The Role Of Visualization In Effective Data Cleaning?

Cost and resource needs are higher for traditional than Agile due to Waterfall’s sequential development phase of all requirements determined in the beginning, software design and finally implementation of master design. The need for all information up front takes substantial time to gather and the sequential design does not allow for project changes as the flow enters into the programming stage. With Agile, costs remain low because there exists an incremental and iterative approach to the project, meaning less time is used to collect all requirements up front, the

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.

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.

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).

From my perspective, though not being privy to a genuine cost analysis, yet being well versed in areas that do impact our financial well-being – most notably where challenges in back-end scenarios could be met more immediately and internally rather than hired out and realized on an external vendor’s own timeline – I will provide an analysis that clearly displays the benefits of agile methodology over our current use of waterfall. With this essay, I intend to provoke change, though I do understand that further consideration and discussion will be required prior to any realization of meaningful change.

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 traditional development method requires the definition and documentation of a stable set of requirements at the beginning of the project. It was inherited by other projects mainly related to construction which focused on the completion of one phase of production before moving on to the next phase, for example, laying the foundations of a building first and then proceeding with the further stages (Bowes 2014). Similarly, in Waterfall, the requirement gathering and designing work is done upfront before any coding takes place. The basic notion behind the traditional development approaches is that the projects are comparatively less complex, linear and predictable with clearly defined system boundaries which makes it simple to plan and follow without having any room for changes (Spundak 2014). Moreover, traditional development method depicts the requirements document as he key piece of documentation. The gathering of all the requirements, getting a sign off from the customer and then starting with the development of the project gives the project a limit of

Using the Scrum methodology would be more suitable for this project, as you would need to be able to go back steps and have the flexibility to accommodate unexpected circumstances that may require change, which is something that you can’t do in waterfall methodology. However, the use of Prince2 methodology is also good as it is better at managing and controlling the project which ensures key stakeholders that the project is being managed effectively (Buehring, 2015). I personally think that keeping both methodologies in mind is better than choosing one. Prince2 is a plan based approach, which is what the project needs, and the scrum methodology are responsive to changes which is also what we need as there’s a possibility of having many unforeseen risk throughout the project (Buehring, 2015).

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

The waterfall model should be used in certain situations. For instance, waterfall models should only be applied when the requirements are clearly known and properly fixed (Tutorials Point, n.d.). They can also be used when there is a stable definition of the product, a distinct understanding of the technology, or when ambiguous requirements are

At no point in the process development can the next phase begin until the previous phase is completed. This is how the waterfall method received its name, it begins at the top and works its way down towards the bottom, and at no point can the process be reversed. Youssef Bassil in his article titled “A Simulation Model for the Waterfall Software Development Life Cycle”, defines the water fall method as the following, “The Waterfall model defines several consecutive phases that must be completed one after the other and moving to the next phase only when its preceding phase is completely done. For this reason, the Waterfall model is recursive in that each phase can be endlessly repeated until it is perfected.” There are certain situations where the waterfall method is advantageous in application and that involves the following; a short time frame, there3 are no unclear expectations, the technology is understood, the requirements are fixed and the product propose is stable.

Due to its characteristics, the Waterfall method has some really good advantages towards it. First of it, the client knows what to expect. After all the requirements gathering and analysis a well estimated project is presented, with a good idea of the size, cost, and timeline for the project. More than this, the client will have a definite idea of what their program will do in the end. Secondly, its meticulous record keeping allows the ability to improve the existing program in the future, and because of waterfall’s strong documentation it allows for minimal project impact when facing an employee turnover. These two main points, predictability and well-documented projects are the Waterfall flagship in an industry that pursue the best cost

Generally, data mining (sometimes called data or knowledge discovery) is the process of analyzing data from different perspectives and summarizing it into useful information - information that can be used to increase revenue, cuts costs, or both. Data mining software is one of a number of analytical tools for analyzing data. It allows users to analyze data from many different dimensions or angles, categorize it, and summarize the relationships identified. Technically, data mining is the process of finding correlations or patterns among dozens of fields in large relational databases.

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.