Waterfall Vs Agile Methodology Paper

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

For the past years, waterfall process had been used by small and big companies as an approach to development process. This approach looks like a waterfall where it shows a steady downwards flow. This approach of development is the most mature and disciplined.

Although, the agile development methodology use is becoming more and more prevalent in the tech industry, non-initiates often wonder if this “methodology” is nothing more than colorful lip-speak, used more to impress potential clients than deliver any true value. So what is the 411?

Focus is kept on the recurrence of condensed work cycles and also at the functional product yielded by the outcome, but in waterfall technique only once chance is been given to the development team to keep the project aspects right. But under the agile technique each and every feature of development including the design, requirements, is thoroughly checked under its lifecycle (Mahfuj et al, 2012). There is always some time to steer in another direction if a team stops at regular interval say after every two weeks and re-evaluates the project done.

To overcome these disadvantages of waterfall model, Agile methodology is designed. This methodology uses incremental approach unlike waterfall model which uses sequential steps to develop software. Incremental approach means processing and testing

This paper describes Agile development methodologies and their benefits. Section II presents key elements of Agile. Section III presents benefits of Agile development methodologies over traditional waterfall methodologies.

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.

Scrum Agile Methodologies is the most popular of the methodologies. It is an outline that uses fixed sprints. Once a sprints has ended, a scrum team works together with a new one which starts until the projected is finished. The team consists of:

I utilized Saint Joseph’s University Drexel Library to research the waterfall and agile software development methodologies and selected two pieces of literature to understand which method is more effective. The following articles are discussed in detail below:

Compared to the agile, another famous software development mode called waterfall is driven by technique documents and this mode require the team to write a lot of requirement documents containing all the requirements to a certain software. It is written to allow people to understand what software should do. So the developers will develop the functions of software according to the documents strictly. But the agile software development just focuses on the necessary document. It is avoid taking a lot of time to write the requirement documents. Its opinion is that the face to face communication between the human is the most important thing. So the agile think the human is

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

Comparing articles that tackle the Waterfall Method and the Agile Management Approach: A Comparison and Contrast

The organization understood the agile methodology would help reduce development costs and reduce burnout because the team would not be putting in long hours for long periods of time to work the project. Additionally, the developers could be working to develop software at the same time the business requirements were being gathered and reviewed. One process that the team was working on did not impede the progress that another area of the team was working on. The agile methodology empowered our team to continuously plan and re-plan throughout the entire development processes.

Agile Software Development: The iterative development strategy focuses on incremental delivery of usable software ("What is Agile Software Development?", 2017)

Waterfall approach has become so prevalent and popular that major US governmental organization started utilizing it. The most famous uses of waterfall are in the US Department of Defense (DOD) and NATO. Although waterfall utilized by many businesses and organizations around the world. Below are the are benefits and drawback to this approach mentioned in many literatures.