Skip to main content

Falling over the waterfall

I'm amazed by how many people I meet that tell me their project, or projects in their organisation, use some kind of variant of the waterfall lifecycle. It happened to me again today while conversing with a friend who works for one of the major international banks. The waterfall is as ubiquitous as death, taxes and project overruns!

[And now I discover there's an unmissable conference on the subject - stop reading this blog and go now to waterfall2006.com! But more on this later.]

The interesting thing about the waterfall lifecycle is that it has very few proponents among the luminaries of the industry. Even Winston Royce, who is usually credited with inventing the waterfall in his 1970 paper to the IEEE was actually criticising the approach of trying to deliver a complete system in one iteration. While I'm in name-dropping mode, I could mention that I met Winston when he was working at TRW. He had a most distinguished pedigree in software engineering but he was hardly the unqualified supporter of monolithic processes. His son follows in his tradition and provided a very interesting quote on the waterfall process:
  • "Across the software industry, we characterize modern software lifecycles using many different terms, including spiral development, incremental development, evolutionary development, and iterative development (my preference). In spirit, these terms all stand for the same thing, namely anti-waterfall development."” Walker Royce (2000)

More striking criticism of the waterfall approach comes from all quarters. F. P. Brooks for example:
  • "Much of present-day software acquisition procedure rests upon the assumption that one can specify a satisfactory system in advance, get bids for its construction, have it built, and install it. I think this assumption is fundamentally wrong, and that many software acquisition problems spring from that fallacy.”" F. P. Brooks (1986).

Or Tom Gilb:
  • "There is nothing (no complex thing) that can't be delivered in an evolutionary fashion; conversely no (complex) thing can be delivered in one go." Tom Gilb.

The waterfall has a significant advantage. It's simple to explain and understand. For those tempted to adopt it for that reason should heed this warning from the celebrated journalist, political commentator [and cynic], Henry Mencken:
  • "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong!"” H. L. Mencken “.

However I would want you to think that I'm biased in any way. I recently was pointed to this new conference on "Waterfall Unified Process" by a friend and former colleague Jon Kern. Whatever your view on waterfalls, I urge you to visit this site. It's great!

I've already mentioned the link. It's http://www.waterfall2006.com/.
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does your Definition of Done allow known defects?

Is it just me or do you also find it odd that some teams have clauses like this in their definition of done (DoD)?
... the Story will contain defects of level 3 severity or less only ... Of course they don't mean you have to put minor bugs in your code - that really would be mad - but it does mean you can sign the Story off as "Done"if the bugs you discover in it are only minor (like spelling mistakes, graphical misalignment, faults with easy workarounds, etc.). I saw DoDs like this some time ago and was seriously puzzled by the madness of it. I was reminded of it again at a meet-up discussion recently - it's clearly a practice that's not uncommon.

Let's look at the consequences of this policy. 

Potentially for every User Story that is signed off as "Done" there could be several additional Defect Stories (of low priority) that will be created. It's possible that finishing a Story (with no additional user requirements) will result in an increase in…

"Plan of Intent" and "Plan of Record"

Ron Lichty is well known in the Software Engineering community on the West Coast as a practitioner, as a seasoned project manager of many successful ventures and in a number of SIGs and conferences in which he is active. In spite of knowing Ron by correspondence over a long period of time it was only at JavaOne this year that we finally got together and I'm very glad we did.

Ron wrote to me after our meeting:

I told a number of people later at JavaOne, and even later that evening at the Software Engineering Management SIG, about xProcess. It really looks good. A question came up: It's a common technique in large organizations to keep a "Plan of Intent" and a "Plan of Record" - to have two project plans, one for the business partners and boss, one you actually execute to. Any support for that in xProcess?

Good question! Here's my reply...

There is support in xProcess for an arbitrary number of target levels through what we call (in the process definitions) P…

Understanding Cost of Delay and its Use in Kanban

Cost of Delay (CoD) is a vital concept to understand in product development. It should be a guide to the ordering of work items, even if - as is often the case - estimating it quantitatively may be difficult or even impossible. Analysing Cost of Delay (even if done qualitatively) is important because it focuses on the business value of work items and how that value changes over time. An understanding of Cost of Delay is essential if you want to maximise the flow of value to your customers.

Don Reinertsen in his book Flow [1] has shown that, if you want to deliver the maximum business value with a given size team, you give the highest priority, not to the most valuable work items in your "pool of ideas," not even to the most urgent items (those whose business value decays at the fastest rate), nor to your smallest items. Rather you should prioritise those items with the highest value of urgency (or CoD) divided by the time taken to implement them. Reinertsen called this appro…