Search Results

Search found 126 results on 6 pages for 'waterfall'.

Page 1/6 | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

  • How to represent an agile project to people focused on waterfall [closed]

    - by ahsteele
    Our team has been asked to represent our development efforts in a project plan. No one is unhappy with our work or questioning our ability to deliver, we are just participating in an IT cattle call for project plans. Trouble is we are an agile team and haven't thought about our work in terms of a formal project plan. While we have a general idea of what we are working on next we aren't 100% sure until we plan an iteration. Until now our team has largely operated in a vacuum and has not been required to present our methodology or metrics to outside parties. We follow most of the practices espoused in Extreme Programming. We hold quarterly planning meetings to have a general idea of the stories we are going to work on for a quarter. That said, our stories are documented on 3x5 cards and are only estimated at the beginning of the iteration in which they are going to be worked. After estimation we document the story in Team Foundation Sever. During an iteration, we attach code to stories and mark stories as completed once finished. From this data we are able to generate burn down and velocity charts. Most importantly we know our average velocity for an iteration keeping us from biting off more than we can chew. I am not looking to modify the way we do development but want to present our development activities in a report that someone only familiar with waterfall will understand. In What Does an Agile Project Plan Look Like, Kent McDonald does a good job laying out the differences between agile and waterfall project plans. He specifies the differences in consumable bullets: An agile project plan is feature based An Agile Project Plan is organized into iterations An Agile Project Plan has different levels of detail depending on the time frame An Agile Project Plan is owned by the Team Being able to explain the differences is great, but how best to present the data?

    Read the article

  • Does waterfall require code complete before QA steps in?

    - by P.Brian.Mackey
    The process used at a certain company consists of: Create a layout according to some designs made in a web page design tool. (CSS, html) Requirements come in with "functional requirements". These consist of 100's of lines of business directions. E.G. Create a Table on page X. Column1 has numeric data. Column1 is the client code. Column2 is a string...etc. Write code to meet all functional requirements. When all code is checked in, send to QA (which is the BA that wrote the requirements) for inspection, bug finds and change requests. Punt back to developer with a list of X bugs and Y change requests. While bug finds or change requests 0 go to step 4. The agile development environments I have worked in allow, if not demand, early QA inspection and early user acceptance. So, pieces of the program can be refined and redefined before the entire application is in place. Not only that, but the process leaves little room for error or people changing their minds. Instead, those "change requests" come in at the last stage when they do the most damage. And being that a bug-fix's cost increases over time, this is a costly way to write code. I am no waterfall expert. As described, is this waterfall being mishandled in some way? How does waterfall address my concerns?

