Disadvantage Of Waterfall Model

The project will be managed using a modified waterfall technique. In this approach, the initial two phases of the

Using the waterfall approach the system developers will be able to focus on one piece of the system and move on each part separately. This will give the design team more time to focus on small sections of the new coding. Moving from one stage to the next means that each step has been checked thoroughly and is completed.

The rigid methods employed by the Waterfall approach makes it easy to manage because the team cannot move onto the next stage if all of the

This article by Phillip A. Laplante and Colin J. Neill of Penn State University explores the rumors of the demise of the waterfall model. The Waterfall process model progresses software products linearly from conception, through requirements, design, code, and test (Neill, 2004). The Waterfall method was developed in 1970 by Winston Royce when computer systems were monolithic, number-crunching entities with rudimentary front ends and users’ needs were filtered through the partisan minds of the computer illuminati building the systems (Neill, 2004). Most systems built in that time did not pay much attention to input from stakeholders, which is a good environment for the Waterfall method to work in – an environment where requirements seldom change after specification due to the fact that users are not involved in the development and therefore cannot provide feedback regarding incorrect assumptions or missing features (Neill, 2004).

There is a cross section of projects ranging from a few weeks to a few years. There are also a wide cross section of customers, those capable of articulating clearly their requirements and the ones that are not clear on their requirements and the overall outcome to be achieved. The level of programmers within the Information Technology Department, where development work is executed, range from intermediate to advance or above average programming competence. The Waterfall approach is easier to manage and can be utilized for projects where there are clear requirements and the project is determined to be a long term one. Also, this method may be best suited given the organization’s requirements for thorough documentation and project accountability, when it comes to budget and cost. The Agile methodology can be used for projects where the requirements as well as the expectation from the end product are not as clear. The developers that are above average in terms of their competence can also use this method. In addition, the Agile method is also best suited for the projects that would require rapid

Since the method was developed for manufacturing and construction projects, it made sense in these industries that a portion of the project was fixed and unchangeable after a phase completed. Imagine the construction of a road, you prep and lay down a foundation then eventually lay down the final asphalt or concrete layer. It wouldn’t make sense to build in the ability to go back and change the foundation after the top layer was set. Obviously, software engineering is very different and therefore requires a much different approach to development. Besides slow turnaround, there were many other criticisms of the waterfall method. Some included redesign, rework, and retesting due to lack of knowledge about requirements when a project began. Also, due to the extremely long lead and delivery times, requirements changed or projects were dropped altogether leaving a company with a half-built loss on the balance sheet. An industry average put the estimated time for any software project using the Waterfall approach at 3 years. This was the environment that enabled a few forward-thinking developers to meet and design a new and better approach.

The two reports attempt to explore the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing agile software development over the waterfall model. As described in the reports, more and more organizations are considering the agile process approach versus the more traditional waterfall approach. The agile processes evolved in the late nineties and began to emerge as a primary software development method. While organizations are moving towards agile processes, it is unclear which process is the most used. Article A details a survey in which 153 developers were asked to describe their software development processes. The waterfall method was the most used software development method. However, Article B details that 36 out of 66 projects analyzed revolved around the agile methodology. Nonetheless, both articles conclude that one method or approach is not a best fit for all projects.

Finding out what will permit an organization to work optimally is the driving impetus behind almost any business or organizational theory. The Waterfall Method appears, at first glance, to be a lot like the Roman Civil Code: anticipate as many contingencies as possible, and then proceed to delineate how they will all be tackled. The problem, as the literature seems to note, is that there will always be things or exigencies that cannot be anticipated – which is why agile

But there are some disadvantages of waterfall methodology. One major disadvantage is that developers cannot go back to the previous step once they have completed the step. If the project requirements are not satisfied initially then there might be a chance of project failure. It might also cost budget issues as well as more duration to complete the project. If developers want to make certain changes in the code of project in between then they again need to start from the beginning to write the code.

can stand alone as the sole development strategy. Verner and Cerpa (1997) observed a relationship between the size of a department and the preference to utilize a prototype. They also discovered many of the aspects of a waterfall approach that made it widely used still hold true. Developer communication and project control have long been seen as positive characteristics of the waterfall approach. The increased control is the result of the rigid, phased structure that defines a waterfall development plan. A drawback to this development strategy is the lack of feedback that we see in the scrum or agile method. This lack of feedback makes having a complete requirements essential, the lack of which can mean an unsuccessful or scrapped project.

Looking at each methodology from a different perspective, the management perspective, unveils additional benefits and setbacks. The rigidity of the Waterfall method for software development can be cumbersome when dealing with changing expectations, but it makes it easier for management to manage the project’s progression. Having clear goals makes it easy for managers to track the development process. It is more difficult to track a project where requirements are constantly evolving. Most of the projects (not involving software development) in our department are tracked through their process. As goals are achieved, completion nears 100%.

The waterfall model was legally introduced as an idea through a paper that had been published by a man called Winston Royce in the year 1970. However, due to the waterfall model being introduced by Winston Royce himself, it had been introduced as an example of a flawed software development method, which was vulnerable due to its shortcomings. The waterfall model philosophy had been inherited from the hardware manufacture and construction strategies that had been in practice in the year 1970s; therefore it had a structured approach to the software development itself. In comparison to the agile methodology, which developed in the year 1990s where the developers had decided to break away from the traditional structured, segmented and administrative approaches, which were being made to the developed software, and progressed towards more of the flexible development styles. The term Agile can be referred to as being lightweight methods, which had been declared in a research paper in the year 1974 by Edmonds. Furthermore, some of the most noticeable and common agile methods of the software development that subsequently had been evolved were known as Scum in the year 1995, 'Extreme Programming ' in 1996, 'Adaptive Software Development ', 'Dynamic Systems Development Method ' in 1995 and 'Feature Driven Development '. In the year 2001, a team of developers in the agile software development had declared the agile manifesto. The agile

The waterfall approach of software engineering makes use of use cases as a means of displaying and reporting data. Primarily the waterfall process is carried out using a Gantt chart. It requires each step to occur in a specific sequence where each stage has different

Chatterjee wrote this article on waterfall back in 2010. It seems very short, but provides several strong points as to why waterfall is here to stay. When this was written, is was during the height of when today’s data competitors began to set foot into the industry, including Cotiviti. Given that Cotiviti provides payment accuracy solutions to its clients, the waterfall method is the best choice since it deals with software and algorithm development. The waterfall method is commonly known as the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC). You can compare this to a decision-making process because it

The waterfall model consists of five phases such as requirements, Design, implementation, verification and maintenance. The method is a sequential design process where progress is seen as flowing downwards in a steadily manner, each development phase has its own distinct goals. The model is similar to water flowing down a cliff it can only flow in one way and cannot go back up it is the same with waterfall development ,after a development phase is completed it proceeds to the next development phase you cannot go back.