At the very least, I think it's common to judge methodologies by "how well does it work when it's done right?", when we should be using a three-part test. 1. H

At the very least, I think it's common to judge methodologies by "how well does it work when it's done right?", when we should be using a three-part test. 1. How much value is there if it goes right? 2. How easy it is to get right? 3. How gracefully will it break down if it's not done perfectly? Methodologies don't have to shine on 2 or 3. NASA-style clean-room coding is the gold standard of hard-but-effective; you have to suck it up and commit entirely with a great team, but the results are unbeatable. Waterfall was "good, bad, bad", but used by lots of less-exceptional teams with hideous results. Agile, I think, improved #3, but not #2 so much. It's commonly sold by appealing to how much it can potentially help, but I think the more honest pitch is "it's tough to do right and it'll sting if we get it wrong, but it hurts a lot less than getting waterfall wrong."