4 ms·

Exception, not the rule. > So your theory that waterfall always works considerably better is demonstrably false. Uhmm, no? You pointed to a single building an

• wpietri 8y ago
  You claimed that waterfall worked considerably better. I am offering you proof that it doesn't. Your one example is a store in a mall that you spent 30 minutes discussing. My example is the Empire State Building, which a process expert spent significant time researching. I'm open to the notion that waterfall processes work well somewhere. But my experience is generally that person in industry A says, "Oh, it really works in industry B." When I talk to somebody in industry B, they say, "Oh, I'm sure it works better in industry C." (Or, often, "industry A".) Your theory seems to be that the fact that waterfall is the now-dominant paradigm means it must be good. That was the theory in software, and still often is, despite theoretical and practical demonstrations otherwise. So it shouldn't be inconceivable that it dominates in other industries even though it doesn't work well there either.