| Grand Design | Incremental | Evolutionary | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk Item (reasons against this strategy) | Risk Level | Risk Item (reasons against this strategy) | Risk Level | Risk Item (reasons against this strategy) | Risk Level |
| Requirements are not well understood | H | Requirements are not well understood | H | ||
| System too large to do all at once | M | User prefers all capabilities at first delivery | M | User prefers all capabilities at first delivery | M |
| Rapid changes in mission technology anticipated - may change the requirements | H | Rapid changes in mission technology anticipated - may change the requirements | H | ||
| Limited staff or budget available now | M | ||||
| Opportunity Item (Reasons to use this strategy) | Opp. Level | Opportunity Item (Reasons to use this strategy) | Opp. Level | Opportunity Item (Reasons to use this strategy) | Opp. Level |
| User prefers all capabilities at first delivery | M | Early capability is needed | H | Early capability is needed | H |
| User prefers to phase out old system all at once | L | System breaks naturally into increments | M | System breaks naturally into increments | M |
| Funding/staffing will be inremental | H | Funding/staffing will be inremental | H | ||
| User feedback and monitoring of technology changes is needed to understand full requirements | H | ||||
| DECISION: USE THIS STRATEGY | |||||
Translator: Simon Wright simon@pogner.demon.co.uk
Last updated: 22.iii.99