I find your comparison with engineers interesting. There is rigorous work on 'which agile methodology delivers most benefit' or 'what is the best way to archite

I find your comparison with engineers interesting. There is rigorous work on 'which agile methodology delivers most benefit' or 'what is the best way to architect a system', but largely that stays in academia. I don't think many programmers refer to high quality studies when choosing to do extreme programming over scrum. The reason for that is the complexity and uniqueness of projects (Does that study at IBM really apply to my small company? If this is a good way for NASA to make hardware, is it a good way to design android aps?). But also because engineers are focused on doing a job using a body of knowledge they draw from school, experience, and a bit of reading. They are not academic engineers. This is probably a good thing. Similarly, I think doctors are not academic researchers. They apply treatment algorithms, bending them to the patients specific situation is so far as won't get them sued. If the algorithm doesn't say EEG, then why would they believe they know better than the professors that signed off on it? If the insurer requires a diagnosis, they will look in the DSM and find something they could justify at an inquest. Then they will treat the diagnosis, according to the algorithm, fitted to the patient. I think doctoring has more defined procedures than engineering. These are not academics, and I think expecting them to be is based on an assumption that 'dr means phd'. It doesn't for medical people.