Talk:Dynamic systems development method

message: A new version was published in 2014.
1. This page needs updating with any changes (not many)
2. A significant re-positioning 'upwards' as a project management framework 'above' Scrum and positioned alongside other large corporate frameworks (e.g. PRINCE2, MSP, ITIL).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BWernham (talk • contribs) 07:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: New Version

message: The key image referred to in the text is missing 213.86.200.19 15:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is now there, but completely illegible, whether viewed in a web browser or MS Photo Editor. Mattmm 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: What is "([The Deane], Wizdeane Corporation)" that I was finding in the article? RJFJR 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: what?

message: The two diagrams in the article are both unreadable.  Can someone upload clearer versions of these (assuming the copyright situation is ok, of course).  Otherwise I think we should remove them from the article. Stumps 15:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegible diagrams 

message: The W in MoSCoW is for "Won't" not "Would". It is often written as Would since people get carried away saying "could have", "should have", "would have".   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.143.253 (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of MOSCOW 

message: To cleanse this article of its buzzwords would sterilize beyond usability, so I would recommend removing only those which lay persons in a boardroom might understand.  I move to supplant the word "baseline" as the first candidate, and relegate it to parenthesis.  Any other candidates? N8mills (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Buzzword removal efforts

message: It seems like for all the details given, this article doesn't actually describe how a prototype in the development section becomes an actual product to be implemented in the Implementation phase.  There are certainly some things beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article, but simply implying that the prototype magically becomes part of the project without spending any time on it seems odd.  A prototype is usually an incomplete implementation, a step above a proof of concept, so fleshing it out and integrating a prototype into the main product seems like a step that could take some time and should be at least mentioned in the method.  
Is this vague transition from prototype to product just a weakness of this particular article on the subject or is it a general weakness of the Method?  BenODen (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall flow of Method under-described? 

message: The transition from prototype to product is seen as one of the key strengths of the Method.  However, it is true that this isn't reflected well in the article.  I believe that part of the problem lies with the original DSDM 4.2 text.
* The phrase 'Design and Build Iteration' is misleading because of the way in which the term 'iteration' has evolved.  As reflected in the Agile software development article the words "iteration" and "timebox" have become synonymous.
** In DSDM 4.2 the two words had different meanings.  (For example it includes phrases such as "The rest of this section covers the development (or prototyping) timeboxes that are run throughout the Functional Model Iteration and Design and Build Iteration phases."   See page 134 of DSDM 4.2)
** Atern defines "exploration" and "engineering" phases.  See page 52 of DSDM Atern.
* The word 'Prototype' is confusing.  While it may begin as a prototype it will be continuously developed until it is the finished product.
** In DSDM 4.2 the design prototype is defined as "an interim product that addresses technical issues not covered during Functional Model Iteration activities. It is a part of what will become the Tested System."  (Page 92)
** DSDM Atern uses the term "evolving solution" which is defined a "all appropriate components of the final solution and any intermediate deliverable necessary".
In the above:
* DSDM 4.2 refers to the document found at http://intra.iam.hva.nl/content/0708/propedeuse/ontwikkelmethoden_en_technieken//intro-en-materiaal/DSDM.pdf
* DSDM Atern refers to the eBook found at http://www.dsdm.org/atern-handbook/flash.html
Would it be a good idea to end the confusion and update the whole article to only reflect DSDM Atern?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged Byrne (talk • contribs) 12:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Prototype is the Evolving Solution being developed iteratively 

message: A user seems to have removed a HUGE amount of content, and replaced it with text which appears to be culled from the source of another site (the font tags are still present!). I suggest that this is not the proper way to edit an article, and that any changes should be worked into the existing article if at all possible, and that such large changes should not be made without discussion.
The current article is not at all encyclopedic (it reads more like marketing prose), is completely un-cited and has questionable origin - if the person who put it on Wikipedia did just take it from viewing the source on another site it may be a copyright violation displaying it here. It also suffers from a severe visual layout issue. For these reasons it must be changed.
I do not have a thorough understanding of the subject so am loathed to make such sweeping changes as to reinstate the older version of the article. Can someone who can speak authoritatively on the subject lend their expertise.
* To be clear, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dynamic_Systems_Development_Method&diff=259523726&oldid=259418883 is the change I'm disputing. 81.97.210.186 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where has the content gone? 

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: The author talks about FIVE STAGES of project life cycle in the introduction but then, in the corresponding section ,even the title, describes FOUR, although the business study is present inside stage 1A.
I've promoted the business study to stage 1B, just in case.
Vgiralt (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stage number inconsistency 

message: I think "dynamic systems development method" is a common name not a proper name and therefore should not be capitalized. I know it is accepted practice in the industry to capitalize terms especially when they are normally identified by acronym but in Wikipedia capitalization is used only for proper names. Jojalozzo 23:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Dynamic Systems Development Method a proper name? 

message: I removed a great deal of unreferenced material that paralleled the DSDM manual contents. (There is still more, but by removing all unreferenced material the article would have become virtually contentless.) The article should be about DSDM but should not be a copy of what is in the DSDM documentation. If there are sources that discuss DSDM, especially as to how it differs from other agile products, those would be a good addition to this article. However, the DSDM documentation itself is not a reliable source of information except for minor facts. LaMona (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a manual 

message: Various comments have highlighted new versions - in addition, given that the method/framework is no longer referred to as Dynamic systems development method but DSDM and generally books on the matter seem to either use DSDM alone (sometimes with a version name like Atern or Agile Project Framework) or both DSDM and the original, full version;  is it better to rename this article as DSDM and ensure the original name is described appropriately?  Pstansbu (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title