None of the other IID methods covered emphasize weekly evolutionary delivery, and related Evo project management measurement.
Evo + Scrum
Most Scrum practices are compatible with Evo. The Scrum meeting, common project room, and demos to external stakeholders at the end of each iteration enhance Evo's feedback goals. The Scrum backlog and progress tracking approaches are also applicable additions. Scrum does not discuss specific specification methods, and thus Evo's Planguage is still applicable.
Evo's measurement emphasis is compatible; indeed, Jeff Sutherland, one of the Scrum creators, takes a strong interest in measurement when applying Scrum.
Scrum's unchanging 30-day iteration length is not consistent with Evo Evo iterations are usually shorter.
Evo + UP
The UP is especially for software development, and usually for projects involving multiple iterations before production delivery. Consequently, the UP could be applied to Evo backroom development work. However, Evo's evolutionary delivery and project management styles are not exactly in the same spirit as the UP, although both share an interest in early identification and mitigation of risks.
The UP has its own set of workproducts and approach to requirements capture: the Use-Case model (and thus, use cases), and Supplementary Specification for description of functions, features, and non-functional requirements. Evo Planguage elements, such as the Performance Requirement Specification, may be used within the UP Supplementary Specification.
Evo's measurement emphasis is compatible or acceptable with the UP.
The upper bound of UP's 2 6 week iteration length is not consistent with Evo too long.
Evo + XP
XP values and spirit regarding specifications are not exactly compatible with Evo. XP's value of avoiding written or precise requirements, and preferring oral communication between developers and requirement donors is different than Evo's emphasis that when a specification is required, it be written with clarity and measurable qualities. However, Evo allows a scaling down of precision on small projects; the important Evo point is value to the client, and precision is an optional means to that end.
On the other hand, many XP development practices may be consistently applied with Evo, such as test-driven development, pair programming, and so forth.
XP's emphasis on early results and customer-driven adaptive planning is also consistent with Evo. The XP practice of stand-up meeting, common project room, and whole team together supports Evo's feedback goals.
XP's 1 3 week iteration length is consistent with Evo.