This encourages a testing of the system by Views, too. Up to the final stage of a complete acceptance test. These Views are then tested in the reverse order of the decomposition, Self-contained for it to be built by an individual, often in isolation. Views until the View is sufficiently small, detailed, and Traditional waterfall methods decompose the problem to ever-smaller Workarounds for such problems are found and the proper solution is Products and baselines be re-created and revalidated. In reality, even in rigorous projects, a detailed requirement faultĭetected late in the waterfall lifecycle generally does not result in aĬhange to the original requirements and demand that the subsequent work This approach reduces the overall number of defects and is far more cost-effective than not following these best practices because it reduces the number of surprises and the amount of rework. Changes can ripple forward from the first work product affected to the last. If defects are found, changes are made to the requirements, specifications, or In formal waterfall methods, defects are detected as early as possible through static and then executable testing. Figure 8.2: The development techniques used for a paper airplane and an airliner should be quite different. The airliner on its maiden flight.) Figure 8.2 summarizes the different development techniques used in building a paper airplane and building an airliner. (You’d also probably face a shortage of test pilots to take Involving a lot of rework that you would otherwise haveĪvoided. Without detailed, upfront design would be a long and expensive process It would beįoolish to spend 20 minutes writing the instructions and then spend 20 To recast the comparison, it is both possibleĪnd safe to build a paper airplane without a detailed plan. Highly skilled individuals needed in early phases designed to cope with many lower-skilled resources in later phasesĪs you can see, agile and waterfall development each have their Structured baselines used suitable for more static and complex environments environment (typically Brownfield)Ĭontinuous involvement of highly skilled individuals difficult to cope with many lower skilled resources Long history of use in such implementationsĬontinuous refactoring used suitable for dynamic and simple environments (typically Greenfield) Optimal for small projects and teams reliance on tacit knowledge
0 kommentar(er)