    Read the article

  • Waterfall Model (SDLC) vs. Prototyping Model

    The characters in the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare can easily be used to demonstrate the similarities and differences between the Waterfall and Prototyping software development models. This children fable is about a race between a consistently slow moving but steadfast turtle and an extremely fast but unreliable rabbit. After closely comparing each character’s attributes in correlation with both software development models, a trend seems to appear in that the Waterfall closely resembles the Tortoise in that Waterfall Model is typically a slow moving process that is broken up in to multiple sequential steps that must be executed in a standard linear pattern. The Tortoise can be quoted several times in the story saying “Slow and steady wins the race.” This is the perfect mantra for the Waterfall Model in that this model is seen as a cumbersome and slow moving. Waterfall Model Phases Requirement Analysis & Definition This phase focuses on defining requirements for a project that is to be developed and determining if the project is even feasible. Requirements are collected by analyzing existing systems and functionality in correlation with the needs of the business and the desires of the end users. The desired output for this phase is a list of specific requirements from the business that are to be designed and implemented in the subsequent steps. In addition this phase is used to determine if any value will be gained by completing the project. System Design This phase focuses primarily on the actual architectural design of a system, and how it will interact within itself and with other existing applications. Projects at this level should be viewed at a high level so that actual implementation details are decided in the implementation phase. However major environmental decision like hardware and platform decision are typically decided in this phase. Furthermore the basic goal of this phase is to design an application at the system level in those classes, interfaces, and interactions are defined. Additionally decisions about scalability, distribution and reliability should also be considered for all decisions. The desired output for this phase is a functional  design document that states all of the architectural decisions that have been made in regards to the project as well as a diagrams like a sequence and class diagrams. Software Design This phase focuses primarily on the refining of the decisions found in the functional design document. Classes and interfaces are further broken down in to logical modules based on the interfaces and interactions previously indicated. The output of this phase is a formal design document. Implementation / Coding This phase focuses primarily on implementing the previously defined modules in to units of code. These units are developed independently are intergraded as the system is put together as part of a whole system. Software Integration & Verification This phase primarily focuses on testing each of the units of code developed as well as testing the system as a whole. There are basic types of testing at this phase and they include: Unit Test and Integration Test. Unit Test are built to test the functionality of a code unit to ensure that it preforms its desired task. Integration testing test the system as a whole because it focuses on results of combining specific units of code and validating it against expected results. The output of this phase is a test plan that includes test with expected results and actual results. System Verification This phase primarily focuses on testing the system as a whole in regards to the list of project requirements and desired operating environment. Operation & Maintenance his phase primarily focuses on handing off the competed project over to the customer so that they can verify that all of their requirements have been met based on their original requirements. This phase will also validate the correctness of their requirements and if any changed need to be made. In addition, any problems not resolved in the previous phase will be handled in this section. The Waterfall Model’s linear and sequential methodology does offer a project certain advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of the Waterfall Model Simplistic to implement and execute for projects and/or company wide Limited demand on resources Large emphasis on documentation Disadvantages of the Waterfall Model Completed phases cannot be revisited regardless if issues arise within a project Accurate requirement are never gather prior to the completion of the requirement phase due to the lack of clarification in regards to client’s desires. Small changes or errors that arise in applications may cause additional problems The client cannot change any requirements once the requirements phase has been completed leaving them no options for changes as they see their requirements changes as the customers desires change. Excess documentation Phases are cumbersome and slow moving Learn more about the Major Process in the Sofware Development Life Cycle and Waterfall Model. Conversely, the Hare shares similar traits with the prototyping software development model in that ideas are rapidly converted to basic working examples and subsequent changes are made to quickly align the project with customers desires as they are formulated and as software strays from the customers vision. The basic concept of prototyping is to eliminate the use of well-defined project requirements. Projects are allowed to grow as the customer needs and request grow. Projects are initially designed according to basic requirements and are refined as requirement become more refined. This process allows customer to feel their way around the application to ensure that they are developing exactly what they want in the application This model also works well for determining the feasibility of certain approaches in regards to an application. Prototypes allow for quickly developing examples of implementing specific functionality based on certain techniques. Advantages of Prototyping Active participation from users and customers Allows customers to change their mind in specifying requirements Customers get a better understanding of the system as it is developed Earlier bug/error detection Promotes communication with customers Prototype could be used as final production Reduced time needed to develop applications compared to the Waterfall method Disadvantages of Prototyping Promotes constantly redefining project requirements that cause major system rewrites Potential for increased complexity of a system as scope of the system expands Customer could believe the prototype as the working version. Implementation compromises could increase the complexity when applying updates and or application fixes When companies trying to decide between the Waterfall model and Prototype model they need to evaluate the benefits and disadvantages for both models. Typically smaller companies or projects that have major time constraints typically head for more of a Prototype model approach because it can reduce the time needed to complete the project because there is more of a focus on building a project and less on defining requirements and scope prior to the start of a project. On the other hand, Companies with well-defined requirements and time allowed to generate proper documentation should steer towards more of a waterfall model because they are in a position to obtain clarified requirements and have to design and optimal solution prior to the start of coding on a project.

    Read the article

  • How to set up a one-man research in the difference between BDD and Waterfall?

    - by Martijn van der Maas
    Earlier, I asked a question about how to measure the quality of a project. The outcome of that question was that the quality of the project can be divided into two parts: Internal quality (code quality, measurable by code quality metrics) External quality (Acceptance test, how well the software meets the requirements) So based on that, I want to set up some research and validate the outcome of the project. The problem is, I will conduct this research on my own, so it's not possible to run the project once in BDD style and the other one in waterfall by myself. It's also not possible to compare BDD and waterfall projects on a larger scale, due to the fact that there are not enough BDD projects that can be measured because of the age of BDD. So, my question is: did anybody face this problem? How could I execute my experiment in such a way that it is of scientific value?

