Still, "Analyze until Completion" doesn't need to be couched in fancy new-age terms that someone will get paid to teach everyone ..
The "analyze" worldview assumes that the easiest and most accurate format for the output of an "analyze" process is some natural language text and maybe diagrams and a powerpoint or two. What if the friction of authoring software was reduced to the point that the easiest output of "analyze" was .. working software?
The absolute extreme example of this is of course SpaceX: classical control systems theory can't quite deliver a hoverslam landing that works first time, so they had to iterate by crashing rockets.
Well, the software world is certainly working hard - on one side - to reasonably attain this goal, while another big portion of it actively resists this advancement in human social services, such that it represents.
Perhaps that is the key thing to all of this: "Until all of us are using waterfall, many of us will have a hard time using waterfall." I'm not sure I like where this leads, so I'll just agree with you that sometimes you just have to crash rockets.
> "Until all of us are using waterfall, many of us will have a hard time using waterfall.
Now you've lost me, I've no idea what you're talking about with the first statement and the latter just sounds like cultism? People have valid reasons for iterative processes!
So its really more of a self-fulfilling prophecy situation, and yes in that regard, we are in a cult.
Bad software fails to deliver on the social promise. As does any particularly bad political philosophy.
Is that common in the software start-up world?
If so, I can see how you'd need Agile processes, just to keep your VCs from heading to your offices with torches and pitchforks.