> Both (1) and (2) are factually wrong. You are factually wrong because you know only the status quo that emerged from that crisis. > Projects running over-bu

> Both (1) and (2) are factually wrong. You are factually wrong because you know only the status quo that emerged from that crisis. > Projects running over-budge, over-time, often not meet requirements etc, are not a crisis in the actual meaning of the world. > It's just a normal state of affairs. To you it is. To the people in the 1960s, it wasn't. Because they had previously experienced a state where the hardware imposed such drastical limits on the possible size and complexity of software that each programmer working on a project could intimately know and understand every piece of code in it and the requirements that influenced it. The change from that to one where programmers understand only part of a project is absolutely fundamental and completely changes the way you have to work to achieve your goals. Now your project will fail if you cannot manage and divide-and-conquer its complexity in some way.