Ryan EricksonFirst post in a while: Waterfall over Agile for Software Development; sometimes it makes sense. https://medium.com/erickson-pm/waterfall-over-agile-for-software-development-d25ea45c2421 #agile #waterfall #softwaredeveloment #business
Jason Yip@ryanerickson Do you have a specific example where you’ve seen this scenario occur?
@jchyip in fact I do. The best example I’ve got was while I worked at Boeing. Specific to aircraft navigation systems where they are required (or supposed to) to meet FAA standards for one system before moving to another. I would go so far as to call it agile within waterfall, where each step was a mini-agile sprint of sorts.
@ryanerickson So incremental at least? Were systems revisited once integration issues were detected as the next system is built?
@jchyip yes and no. I’m of close speaking from general knowledge (I worked in the quality division), they’d work on a specific part, and once that passed checks, they could move on. From the big picture, it indeed looks like agile, but zoomed in, it was step by step. However, to directly answer your question, it was iterative in the midst of each step.
Bob Hartman@ryanerickson The article says "For example, a large project with clearly defined requirements may benefit from the structured, sequential approach offered via a waterfall model."
It is extremely rare that I see a "large project" with "clearly defined requirements" where the requirements don't change over time or further discovery shows the initial requirements are wrong.
In other words, on the vast majority of projects I see, things change. Waterfall does NOT adapt well to change. #agile does
@AgileBob I absolutely agree that waterfall doesn’t adapt well, if at all.