    Read the article

  • Advantages and Disadvantages of the Waterfall Methodology

    In my personal opinion I believe the waterfall method is one of the worst methodologies to use when developing larger systems because it leaves is no room for mistakes. As the name implies the waterfall methodology does not allow  for projects to go back up stream to recover from design errors, missing and/or limited requirements. In addition, hidden bugs are not usually found until the testing phase. This can prove to be very costly and time consuming to the developer and the client. According to NCycles.com, the waterfall methodology structures a project into separate stages with defined deliverables from each phase. Define Design Code Test Implement Document and Maintain The advantages found by Ncycle.com to this methodology are: Ease in analyzing potential changes  Ability to coordinate larger teams, even if geographically distributed Can enable precise dollar budget Less total time required from Subject Matter Experts The disadvantages found by Ncycle.com to this methodology are: Lack of flexibility Hard to predict all needs in advance Intangible knowledge lost between hand-offs Lack of team cohesion Design flaws not discovered until the Testing phase References: NCycles.com  (2002). Retrieved from http://www.ncycles.com/e_whi_Methodologies.htmmethodology on April 17, 2009

    Read the article

  • O the Agony - Merging Scrum and Waterfall

    - by John K. Hines
    If there's nothing else to know about Scrum (and Agile in general), it's this: You can't force a team to adopt Agile methods.  In all cases, the team must want to change. Well, sure, you could force a team.  But it's going to be a horrible, painful process with a huge learning curve made even steeper by the lack of training and motivation on behalf of the team.  On a completely unrelated note, I've spent the past three months working on a team that was formed by merging three separate teams.  One of these teams has been adopting and using Agile practices like Scrum since 2007, the other was in continuous bug fix mode, releasing on average one new piece of software per year using semi-Waterfall methods.  In particular, one senior developer on the Waterfall team didn't see anything in Agile but overhead. Fast forward through three months of tension, passive resistance, process pushback, and you have seven people who want to change and one who explicitly doesn't.  It took two things to make Scrum happen: The team manager took a class called "Agile Software Development using Scrum". The team lead explained the point of Agile was to reduce the workload of the senior developer, with another senior developer and the manager present. It's incredible to me how a single person can strongly influence the direction of an entire team.  Let alone if Scrum comes down as some managerial decree onto a functioning team who have no idea what it is.  Pity the fool. On the bright side, I am now an expert at drawing Visio process flows.  And I have some gentle advice for any first-level managers: If you preside over a team process change, it's beneficial to start the discussion on how the team will work as early as possible.  You should have a vision for this and guide the discussion, even if decisions are weeks away.  Don't always root for the underdog.  It's been my experience that managers who see themselves as compassionate and caring spend a great deal of time understanding and advocating for the one person on the team who feels left out.  Remember that by focusing on this one person you risk alienating the rest of the team, allow tension to build, and delay the resolution of the problem. My way would have been to decree Scrum, force all of my processes on everyone else, and use the past three months ironing out the kinks.  Which takes us all the way back to point number one. Technorati tags: Scrum Scrum Process Scrum and Waterfall

    Read the article

  • New TFS Template Available - "Agile Dev in a Waterfall Environment"–GovDev

    - by Hosam Kamel
      Microsoft Team Foundation Server (TFS) 2010 is the collaboration platform at the core of Microsoft’s application lifecycle management solution. In addition to core features like source control, build automation and work-item tracking, TFS enables teams to align projects with industry processes such as Agile, Scrum and CMMi via the use of customable XML Process Templates. Since 2005, TFS has been a welcomed addition to the Microsoft developer tool line-up by Government Agencies of all sizes and missions. However, many government development teams consistently struggle with leveraging an iterative development process all while providing the structure, visibility and status reporting that is required by many Government, waterfall-centric, project methodologies. GovDev is an open source, TFS Process Template that combines the formality of CMMi/Waterfall with the flexibility of Agile/Iterative: The GovDev for TFS Accelerator also implements two new custom reports to support the customized process and provide the real-time visibility across the lifecycle with full traceability and drill down to tasks, tests and code: The TFS Accelerator contains: A custom TFS process template that implements a requirements centric, yet iterative process with extreme traceability throughout the lifecycle. A custom “Requirements Traceability Report” that provides a single view of traceability for the project.   Within the Traceability Report, you can also view live status indicators and “click-through” to the individual assets (even changesets). A custom report that focuses on “Contributions by Team Member” tracking things like “number of check-ins” and “Net lines added”.  Fully integrated documentation on the entire process and features. For a 45min demo of GovDev, visit: https://msevents.microsoft.com/CUI/EventDetail.aspx?EventID=1032508359&culture=en-us Download it from Codeplex here.     Originally posted at "Hosam Kamel| Developer & Platform Evangelist" http://blogs.msdn.com/hkamel

