Every methodological analysis has its advantages and disadvantages. With this in head this subdivision aims to compare assorted methodological analysiss and explicate their alone features. Some of these methodological analysiss will their focal point set chiefly on the analysis stage and some focus to a great extent on the design stage. With this in head this subdivision will let you to see why the peculiar methodological analysis was chosen.
“Apackage development procedureis a construction imposed on the development of a package merchandise. Synonyms includepackage life rhythmandpackage procedure. There are severaltheoretical accountsfor such procedures, each depicting attacks to a assortment ofundertakings or activitiesthat take topographic point during the process.”-( hypertext transfer protocol: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_development_process – Accessed 8th October 2007 )
What methodological analysiss are available?
All methodological analysiss follow the same attack. They may hold different names for the stages ; nevertheless they all do the same activities. Some of these methodological analysiss are really form and required a batch of certification and planning ( heavy weight ) . There are more flexible methodological analysiss that do non necessitate the same rigorous waterfall attack. The waterfall attack means that you must travel onto the following stage when you are finished the peculiar stage you are working.
The chief stages that play a critical function in the undertaking are the:
- Analysis
- Design
- Execution
- Testing and measuring
There are many methodological analysiss to see, nevertheless this subdivision of the study will analyze merely some of these. Please see the list below for the methodological analysiss that will be examined.
- The Waterfall ( Structured Systems Analysis & A ; Design Methodology )
- The Spiral
- The Water Sluice
- The Rational Unified Process ( RUP ) , besides known as object oriented.
The Waterfall
The waterfall methodological analysis is known as a ‘heavyweight ‘ methodological analysis due to the fact that it can non alter itself or accommodate to different undertakings. This is one of the oldest methodological analysiss around and is a traditional attack that has been used for many old ages.
The methodological analysis gets its name from the theory of H2O fluxing over a series of cascading waterfalls. So you can associate this to each phase in the undertaking as the cascading waterfall in figure 1.0.
Figure 1.0 Waterfall Methodology:
Analysis
Design
Execution
Confirmation
Care
Feasibility
If the undertaking is unsuccessful the procedure starts over.
You can see from this diagram that when a stage has been completed that the duty is shifted to the following squad. This means that if the design has been completed the squad implementing it will non be allowed to reach the design squad. It is clear from the diagram where it gets its name from due to the cascading stages.
“However it can be really hard to cognize or larn all the inside informations up front about a undertaking. Many times undertakings are begun with an premise that all the inside informations are known merely to happen ulterior that something must alter for some reason.”(hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottwnelson.com/article7-methodologies-waterfall.php– entree 8th October 2007 )
You can see from the above beginning that it is impossible to cognize all the alterations upfront. It is because of this that there is no flexibleness. If a alteration is made tardily into the design stage the undertaking must be complete without this alteration. It is merely when the undertaking is complete that the alteration can be made and this means traveling through the waterfall all over once more to implement the alteration
The Water Sluice
“Iterative ‘middleweight ‘ methodological analysiss evolved from the waterfall methodological analysis in response to the demand to accommodate to rapid alterations in the concern environment.”
“The H2O penstock methodological analysis efforts to unite the construction of the waterfall methodological analysis and the flexibleness of the coiling methodological analysis by implementing prioritization of activities. As loops are made, precedences are evaluated and those activities that are considered most valuable are completed first”(hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottwnelson.com/article9-methodologies-water-sluice.phpaccessed 7th October 2007 )
Both of the above beginnings summarise what the H2O penstock attack is. You can see from these quotation marks that it was developed due the waterfall methodological analysis holding no flexibleness. The good thing about this methodological analysis is that it can suit alterations throughout the undertaking and this means that you are less likely to acquire a last minute petition or set back. It is a methodological analysis that implements quality. It carries out multiple loops until it has completed that stage.
This methodological analysis combines the construction of the waterfall methodological analysis and the coiling methodological analysis. Whenever a alteration is made the precedence will be analysed and the stage or activity that is most valuable will be completed first. The construct of this is based on the gold excavation tool called the H2O penstock ( Figure2.0 ) .
Figure 2.0 – The Water Sluice Diagram[hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottwnelson.com/article9-methodologies-water-sluice.phpAccessed 7ThursdayOctober 2007 ]
Merchandise
A: Analysis D: Design I: Execution Thymine: Testing P1: Proof Of Principle P2: Prototype P3: Alpha and Beta P4: Merchandise
P1
P2
P3
P4
The H2O penstock has many package development stages ; nevertheless there are four phases that contain all these stages. You can see these phases in figure 2.0. An illustration of the cogent evidence of chief phase shows that the analysis stage is one of the highest precedences. The merchandise will travel through many phases until no farther work is required similar to that of the coiling methodological analysis. The undertaking will so stop dead the analysis stage and carry on to the paradigm stage.
The job with this methodological analysis is that members of the squad may neglect to perpetrate to ends and they may non do the deadlines. This job does non associate to this undertaking because a individual individual is developing this undertaking.
