If by "normative" you mean "unlikely to succeed", I'd agree. But I'm not. "Normative" (I assume, in the absence of any definition) means "how things are normally done." Oh that they were. The reasons for failure in most organisations is that they don't take a pragmatic approach to analysis, which always starts with understanding the requirements. In fact that approach is usually the one taken after the Musk approach of 'doing it wrong ' until you have no choice but to do it right. Musk's approach to his Mars trip is a good example: the only way to get a colony ship to Mars is probably to build it in space because otherwise the weight would make it require a thrust that would damage the part of the planet it leaves from and so much cash it would bankrupt said planet. Face it: in practical terms the man is an idiot and most of what he's done is poor/someone else's work. Even the method you document is a (poor) version of the agile method. I'm not debating your other points, the man is a menace. One of the things that makes him a menace is lying about his skills and methodology.