Maybe…after the comment by Tzvika, I thought about the chess analogy even more, and the interesting thing about chess is that it is dynamic, yet as the play progresses, except for maybe the elite chess players, the upfront analysis increases before moving.

I believe the chess analogy makes the case for upfront analysis even greater. In the middle of a game is when I’m finding I’m thinking and analyzing even more before moving. If I don’t, losing is a near certainty.

I agree with Bill that FreeCell offers a more relevant analogy than chess in the sense that once you know the patterns you can guarantee a win.

I’m noticing more and more IT organizations these days implementing both predictive and adaptive processes so that they will be well prepared to handle all classes of problems. I think that’s wise.

I like the idea of Chess as another analogy. When I first thought of the FreeCell analogy, I began to think of others, and Chess was one of them. I chose to stick with the FreeCell analogy because of the certainty of winning.

However, your comment made me rethink using chess as analogy. There are a few good points it brings out:

One is that the play evolves depending on the moves your opponent makes, yet if you want to win, you still need to analyze every move well. It refutes the idea that deep analysis is ineffective in a world of changing requirements. In chess, out thinking your opponent is part of the analysis, even though you cannot predict what move he’ll make next.

Also, Chess and even FreeCell, analysis requires less time with more experience and skill. The idea that analysis and design can be paralyzingly lengthy in software is a reflection on the quality of the people rather than a reflection of an inherent attribute of analysis and design; talented people with good experience develop great designs quickly just as in chess and freecell where your play speed improves with experience and skill.