The Spiral
“The coiling theoretical account is a extremely iterative development attack. Rather than showing life rhythm phases consecutive with some loop added, the theoretical account shows the life rhythm as a spiral, get downing in the centre and working its manner around, over and over once more, until the undertaking is complete. This theoretical account hence looks really different and sets the tone for the undertaking to be managed differently” (Satzinger – 2004 )
If you look at the above beginning and the figure below you can clearly see how the coiling plants. In the below diagram where it says “start here” you can that you work from the center of the theoretical account. The theoretical account goes round in circles transporting out multiple loops until the undertaking is complete. This is what is being said by Satzinger in the above beginning. This theoretical account has been developed from the waterfall methodological analysis much like the H2O penstock to let for flexibleness.
This methodological analysis allows you to work on multiple undertakings at one time so that you can finish the undertaking piece by piece. This is alternatively of the waterfall attack, which would necessitate you to complete each stage before go oning.
Figure 3.0: The Spiral
Understand Requirements
Trial and evaluate
Start Here
Concluding Merchandise Release
Build in phases
Design the system
Using theoretical account to travel through each stage will let the undertaking director to do alterations at ulterior phases. The lone job with this methodological analysis is that the undertaking could ‘spiral ‘ out of control. When the undertaking spirals out of control it can gyrate into a black hole that ne’er reaches the completion.
This methodological analysis has been proven to work better than the waterfall methodological analysis. This it is impossible to acquire all the demands at the beginning of the undertaking. The coiling allows you to acquire demands as you carry on with the undertaking.
One more disadvantage can be that utilizing this methodological analysis allows the client to inquire for alterations when they feel like it so that they can hold the perfect merchandise. This can besides do the undertaking resemble a black hole in which a merchandise ne’er emerges.
The Rational Unified Process ( RUP )
“UML is merely a modeling linguistic communication, detecting what it is that demands to be modelled is rather different… The Unified Process is described as ‘use-case driven, architecture centric, iterative and incremental ‘ ( Jacobson et al. , 1999 ) , and this position is argued to do the procedure unique.”( David Avison, Guy Fitzgerald – 2006 )
The Rational Unified Process was developed by the Rational Software Corporation ( now a portion of IBM ) . They originally developed a instance tool known as rational rose to help the undertaking. It was defined after the Unified Modelling Language ( UML ) was created.
From the beginning above you can see how RUP is process driven and how there are a batch of loops much like the H2O penstock.
Originally there was a procedure called the Unified Methodology. This methodological analysis was by and large made from diagrams and notations. After a piece people noticed that there was no procedure found and it was merely diagramming tools and it was renamed to UML.
The Rational Unified Process consists of four stages that are similar to the traditional package development life rhythm. These stages are origin, amplification, building and passage. Each stage would hold a milepost. These mileposts are used to show certification to the client. You can see these stages in the diagram. Figure 4.0
Figure 4.0 ( Rational Unified Process )
Diagram Taken from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.sei.cmu.edu/news-at-sei/columns/the_cots_spot/2000/summer/cots-sum00.htm 22/08/2007
The origin stage is present so that the development squad and the client both understand what the package will make. The ground for this is that they can both have an understanding. There is normally a papers specifying the intent of the undertaking at the terminal of the stage.
The amplification stage will demo how the system will be made and how it will work. This stage normally includes manners such as usage instance descriptions and utilize instance diagrams utilizing the UML instance tool.
The building stage makes the merchandise in order to give the client and thought of what the system is traveling to be like. Models are likely to be produced here for the client.
The passage stage is where the client takes ownership of the merchandise ; nevertheless the squad that created it will go on to prove the system for bugs. Test consequences are likely to be created.
Depending on the size and the resource of the undertaking there may be multiple loops. These loops can incorporate different groups of constituents that can be processed at the same clip ( parallel ) but they are ne’er the in the same province.
In the RUP the cardinal factor for success is to do certain you identify the most of import characteristics accurately and do certain you commence the undertaking with these.
The strength of RUP is that the undertaking is chopped up into precedences and finishing the system in ‘components ‘ can develop it. This makes the undertaking easier to pull off and reduces the sum of activities you have to transport out per loop.
The chief failing of this attack is that it is one of the less straightforward attacks. RUP does non supply any counsel on how to scale the procedure to suit different size undertakings. It is a learning curve and it assumes that you will utilize object-oriented constructs.
Why Pick A Methodology?
Picking a package development methodological analysis can be a challenge that needs to be carried out sagely. In some instances it is the 1 of the most of import stages of the undertaking. If you have a methodical attack so the package will normally ensue in fewer defects and it shortens the bringing clip. The methodological analysis gives you a construction for your undertaking and AIDSs planning. With an efficient program in topographic point it non merely aids the development squad but it allows the client to see what phase you should be on. The construction allows the undertaking to maintain its quality throughout.