    Read the article

  • Is there a viable alternative to the agile development methodology? [closed]

    - by Eric Wilson
    The two predominant software-development methodologies are waterfall and agile. When discussing these two, there is often much focus on the particular practices that distinguish them (pair programming, TDD, etc. vs. functional spec, big up-front design, etc.) But the real differences are far deeper, in that these practices come from a philosophy. Waterfall says: Change is costly, so it should be minimized. Agile says: Change is inevitable, so make change cheap. My question is, regardless of what you think of TDD or functional specs, is the waterfall development methodology really viable? Does anyone really think that minimizing change in software is a viable option for those that desire to deliver valuable software? Or is the question really about what sort of practices work best in our situations to manage the inevitable change?

    Read the article

  • How to sell Agile development to (waterfall) clients

    - by Sander Marechal
    Our development shop would really like to do more agile projects but we have a problem getting clients on board. Many clients want a budget and a deadline. It's hard to sell a client on an agile project when our competitors do come up with waterfall-based fixed deadlines and fixed prices. We know their fixed numbers are bad, but the client doesn't know that. So, we end up looking bad to the client because we can't fix the price or a deadline but our competitors can. So, how can you get your sales force to successfully sell a project that uses agile development methods, or a product that is developed using such methods? All the information I found seems to focus on project management and developers.

    Read the article

  • Merging Waterfall and Agile – Getting the Worst of Both Worlds

    - by Nick Harrison
    Many people have seen and appreciate the elegance and practicality of agile methodologies.   Sadly there is still not widespread adoption.   There is still push back from many directions and from many different sources.   Some people don't understand how it is supposed to work. Some people don't believe that it could possibly work. Some people mistakenly believe that it is just code for a lazy project team trying to wiggle out of structure Some people mistakenly believe that it can work only with a very small highly trained team Some people are afraid of the control that they feel they will be losing. I have seen some people try to merge agile and water fall hoping to achieve the best of both worlds.   Unfortunately, the reality is that you end up with the worst of both worlds.   And they both can get pretty bad. Another Sad Reality Some people in an effort to get buy in for following an Agile Methodology have attempted to merge these two practices.   Sometimes this may stem from trying to assuage individual fears that they are not losing relevance.   Sometimes it may be to meet contractual obligations or to fulfill regulatory requirements.   Sometimes may not know better. These two approaches to software development cannot coexist on the same project. Let's review the main tenants of the Agile Manifesto: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding to change over following a plan That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more. Meanwhile the main tenants of the Waterfall Approach could be summarized as: Processes and procedures over individuals Comprehensive documentation proves that the software works Well defined contracts and negotiations protects the customer relationship If the plan is made right, there should be no change  Merging these two approaches will always end badly.

    Read the article

  • How agile methodologies can be applied in a typical " services " company?

    - by AlfaTeK
    My company is a custom software services company for external clientes, which means our typical project is one in which the contract already states the full budget of the project. Our typical project starts by defining requirements (improving the proposal high-level requirements), then we code the project, test it and ship it. We have an acceptance phase were the client tests the software and in that phase we can usually implement small changes asked by the client, or we charge extra for change requests. In some projects we have intermediate releases so the clients can check the progress of the project and give feedback on it. In summary: something like waterfall... I've followed the "agile" movement for a bit now and I always see it being a good match for a "product" company, or a company building software for an internal client. But are there good stories / advantages on using agile methods in my kind of company/projects? What are your experiences, what do you think about this?

    Read the article

  • Is it a good idea to appoint one of the scrum team member or scrum master as Product Owner?

    - by Sandy
    Lately we had a project, in which client was busy touring. As usual scrum team was formed, management decided to appoint our analyst as Product owner since Client won’t be able to participate actively. Analyst was the one who worked closely with client for requirement analysis and specification drafting. Client doesn’t have the time to review first two releases. Everything went smoothly until, client saw third release; he wasn’t satisfied with some functionalities, and those was introduced by make shift Product Owner (our analyst). We were told to wait till design team finished mock-up of all pages and client checked each one and approved to continue working. Scrum team is there, but no sprints – we finished work almost like classic waterfall method. Is it a good idea to appoint scrum team member or master as product owner? Do we need to follow scrum in the absence of client/product owner participation?

