<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>computers should be less friendly &#187; Methods</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.danmcweeney.com/category/anything-related-to-methods/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.danmcweeney.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:38:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Please don&#8217;t chase Waterfalls</title>
		<link>http://blog.danmcweeney.com/60</link>
		<comments>http://blog.danmcweeney.com/60#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:44:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SDN blogger]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.danmcweeney.com/60</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There have been&#160;a couple of blogs recently about the waterfall method and it&#8217;s usefulness: one from The CIO Weblog, which linked to Eugene Nizker at CIO Magazine&#160;which points to an IBM article by Dr. Kruchten&#160;on the subject. For some reason none of these blogs comes right out and says the obvious.&#160; Software development methodologies are [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There have been&nbsp;a couple of blogs recently about the waterfall method and it&#8217;s usefulness: one from <a href="http://www.cio-weblog.com/50226711/did_the_waterfall_model_fail.php">The CIO Weblog</a>, which linked to <a href="http://advice.cio.com/eugene_nizker/why_the_waterfall_failed">Eugene Nizker at CIO Magazine</a>&nbsp;which points to an IBM article by <a href="http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/4626.html">Dr. Kruchten</a>&nbsp;on the subject.
<p>For some reason none of these blogs comes right out and says the obvious.&nbsp; Software development methodologies are like religions:&nbsp; everyone has one and they all hate everyone else&#8217;s for no reason except they aren&#8217;t their sworn religion.&nbsp; In real life, this is dangerous, expensive and prone to the types of failures noted in the blogs.
<p>I haven&#8217;t worked in industry for 35+ years like <a href="http://advice.cio.com/user/eugene_nizker">Mr. Nizker</a> but after a few projects it became obvious to me when you can use agile methods and when waterfall is the most appropriate.&nbsp; Let&#8217;s try and do what none of the other blogs tried to do and break it down.<br />
<h3>&#8220;Roll-out&#8221;</h3>
<p>A very common thing in large companies (this was found via the <a href="http://www.cio-weblog.com/">CIO Weblog</a> right?) is to take a newly developed solution and push it all over the world to standardize a business process.&nbsp; These systems are the perfect candidate for the waterfall method.&nbsp; The users can look at a system and see the gaps and let the people in charge of creating their &#8220;copy&#8221; of the system know about the changes.&nbsp; This allows the &#8220;developers&#8221; to take the requirements in advance and while creating this new &#8220;copy&#8221; of the system add the modifications required for the new location.&nbsp; Once the system is ready it can be easily tested with prior business cases and be easily validated for the new location.&nbsp;&nbsp; I guess this is the &#8220;deterministic&#8221; task talked about by <a href="http://advice.cio.com/eugene_nizker/why_the_waterfall_failed">CIO Magazine</a>.<br />
<h3>&#8220;I think I need&#8230;&#8221;</h3>
<p>Everything else falls into this category.&nbsp; The category where the person defining the system has only half of a clue about what they need or want.&nbsp; I do like the way Mr. Nizker classifies these problems, &#8220;[there is a] volatile reality, which changes on them every day [and] the systems we develop influence [that] reality.&#8221;&nbsp; It&#8217;s sort of the <a href="http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm">Heisenberg uncertainly principal</a> of IT systems.&nbsp; Until we start to peel back the layers the people trying to define the system don&#8217;t know the extent of their own delusion.&nbsp; You should think of it like therapy we must slowly work to the actual root of the problem.&nbsp; You can only do this in an iterative manner until the user has seen the solution they have no clue what their problem even is.
<p>It is all about using the right tool for the job and being able to tell the different before you start.&nbsp; Just as using the iterative method is overkill for a roll-out style project, the&nbsp;waterfall spells total doom for the iterative project.&nbsp; I rarely have a hard time deciding which tool to use.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.danmcweeney.com/60/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