You are able to see from this study that I have reviewed 4 methodological analysiss:
- The Waterfall
- The Water Sluice
- The Rational Unified Process ( RUP )
- The Spiral
I will take to compare the consequences by seting them all in a tabular array to analyze the strengths and failings.
| Strengths | Coiling | RUP | Water Sluice | Waterfall |
| Allows For Work Force Specialization | Ten | Ten | ||
| Orderliness | Ten | Ten | Ten | |
| Can Be Reported About | Ten | Ten | Ten | Ten |
| Early Functionality | Ten | Ten | ||
| Does non necessitate a complete set of demands up forepart | Ten | Ten | ||
| Control costs and hazard through prototyping | Ten |
| Failings | Coiling | RUP | Water Sluice | Waterfall |
| Requires a complete set of demands at the beginning | Ten | |||
| Requires clean interfaces between faculties | Ten | Ten | Ten | |
| Incompatible with client reappraisal and audits | Ten | |||
| Difficult jobs can be pushed to the hereafter. | Ten | Ten | Ten |
| Fewer aims are defined. | Ten | |||
| Difficult to accommodate to when used to other methodological analysiss | Ten |
Which Methodology?
In decision my probe has leaded me to utilize a combination of methodological analysiss. There are many methodological analysiss available ; nevertheless they ‘re built for different intent.
The coiling methodological analysis seems to hold a batch of strengths and seems to be effectual for a 1-man undertaking. On the other manus the waterfall methodological analysis has a better construction.
Although the waterfall methodological analysis has better construction I fear that if I happen to do a individual error on the undertaking that I will non be able to travel back on it. The waterfall characteristic does n’t hold the flexibleness I require. With the flexibleness of the coiling I can work on multiple undertakings until I have the finished application.
Although the H2O penstock is really similar to the spiral it still combines the characteristics from the waterfall. The H2O penstock does let you to work on the stage until it is complete nevertheless it does n’t let you to go on to the following stage until it is finished.
With fewer aims required at the beginning I can see how the spiral can besides hold its disadvantages, nevertheless I can garner these aims while I work on multiple stages.
Although the rational incorporate procedure is traditional I feel that there I will non necessitate the object oriented facet of this. With the flexibleness of the coiling I can hold my original program, nevertheless as I work through the loops multiple times I may hold to update my program each clip.
Using the waterfall methodological analysis can be debatable if the user demands are n’t gathered upfront. I plan to utilize the construction of the waterfall to pull off my undertaking nevertheless I will reexamine the theoretical accounts and tools during the following stage.
I plan to utilize the construction of the waterfall and unite this with different tools from the rational incorporate procedure. Although I plan to utilize the traditional theoretical accounts that are used with the waterfall I am likely to include some theoretical accounts which are portion of the Rational Unified Process. With a undertaking every bit little as this it is impossible to utilize one methodological analysis so I plan to blend different facets.
I am likely to bring forth multiple paradigms before finishing the concluding piece of package. This will take into history the coiling methodological analysis. The proving at this phase is besides completed multiple times for quality confidence and is besides relevant to the coiling methodological analysis. In short the slugs below represent how I plan to implement different facets.
- Waterfall – Structure and theoretical accounts
- Spiral – Multiple loops of proving and prototyping
- R.U.P – Use of theoretical accounts to understand procedures ( Will non necessitate object orientation for this undertaking )
- Water Sluice – I may utilize this attack to assist me prioritize different subdivisions of the design stage. Examples: Should the HCI be review foremost? Should I Plan the tabular arraies foremost?
Mentions: –
Web sites: –
Wikipedia ( package development procedure ) – hypertext transfer protocol: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_development_process
Waterfall Methodology – hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottwnelson.com/article7-methodologies-waterfall.php
Water Sluice Methodology – hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottwnelson.com/article9-methodologies-water-sluice.php
Books: –
Systems analysis and design in a changing universe – Satzinger, Jackson, Burd: ISBN: 0-619-21371-X: Page 61
Information Systems Development – methodological analysiss, techniques & A ; tools – David Avison & A ; Guy Fitzgerald: ISBN: 0-07-711417-5: Page 462
Bibliography:
Web sites: –
Wikipedia ( package development procedure ) – hypertext transfer protocol: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_development_process
Waterfall Methodology – hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottwnelson.com/article7-methodologies-waterfall.php
Water Sluice Methodology – hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottwnelson.com/article9-methodologies-water-sluice.php
Scott W Nelson – hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottwnelson.com – Tonss of information sing assorted methodological analysiss
Books: –
Systems analysis and design in a changing universe – Satzinger, Jackson, Burd: ISBN: 0-619-21371-X
Information Systems Development – methodological analysiss, techniques & A ; tools – David Avison & A ; Guy Fitzgerald: ISBN: 0-07-711417-5
Hughes. B and Cotterell. M. ( 2002 )Software Project Management – Third Edition –The McGraw-Hill Companies 0-07-709834-X
Moore. J.W ( 1998 ) Software Engineering Standards ( A Users Road Map ) – IEEE Computer Society – 0-8186-8008-3