    Read the article

  • nodejs async.waterfall method

    - by user1513388
    Update 2 Complete code listing var request = require('request'); var cache = require('memory-cache'); var async = require('async'); var server = '172.16.221.190' var user = 'admin' var password ='Passw0rd' var dn ='\\VE\\Policy\\Objects' var jsonpayload = {"Username": user, "Password": password} async.waterfall([ //Get the API Key function(callback){ request.post({uri: 'http://' + server +'/sdk/authorize/', json: jsonpayload, headers: {'content_type': 'application/json'} }, function (e, r, body) { callback(null, body.APIKey); }) }, //List the credential objects function(apikey, callback){ var jsonpayload2 = {"ObjectDN": dn, "Recursive": true} request.post({uri: 'http://' + server +'/sdk/Config/enumerate?apikey=' + apikey, json: jsonpayload2, headers: {'content_type': 'application/json'} }, function (e, r, body) { var dns = []; for (var i = 0; i < body.Objects.length; i++) { dns.push({'name': body.Objects[i].Name, 'dn': body.Objects[i].DN}) } callback(null, dns, apikey); }) }, function(dns, apikey, callback){ // console.log(dns) var cb = []; for (var i = 0; i < dns.length; i++) { //Retrieve the credential var jsonpayload3 = {"CredentialPath": dns[i].dn, "Pattern": null, "Recursive": false} console.log(dns[i].dn) request.post({uri: 'http://' + server +'/sdk/credentials/retrieve?apikey=' + apikey, json: jsonpayload3, headers: {'content_type': 'application/json'} }, function (e, r, body) { // console.log(body) cb.push({'cl': body.Classname}) callback(null, cb, apikey); console.log(cb) }); } } ], function (err, result) { // console.log(result) // result now equals 'done' }); Update: I'm building a small application that needs to make multiple HTTP calls to a an external API and amalgamates the results into a single object or array. e.g. Connect to endpoint and get auth key - pass auth key to step 2 Connect to endpoint using auth key and get JSON results - create an object containing summary results and pass to step 3. Iterate over passed object summary results and call API for each item in the object to get detailed information for each summary line Create a single JSON data structure that contains the summary and detail information. The original question below outlines what I've tried so far! Original Question: Will the async.waterfall method support multiple callbacks? i.e. Iterate over an array thats passed from a previous item in the chain, then invoke multiple http requests each of which would have their own callbacks. e.g, sync.waterfall([ function(dns, key, callback){ var cb = []; for (var i = 0; i < dns.length; i++) { //Retrieve the credential var jsonpayload3 = {"Cred": dns[i].DN, "Pattern": null, "Recursive": false} console.log(dns[i].DN) request.post({uri: 'http://' + vedserver +'/api/cred/retrieve?apikey=' + key, json: jsonpayload3, headers: {'content_type': 'application/json'} }, function (e, r, body) { console.log(body) cb.push({'cl': body.Classname}) callback(null, cb, key); }); } }

    Read the article

  • Can I trust the Basic schedule equation?

    - by Steve Campbell
    I've been reading Steve McConnell's demystifying the black art of estimating book, and he gives an equation for estimating nominal schedule based on Person-months of effort: ScheduleInMonths = 3.0 x EffortInMonths ^ (1/3) Per the book, this is very accurate (within 25%), although the 3.0 factor above varies depending on your organization (typically between 2 and 4). It is supposedly easy to use historical projects in your organization to derive an appropriate factor for your use. I am trying to reconcile the equation against Agile methods, using 2-6 week cycles which are often mini-projects that have a working deliverable at the end. If I have a team of 5 developers over 4 weeks (1 month), then EffortInMonths = 5 Person Months. The algorithm then outputs a schedule of 3.0 x 5^(1/3) = 5 months. 5 months is much more than 25% different than 1 month. If I lower the 3.0 factor to 0.6, then the algorthim works (outputs a schedule of approx 1 month). The lowest possible factor mentioned in the book through is 2.0. Whats going on here? I want to trust this equation for estimating a "traditional" non-agile project, but I cannot trust it when it does not reconcile with my (agile) experience. Can someone help me understand?

