Clear requirements are needed regardless of methodology. The simpler (briefer) the requirements, the more likely to be understood and followed. Iterative development processes can leverage more concise (and thus clearer) requirements
> One standout statistic was that projects with clear requirements documented before development started were 97 percent more likely to succeed.
Also, if a project doesnt have requirements, how can it either fail or succeed?
EDIT: agile is one type of iterative, and iterative exists in contrast to waterfall. go ahead flame away :)
I can count on one hand the number of "agile" projects I've seen that were actually iterative, regardless of what the manifesto says. It would be a mistake to confuse what this article is talking about (projects that profess to be agile) with anything based on small, self-organizing teams.
> One standout statistic was that projects with clear requirements documented before development started were 97 percent more likely to succeed.
Also, if a project doesnt have requirements, how can it either fail or succeed?
EDIT: agile is one type of iterative, and iterative exists in contrast to waterfall. go ahead flame away :)