Does reducing the amount of up front design encourage a cleaner, more supple application design?
My little (ongoing) project, the car maintenance reminder app, is a good example of how designing for one feature at a time encourages a highly extendable code base. Since the amount of time I can spend on it is highly variable, I am not able to plan sprints. So, I merely tackle each item on the backlog as they come. Once I'm happy with the feature, I release it. In a more usual agile development environment it is fairly inefficient to release software each time a feature is completed. There is usually a fair amount of process involved. In my case however, not having paying customers, or customers at all for that matter, means I'm pretty much free to take risk. I don't need the release rigor.
Anyway, back to suppleness I noticed that adding a new feature meant fully re-examining the system design as a whole. Talk about reducing the cognitive load! I only had to ensure that 1 new feature could be integrated with the current model. If it couldn't, I would look at what needed to be added or changed to make it work. Re-examining the design helped me look at awkward areas and forced me to think about them over and over. In the beginning the design refactoring took longer than the changes to add the feature. I swear that this ratio changed as the model built up however. At the moment the model is extremely extendible and I have a collection of 'patterns' that I have used throughout the system that I can draw upon for new features. I have not created frameworks, I have common code and patterns but no frameworks!
My experience with carcarecalendar.com does not match my experience on real projects with budgets and ROI. Corporations are very concerned about risk these days. Planning is still the favourite for risk mitigation. I think planning is good as a communication tool. It is very considerate to inform people that they will be needed to do some work for you, in advance, and preferably with a time frame. I dislike 'emergency' panic situations that come out of bad planning. It is not this type of planning that I question. It is system architecture and design. My aging brain is having more and more difficulty remembering, and grasping massive and intricate systems (or I just don't care so much anymore). I am more capable and successful at designing for a handful of needs than a multitude. Using 100 requirements to accurately design a system is just not possible.
But lack of planning means risk, doesn't it? If we can plan, we must plan. And system design is planning. I would suggest that the only 'planning' exercise that is worth pursuing is proof of concept type stuff. Where you're breaking new ground. Everything else is just project manager CYA.
UML should be used to describe a design as it exists at a certain point in time, not as a way to plan creation of software, but to tell the story of already functioning code. By the way if you like UML, try StarUML it's much better than Rose or Visio (it doesn't beat a white board though).
Design as You Go
So dispense with the docs and pictures, keep things thin. Nobody wants to read that stuff, and anyway software never turns out as designed. Stop wasting time doing stuff you hate and start building, your software will be softer, your customers will be happier and you will be too.