The Pyramid Of The Waterfall Model Is Imminent, And Other Urban Myths

Software engineering tools and methods: The computer-based tools that are intended to assist the software life cycle processes and the methods which impose structure on the software engineering activity with the goal of making the activity systematic and ultimately more likely to be

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

One of the initial steps in researching a problem is to know exactly what the problem is and compose a problem statement that unambiguously identifies and defines the problem to research. Sekaran (2003) said, “No amount of good research can find solutions to the situation, if the critical issue or the problem to be studied is not clearly pinpointed” (p. 69). The area of research for this paper focuses on software development, in particular, the study of agile software development methodologies and if these methodologies are successful in delivering software on time, within budget, and includes the requested features.

Written off as a dying approach to software engineering I found that the Waterfall approach process was in fact alive and largely in use according to a Queue opinion article (Neill, 2004). While surveying professionals for the article in Queue, the Waterfall approach was reported to be in use by a third of the professionals that responded to the survey (Neill, 2004). I could not help but wonder if the Waterfall approach was some sort of zombie process that was back from being presumed dead, or if the method was being used for convenience purposes. Before I would be able to answer these questions for myself I would have to look into why these presumptions were made in the first place.

After having reviewed definitions and perspectives by three author groups, I’m inclined to conclude that waterfall methodology is essentially defined by its insistence upon the completion of product development steps in a sequential manner in order to accommodate a client’s need for a product or tool that will enable their business to be performed in a temporally defined effective (or desired) manner. By utility, for the sake of quickly delivering a product to the satisfaction of its client, a development team who employs the waterfall method may do so because of waterfall’s logical yet rigid structure. Its step-by-step nature promotes an easy to follow guide, though many of the tasks involved in the process of its development are anything but easy. Further, waterfall’s rigid nature seems to reinforce the notion of its logic, if but for the sake of timely product completion and client budget. Due to its methodological rigidity, however, products developed by way of waterfall may tend to be rigid in their own right.

It has been observed that in software development, change is unavoidable and must be accommodated for in the life cycle. A number of alternative process models have been introduced in order to attempt to fix the issues in the Waterfall model. An early modification to the standard Waterfall method introduced prototyping as a feedback and discovery mechanism to identify misunderstandings and omissions early on in the process (Neill, 2004). Other process models attempted to further get rid of the risks of misunderstandings by breaking down projects

SC will compare traditional and various iterative implementations of the SDLC. For example, Braude and Bernstein (2011) state that the popular and mature waterfall process model promotes simple comprehension, project management, and resource distribution of small project development lifecycles. The serial nature of the traditional SDLC leans toward the gathering of all requirements at the beginning of the project whereas the majority of testing occurs at the end of the lifecycle. The waterfall model’s linear design creates disastrous risks for large projects if the project team does not understand the core requirements during the initial phase of the project or the detection of major problems occurs toward the end of the project. On the other hand, a spiral model significantly reduces risks for large projects whereas complexity causes overkill for smaller projects. The project’s physical scope, timeline, budget, and resource determine which the most optimal process model for a project. Table 1.1 displays a comparison chart that SC uses to weigh advantages and disadvantages of traditional SDLC and Agile development methodologies. SC will utilize this chart to determine which development methodology is utilized based on the primary amount of questions answered positively weighed with the clients business case requirements. “Agile software development is a

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

UMPhysicians’ approach to software development clearly often involves employment of the traditional and linear waterfall methodology.

how they should be applied, none have used project data to clearly conclude which one is

A brief document was created entitled, “The Agile Manifesto,” which outlined their innovative approach to software development processes. Their work continues to influence “best practice” methods used in top-notch educational programs across the IT industry today. The manifesto underscores the belief that software development is a dynamic and responsive process that should value individuals and interactions over processes and tools, working software over comprehensive documentation, customer collaboration over contract negotiation and response to change over following a plan.

The waterfall technique has stages that it experiences. In the content, it says that, "no one developed the waterfall strategy" (Bowes, J.). It was acquired by big business programming engineers. There is a few advantages and disadvantages of the waterfall strategy. A few geniuses are "The advancement procedure has a tendency to be better recorded since this strategy places more prominent accentuation on documentation like necessities and outline docs. Numerous associations locate this consoling" (Bowes, J.). The waterfall procedure is one of the simpler ones to get it. A con of the waterfall strategy is "Frequently the general population we're building programming for (the customer) don't know precisely what they require in advance and don't have the foggiest idea about what's conceivable with the innovation accessible. Along these lines of working doesn't deal with this well" (Bowes, J.). This procedure doesn't have its own particular

As waterfall model has many advantages it is carrying a lot of disadvantages. It is hard to make changes after testing the stage. Once an application is in the testing stage, it is very difficult to go back and change something that was not well-thought out in the concept stage. The software never work tile the few last steps and it is very hard to identify the errors at the beginning. It is gambling operation to make a software and successful of the software is unknown. It is not suitable for a large complex project.

The article mainly focused on comparing an evolutionary method to the waterfall method. The author of the article believed that the waterfall model is very unrealistic and dangerous to use as a primary development tool for any project (Gilb, 1985). The waterfall method is scheduled for a single finished date and all planning, design and analysis is done in the very beginning before the software coding begins (Gilb, 1985). The evolutionary model is based on delivering to a real user, measuring the added value to the user, and adjusting any issues (Gilb, 1985). A key difference emphasized in the article was that a system built in the evolutionary model is real and always changing while the waterfall method is not (Gilb, 1985). The waterfall method is more focused on what the software will do as compared to the evolutionary method which is more focused on how well the software will work for the client (Gilb, 1985). Gilb had the opinion that the waterfall method is no longer a method to follow (Gilb, 1985). Back in 1985, Gilb wanted to show readers that the evolutionary method was the way software should be developed and that the clients were more interested in a technology that was perfected for them (Gilb, 1985). As seen in the waterfall approach, it was very common to have a software developed for a client and the client would not even know who the developer was (Gilb, 1985). The waterfall method was effective but it is a method

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.