TL;DR some perennial software methodology consultants have come up with a base class for software methodologies.
It seems suspiciously like it has the usual properties of post-facto defined base classes i.e. arbitrary and fragile. But I could be wrong.
BTW if you found equating physics to marking stakeholder-ness out of 6 hard to swallow, you might struggle with "Major-league SEMAT". It reads a bit like an outline for the next Scott Adams book.
It seems suspiciously like it has the usual properties of post-facto defined base classes i.e. arbitrary and fragile. But I could be wrong.
BTW if you found equating physics to marking stakeholder-ness out of 6 hard to swallow, you might struggle with "Major-league SEMAT". It reads a bit like an outline for the next Scott Adams book.