    Read the article

  • Introducing Agile development after traditional project inception

    - by Riggy
    About a year and a half ago, I entered a workplace that claimed to do Agile development. What I learned was that this place has adopted several agile practices (such as daily standups, sprint plannings and sprint reviews) but none of the principles (just in time / just good enough mentality, exposing failure early, rich communication). I've now been tasked with making the team more agile and I've been assured that I have complete buy-in from the devs and the business team. As a pilot program, they've given me a project that just completed 15 months of requirements gathering, has a 110 page Analysis & Design document (to be considered as "written in stone"), and where I have no access to the end users (only to the committee made up of the users' managers who won't actually be using the product). I started small, giving them a list of expected deliverables for the first 5 sprints (leaving the future sprints undefined), a list of goals for the first sprint, and I dissected the A&D doc to get enough user stories to meet the first sprint's goals. Since then, they've asked why we don't have all the requirements for all the sprints, why I haven't started working on stuff for the third sprint (which they consider more important but is based off of the deliverables of the first 2 sprints) and are pressing for even more documentation that my entire IT team considers busy-work or un-related to us (such as writing the user manual up-front, documenting all the data fields from all the sprints up front, and more "up-front" work). This has been pretty rough for me as a new project manager, but there are improvements I have effectively implemented such as scrumban for story management, pair programming, and having the business give us customer acceptance tests up front (as part of the requirements documentation). So my questions are: What can I do to more effectively introduce change to a resistant business? Are there other practices that I can introduce on the IT side to help show the business the benefits of agile? The burden of documentation is strangling us - the business still sees it as a risk management strategy instead of as a risk. What can we do to alleviate their documentation concerns and demands (specifically the quantity of documentation and their need for all of it up front)? We are in a separate building from our business, about 3 blocks away and they refuse to have their people on the project co-habitate b/c that person "won't be able to work on their other projects while they're at our building." They expect us to always go over there and to bundle our questions so that we can ask them all at once and not waste that person's time with "constant interruptions." What can we do to get richer communication from them? Any additional advice would also be appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is writing software in the absence of requirements a skill to possess or a situation I should avoid?

    - by Brian Reindel
    I find that some software developers are very adept at this, and often times are praised for their ability to deliver a working concept with abstract requirements. Frankly, this drives me crazy, and I don't like "making it up" as I go. I used to think this was problematic, but I've started to sense a shift, and I'm wondering if I need to adjust my thought (and programming) process when given very little direction. Should I begin to acquire this ability as a skill, or stick to the idea that requirement's gathering and business rules are the first priority?

    Read the article

  • How to Transition to Scrum

    - by mcass20
    My team has grown fairly quickly from 1 to 5 over the last year or so and are very interested in changing our development style from Waterfall to a more iterative approach like Scrum. We work for a University and specialize in CRUD web apps for internal customers who are always changing requirements along the way. So, my question is...How do we best implement Scrum techniques? Supplemental concerns: Is it recommended to quit Waterfall "cold turkey" in order to facilitate the transition or do you feel a progressive approach is more effective? In other words, pick and choose some scrum techniques to implement now and add others further down the road?

    Read the article

  • Example where Up-Front Design (Would have) Saved You Time

    - by Winston Ewert
    In various places I've seen the claim that by designing a system up-front, you can significantly reduce development time. I.e. by spending an hour designing you can save a week coding. My problem is that I have never seen a situation where I found this to be true. So I want to know of any examples out there that people have where this would be true: So: What sort of problem arose during coding? (or was avoided?) How could you have avoided (or did avoid) the problem by spending more time doing design? Why was it (or would it have been) hard to fix the problem in the code?

    Read the article

  • Organizational characteristics that impact the selection of Development Methodology concepts applied to a project

