<?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>Radical Behavior &#187; Iterative</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.radicalbehavior.com/tag/iterative/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.radicalbehavior.com</link>
	<description>a notepad by Josh Kenzer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:28:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Your Daddy&#8217;s Development Model Sucks!</title>
		<link>http://www.radicalbehavior.com/youre-daddys-development-model-sucks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.radicalbehavior.com/youre-daddys-development-model-sucks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Josh Kenzer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Agile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iterative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waterfall]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radicalbehavior.com/?p=195</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The waterfall software development model is the traditional process used by developers to create software &#8211; I include web application development into the category of software. It&#8217;s been around as an accepted methodology since the 70&#8242;s. It basically consists of: &#8230; <a href="http://www.radicalbehavior.com/youre-daddys-development-model-sucks/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model" target="_blank"><img class="alignright" style="float: right; border: 0; margin: 5px;" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Waterfall_model.png/350px-Waterfall_model.png" alt="Waterfall Software Model" width="350" height="269" /></a>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model" target="_blank">waterfall software development model</a> is the traditional process used by developers to create software &#8211; I include web application development into the category of software. It&#8217;s been around as an accepted methodology since the 70&#8242;s. It basically consists of:</p>
<ol>
<li>Requirements Gathering</li>
<li>Design Phase</li>
<li>Implementation Phase</li>
<li>Verification Phase</li>
<li>Maintenance Phase</li>
</ol>
<p>Presumably at each phase of the project, there are sign offs and reviews with the stakeholders, the end users of the software. Sometimes you&#8217;ll hear phase 3 referred to as the big bang phase. This is because after phase 1 &amp; 2 are complete, the developer(s) goes off for a period of time, codes the application and bang, delivers it for phase 4. In fact, most the time, phase 3 is going to be the longest phase (not counting continued maintenance).</p>
<p>This is exactly why the waterfall method sucks. The developer &#8211; and other team members &#8211; better hope they ask a cubic ton of questions in phase 1 and can accurately convey the project in phase 2. They also better hope that the stakeholders know exactly what they want. Because if not, phase 4 is going to put developers in an agitated state. In my experience, most stakeholders only have a slight idea of what they want. They aren&#8217;t techies and can&#8217;t tell you with 100% confidence if they want their software to bake bread or make toast &#8211; subtle difference right?</p>
<p>So you&#8217;re team rolls into phase 4 and the stakeholders are like, &#8220;OMG! WTF?&#8221; And you&#8217;re like, &#8220;What?! It does what you wanted. Don&#8217;t you remember us going over it when we showed you those diagrams and schemas?&#8221; And they&#8217;re still like, &#8220;OMG! WTF?&#8221;</p>
<p>This is why the iterative approach &#8211; sometimes referred to as agile development &#8211; has become so popular. It allows developers to use rapid application development (RAD) to prototype software.  So there is never a &#8220;surprise, here it is&#8221; moment. Instead the stakeholder moves down the process with you taking ownership into the final product. It&#8217;s some what similar to the creative design process, but for geeks.</p>
<p>Word of warning though, don&#8217;t expect developers to jump on this model though. They tend to prefer having a set of specs, sitting down and coding to those, and then moving on. They may see iterations and undocumented changes as something bad.</p>
<p>Anyway, not writing a book here. Let me know your experiences with software development. Do you prefer agile interative development or waterfall development?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.radicalbehavior.com/youre-daddys-development-model-sucks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

