In four words you managed to perfectly encapsulate the problem I have with so much writing about development processes and tools.
It's not good enough to claim to be just incrementally better than what you're probably doing, you need to be the best most super awesome EXTREME thing ever!
The 1-star reviews roughly fall in three categories:
- This is not how proper projects are done.
- We don't need another cult-like methodology
- This will vindicate cow boy coders
The real problem with cowboy coding is getting to version 2 (or maybe 1.1). But it should be stated that at least if you've got a successful version 1 you have most of a solid design to start with.
Interestingly, most development methodologies seem to be mainly concerned with getting to version 1 and not with producing a maintainable product or getting a successful but unmaintainable version 1 and evolving it into a maintainable version 3 (say).
The obvious exception is the Software Process Maturity Model or whatever the frack it's called today, which is enormously concerned with maintainability to the point of making initial development (or indeed almost anything outside of pure engineering environments) virtually impossible.
In all seriousness, yes, different methodologies are certainly good for different organizations and different projects, and you're right that cowboy coding is effective at getting things done. I've definitely seen organizations that weren't well-suited to traditional methodologies get mired in documentation and fail to get anything out of alpha. Whatever approach you choose, just don't follow it straight off a cliff.