    Based on my experience, no one really follows a specific methodology exactly as it is formally designed. In fact, the key concepts of a few methodologies are usually combined to form a hybrid methodology for each project based on the current organizational makeup and the project need/requirements to be accomplished. Organizational characteristics that impact the selection of methodology concepts applied to a project. Prior subject knowledge pertaining to a project can be critical when deciding on what methodology or combination of methodologies to apply to a project. For example, if a project is very straight forward, and the development staff has experience in developing  that are similar, then the waterfall method could possibly be the best choice because little to no research is needed  in order to complete the project tasks and there is very little need for changes to occur.  On the other hand, if the development staff has limited subject knowledge or the requirements/specification of the project could possibly change as the project progresses then the use of spiral, iterative, incremental, agile, or any combination would be preferred. The previous methodologies used by an organization typically do not change much from project to project unless the needs of a project dictate differently. For example, if the waterfall method is the preferred development methodology then most projects will be developed by the waterfall method. Depending on the time allotted to a project each day can impact the selection of a development methodology. In one example, if the staff can only devote a few hours a day to a project then the incremental methodology might be ideal because modules can be added to the final project as they are developed. On the other hand, if daily time allocation is not an issue, then a multitude of methodologies could work well for a project. Project characteristics that impact the selection of methodology concepts applied to a project. The type of project being developed can often dictate the type of methodology used for the project. Based on my experience, projects that tend to have a lot of user interaction, follow a more iterative, incremental, or agile approach typically using a prototype that develops into a final project. These methodologies desire back and forth communication between users, clients, and developers to allow for requirements to change and functionality to be enhanced. Conversely, limited interaction applications or automated services can still sometimes get away with using the waterfall or transactional approach. The timeline of a project can also force an organization to prefer a particular methodology over the rest. For instance, if the project must be completed within 24 hours, then there is very little time for discussions back and forth between clients, users and the development team. In this scenario, the waterfall method would be perfect because the only interaction with the client occurs prior to a development project to outline the system requirements, and the development team can quickly move through the software development stages in order to complete the project within the deadline. If the team had more time, then the other methodologies could also be considered because there is more time for client and users to review the project and make changes as they see fit, and/or allow for more time to review the project in order to enhance the business performance and functionality. Sometimes the client and or user involvement can dictate the selection of methodologies applied to a project. One example of this is if a client is highly motivated to get a project completed and desires to play an active part in the development process then the agile development approach would work perfectly with this client because it allows for frequent interaction between clients, users and the development team. The inverse of this situation is a client that just wants to provide the project requirements and only wants to get involved when the project is to be delivered. In this case the waterfall method would work well because there is no room for changes and no back and forth between the users, clients or the development team.

    Read the article

  • Cowboy Agile?

    - by Robert May
    In a previous post, I outlined the rules of Scrum.  This post details one of those rules. I’ve often heard similar phrases around Scrum that clue me in to someone who doesn’t understand Scrum.  The phrases go something like this: “We don’t do Agile because the idea of letting people just do whatever they want is wrong.  We believe in a more structured approach.” (i.e. Work is Prison, and I’m the Warden!) “I love Agile.  Agile lets us do whatever we want!” (Cowboy Agile?) “We’re Agile, but we use a process that I’ve created.” (Cowboy Agile?) All of those phrases have one thing in common:  The assumption that Agile, and I mean Scrum, lets you do whatever you want.  This is simply not true. Executing Scrum properly requires more dedication, rigor, and diligence than happens in most traditional development methods. Scrum and Waterfall Compared Since Scrum and Waterfall are two of the most commonly used methodologies, a little bit of contrasting and comparing is in order. Waterfall Scrum A project manager defines all tasks and then manages the tasks that team members are working on. The team members define the tasks and estimates of the stories for the current iteration.  Any team member may work on any task in the iteration. Usually only a few milestones that need to be met, the milestones are measured in months, and these milestones are expected to be missed.  Little work is ever done to improve estimates and poor estimators can hide behind high estimates. Stories must be delivered every iteration, milestones are measured in hours, and the team is expected to figure out why their estimates were wrong, even when they were under.  Repeated misses can get the entire team fired. Partially completed work is normal. Partially completed work doesn’t count. Nobody knows the task you’re working on. Everyone knows what you’re working on, whether or not you’re making progress and how much longer you think its going to take, in hours. Little requirement to show working code.  Prototypes are ok. Working code must be shown each iteration.  No smoke and mirrors allowed.  Testing is done in lengthy cycles at the end of development.  Developers aren’t held accountable. Testing is part of the team.  If the testers don’t accept the story as complete, the team can’t count it.  Complete means that the story’s functionality works as designed.  The team can’t have any open defects on the story. Velocity is rarely truly measured and difficult to evaluate. Velocity is integral to the process and can be seen at a glance and everyone in the company knows what it is. A business analyst writes requirements.  Designers mock up screens.  Developers hide behind “I did it just like the spec doc told me to and made the screen exactly like the picture” Developers are expected to collaborate in real time.  If a design is bad or lacks needed details, the developers are required to get it right in the iteration, because all software must be functional.  Designers and Business Analysts are part of the team and must do their work in iterations slightly ahead of the developers. Upper Management is often surprised.  “You told me things were going well two months ago!” Management receives updates at the end of every iteration showing them exactly what the team did and how that compares to what' is remaining in the backlog.  Managers know every iteration what their money is buying. Status meetings are rare or don’t occur.  Email is a primary form of communication. Teams coordinate every single day with each other and use other high bandwidth communication channels to make sure they’re making progress.  Email is used only as a last resort.  Instead, team members stand up, walk to each other, and talk, face to face.  If that’s not possible, they pick up the phone. IF someone asks what happened, its at the end of a lengthy development cycle measured in months, and nobody really knows why it happened. Someone asks what happened every iteration.  The team talks about what happened, and then adapts to make sure that what happened either never happens again or happens every time.   That’s probably enough for now.  As you can see, a lot is required of Scrum teams! One of the key differences in Scrum is that the burden for many activities is shifted to a group of people who share responsibility, instead of a single person having responsibility.  This is a very good thing, since small groups usually come up with better and more insightful work than single individuals.  This shift also results in better velocity.  Team members can take vacations and the rest of the team simply picks up the slack.  With Waterfall, if a key team member takes a vacation, delays can ensue. Scrum requires much more out of every team member and as a result, Scrum teams outperform non-Scrum teams working 60 hour weeks. Recommended Reading Everyone considering Scrum should read Mike Cohn’s excellent book, User Stories Applied. Technorati Tags: Agile,Scrum,Waterfall

