designed and delivered". What precludes "an entire solution" from being developed in an Agile fashion? Presumably, agile would be to build out the skeleton, and incrementally add small working features over time in increments such that at the end, you had working software that was what you wanted. You'd put your skeleton it into beta use as soon as possible once it provides any value, and get frequent feedback to iterate.