Systematic approach or divide-and-conquer approach?

It all began like this…
I and my friend Arun were chatting one day about the way our projects were going on. Each one was trying to tell the other that his project is tougher and more time consuming.

Finally, Arun sighed, “If only we had done the projects together, we wouldn't have had this problem.”

I replied, “Ya, but our interests are different and so is our approach.”

Arun is a very hard-working guy, full of passion to succeed. We had earlier decided to do a project in networking and had actually started learning it. I am a person, who likes to start from the basics and then reach the top. I never believe in starting a project without knowing head or tail of it. I believe that one should be strong with one's basics before starting off on a project. Before starting off, I analyze the job in hand, check it if it is feasible and then start off. Arun has a totally opposite attitude. He is of the opinion that we should first start from the top, with only slight initial knowledge. He agrees that the work we do will have a lot of flaws. Then as we proceed we should eliminate these flaws as we encounter them. He says my approach will take a lot of time and is not feasible. But what I feel is that, Arun's approach will make us reach the top, but we will never be strong enough with our basics. Is that okay?! Arun says, his approach is better, because we can achieve anything in the shortest possible time. But I feel my approach is better because it is more systematic.

It was this difference of opinion, which prompted me to add this to my journal. For I am slightly confused now. Is Arun right or am i right? I agree that for some jobs, Arun's approach is better than mine. But can it be applied to anything? Arun is optimistic. But I am not.

Please comment.