    Read the article

  • Guest blog: A Closer Look at Oracle Price Analytics by Will Hutchinson

    - by Takin Babaei
    Overview:  Price Analytics helps companies understand how much of each sale goes into discounts, special terms, and allowances. This visibility lets sales management see the panoply of discounts and start seeing whether each discount drives desired behavior. In Price Analytics monitors parts of the quote-to-order process, tracking quotes, including the whole price waterfall and seeing which result in orders. The “price waterfall” shows all discounts between list price and “pocket price”. Pocket price is the final price the vendor puts in its pocket after all discounts are taken. The value proposition: Based on benchmarks from leading consultancies and companies I have talked to, where they have studied the effects of discounting and started enforcing what many of them call “discount discipline”, they find they can increase the pocket price by 0.8-3%. Yes, in today’s zero or negative inflation environment, one can, through better monitoring of discounts, collect what amounts to a price rise of a few percent. We are not talking about selling more product, merely about collecting a higher pocket price without decreasing quantities sold. Higher prices fall straight to the bottom line. The best reference I have ever found for understanding this phenomenon comes from an article from the September-October 1992 issue of Harvard Business Review called “Managing Price, Gaining Profit” by Michael Marn and Robert Rosiello of McKinsey & Co. They describe the outsized impact price management has on bottom line performance compared to selling more product or cutting variable or fixed costs. Price Analytics manages what Marn and Rosiello call “transaction pricing”, namely the prices of a given transaction, as opposed to what is on the price list or pricing according to the value received. They make the point that if the vendor does not manage the price waterfall, customers will, to the vendor’s detriment. It also discusses its findings that in companies it studied, there was no correlation between discount levels and any indication of customer value. I urge you to read this article. What Price Analytics does: Price analytics looks at quotes the company issues and tracks them until either the quote is accepted or rejected or it expires. There are prebuilt adapters for EBS and Siebel as well as a universal adapter. The target audience includes pricing analysts, product managers, sales managers, and VP’s of sales, marketing, finance, and sales operations. It tracks how effective discounts have been, the win rate on quotes, how well pricing policies have been followed, customer and product profitability, and customer performance against commitments. It has the concept of price waterfall, the deal lifecycle, and price segmentation built into the product. These help product and sales managers understand their pricing and its effectiveness on driving revenue and profit. They also help understand how terms are adhered to during negotiations. They also help people understand what segments exist and how well they are adhered to. To help your company increase its profits and revenues, I urge you to look at this product. If you have questions, please contact me. Will HutchinsonMaster Principal Sales Consultant – Analytics, Oracle Corp. Will Hutchinson has worked in the business intelligence and data warehousing for over 25 years. He started building data warehouses in 1986 at Metaphor, advancing to running Metaphor UK’s sales consulting area. He also worked in A.T. Kearney’s business intelligence practice for over four years, running projects and providing training to new consultants in the IT practice. He also worked at Informatica and then Siebel, before coming to Oracle with the Siebel acquisition. He became Master Principal Sales Consultant in 2009. He has worked on developing ROI and TCO models for business intelligence for over ten years. Mr. Hutchinson has a BS degree in Chemical Engineering from Princeton University and an MBA in Finance from the University of Chicago.

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >