Talk:Feature-driven development

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Method engineering, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Method engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Method engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Method engineeringMethod engineering articles

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

POV

Is it just me, or does this article (and the introduction in particular) sound far too laudatory and gushing? --maru (talk) contribs 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For me, this reads like an advertising blurb for the company that calls itself Feature Driven Development. DrHow (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that something all the methodology pages suffer to some extent? Jdmarshall 22:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any particular phrases of concern? Perhaps these can be tuned. 81.200.225.99 (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question is whether this method should really belong to the family of agile methods - its more of a cut down traditional method than an agile manifesto type approach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjeremyrose (talk • contribs) 11:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although Agile software development practices have been evolving over the last decade, as one of the earlier Agile fameworks (and still in use) this is still recognized as an Agile methodology. Development by feature is now a common recommendation when scaling the Scrum methodology for example. Some parts of FDD conflict with other Agile methodologies (e.g. code ownership) and FDD does have a much heavier emphasis on design however the ethos and fundamental practices are aligned. In situations where significant cross-organizational scaling is required with highly complex interdependent applications, some experienced agile teams have found the design emphasis in FDD to be a better fit than (for example) Scrum & XP. 81.200.225.99 (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as close enough to be part of any Agile discussion. This clearly belongs within the history of Agile manifesto's actual implementations. This technique's description needs to be preserved even if it falls out of favor. I would take the more inclusive approach and attempt to map backwards in time seeking all the paths of history that come together as Agile. I would also branch outward from Agile to scrap up any bits of information to know the successful and yet to be determined routes to the future. This will serve as a basis for the eventual reconstruction or replacement of Agile later. Johnswolter (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tables...?

The article references Tables 2 and 3... only Table 1 is actually on the page. 134.173.60.9 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tables 2 & 3 are currently displayed after the references. Although it's not natural for many casual readers to read that far down they are there. They're pretty big - where should these normally go? 81.200.225.99 (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Testing ?

The article isn't clear on when and how human testing takes place. If the features could take two weeks to develop, then is testing always lagging behind in subsequent development cycles? With scrum, the tendency is break work down into sub-features that take 2 *days* to develop, meaning that they can be tested and reviewed by the PO within the same development cycle. Non/less-iterative processes tend to do some/all of the development, followed by doing some/all of the testing. It would be helpful for someone who knows FDD to address this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.34.79 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feature-driven development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102073447/http://www.bettersoftwarefaster.com/index.htm to http://www.bettersoftwarefaster.com/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB regarding Luca's site

It is listed in the outside links. We do not need to name drop it in every single section of the article. I have removed the sentences that do. If it needs to be referenced more properly take it from there. HRouillier (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feature-driven development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220235300/http://www.techexcel.com/solutions/alm/fdd.html to http://www.techexcel.com/solutions/alm/fdd.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]