Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We've invented waterfall

epicenterconsulting.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 172 posts

Re: We've invented waterfall

#51

Post by blader »

roc wrote: post #49
giberson wrote: post #41

Here's what I would like to see from a consulting company for once. Don't interview the stake holders of the company, they don't use the software like their employees do. They have a high level overview based on feedback from their employees. When you interview them, you're getting second hand information that will likely be missing key points that they forgot to mention or just simply think is obvious and doesn't re…

Let me tell you why you don't see this happening more often. I did this on a project a few years back. I replaced a paper workflow process that was taking up two people each in three departments with a web-based workflow that increased visibility, dropped turn-around time from days to minutes, increased accountability and accuracy and trimmed those 16 person hours of processing down to 1-2 per department. Everyone wh…

Wow. Thanks for sharing that. This paints a really clear picture of why so much enterprise software are pieces of crap.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#52

Post by outworlder »

tintin wrote: post #19
davidu wrote: post #4

This doesn't look like a joke. Dangerous. Anyone who has done this methodology runs screaming for an exit after a failed project or two.

Not so fast. This isn't something new or strange at all. We are doing this for years with great success. But maybe you know this method as these steps (which are the same): Concept -> Functional design -> Graphic design -> Building -> Testing -> Deploy. Nothing strange about that. Take a look at the IBM Rational Unified Process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Rational_Unified_Process I just think this is a hyped sit…

Or better yet: don't ever look at anything from Rational (now IBM).

Unless you are a consulting company the size of IBM. With the same business model.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#53

Post by aidenn0 »

tintin wrote: post #19
davidu wrote: post #4

This doesn't look like a joke. Dangerous. Anyone who has done this methodology runs screaming for an exit after a failed project or two.

Not so fast. This isn't something new or strange at all. We are doing this for years with great success. But maybe you know this method as these steps (which are the same): Concept -> Functional design -> Graphic design -> Building -> Testing -> Deploy. Nothing strange about that. Take a look at the IBM Rational Unified Process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Rational_Unified_Process I just think this is a hyped sit…

It's not new or strange at all, but I would hesitate to call it a success.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#54

Post by aidenn0 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #44
Ronnie76er wrote: post #28

Waterfall isn't bad in all circumstances. Lockheed Martin isn't iterating a jet into the side of a mountain 100 times until they get it right.

tl; dr: I think Waterfall vs. Agile religious war is wrong; it's mostly about that you can't hit a moving target without a feedback loop. That's why I don't think the discussion should really be Waterfall vs. Agile, it should be about feedback loops in the process. There are circumstances in e.g. military or medical projects where you absolutely, positively, need to work to an approved spec with time & budget analysi…

The definition of waterfall is that there is no loop. When one step is done, it's done.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#55

Post by MortenK »

goldmab wrote: post #15
tpatke wrote: post #12

Meh. This is hardly the most ridiculous thing I have seen on the internet. I am sure this methodology will work sometimes for some clients. Heck, I bet a lot of startups here on HackerNews are using similar methodologies - but without the early usability testing. If nothing else, at least this company are differentiating themselves. Haven't seen a lot of other consultancies get posted up here on HackerNews. Every pro…

This was posted on HN so that we can make fun of it, and I think we're right to do so. You can be as wishy washy as you like about different situations requiring different processes, but have you ever seen somebody successfully isolate software engineering from coding and put them in sequence?

Waterfall is actually considered the very best model for software development, when the requirements are known up front in excruciating detail.

An average project experience around 25% change in requirements. Hence waterfall is highly unsuited for the majority of projects, since it does not handle requirement changes well.

However, in a few areas such as aeroplane control software, space shuttle software and similar, waterfall is indeed the optimal development process.

Different projects DO require different development processes. That's not wishy washy, it's the reality of software engineering.

Mindlessly applying your favourite development process to all projects, be it waterfall, scrum, evolutionary prototyping, spiral development or what have you, will very likely result in failure, if the process does not fit the project.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#56

Post by twerth »

roc wrote: post #49
giberson wrote: post #41

Here's what I would like to see from a consulting company for once. Don't interview the stake holders of the company, they don't use the software like their employees do. They have a high level overview based on feedback from their employees. When you interview them, you're getting second hand information that will likely be missing key points that they forgot to mention or just simply think is obvious and doesn't re…

Let me tell you why you don't see this happening more often. I did this on a project a few years back. I replaced a paper workflow process that was taking up two people each in three departments with a web-based workflow that increased visibility, dropped turn-around time from days to minutes, increased accountability and accuracy and trimmed those 16 person hours of processing down to 1-2 per department. Everyone wh…

Well said, and the exact reason I moved away from consulting after a decade of doing it.

The developers often get blamed for "not understanding how real people use the system". Most features are requested by C level people who have never actually used the system.

While consulting, I've actually been told NOT to talk to the users who will be using the system. In a large enterprise it is often about power and politics, it is rarely about building value and increasing productivity.

Vote with your labor, work for a small company.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#57

Post by willurd »

I actually know Clark Valberg, the founder of Epicenter Consulting, and did some work with him a few years back; he's a great guy. You guys can criticize him all you want, but he actually cares.

We should direct our efforts towards the bloodsuckers, not the people giving blood.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#58

Post by metaskills »

roc wrote: post #49
giberson wrote: post #41

Here's what I would like to see from a consulting company for once. Don't interview the stake holders of the company, they don't use the software like their employees do. They have a high level overview based on feedback from their employees. When you interview them, you're getting second hand information that will likely be missing key points that they forgot to mention or just simply think is obvious and doesn't re…

Let me tell you why you don't see this happening more often. I did this on a project a few years back. I replaced a paper workflow process that was taking up two people each in three departments with a web-based workflow that increased visibility, dropped turn-around time from days to minutes, increased accountability and accuracy and trimmed those 16 person hours of processing down to 1-2 per department. Everyone wh…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGS2tKQhdhY

Re: We've invented waterfall

#59

Post by joshsusser »

tpimental wrote: post #31

Maybe they aren't aware of Waterfall. Pete Campbell on Mad Men had a great quote; "You know what? I have good ideas. In fact, I used to carry around a notebook and a pen, just to keep track. Direct marketing? I thought of that. It turned out it already existed, but I arrived at it independently."

If they are such experts, how would they not be aware of waterfall? Either they are idiots who have no clue about software development methodology, or they are just lying (either to their customers or themselves). It's not like it's hard to find a reference to waterfall if you bother to look.

Re: We've invented waterfall

#60

Post by SomeOtherGuy »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #40
SomeOtherGuy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most of us would probably agree that their method is worse than more modern methods Not everyone drank the agile koolaid.

You have a choice of koolaid. The waterfall brand is implicit in the statement "We don't write a line of code until we know your business as well as the people who keep it running every day." - it is founded on the assumption that you can finish requirements for the entire system before starting to deliver working software, and no feedback or iteration is needed. My experience is that for the majority of software pro…

>You have a choice of koolaid

I also have the choice to ignore all the methodology snake oil salesmen and actually write software. Every "methodology" is bullshit. The new ones are not any less bullshit than the old ones. The fact that your response assumes I must love the old version of "follow our stupid manager nonsense" is really pretty sad. You honestly can't even imagine a world where I might think all of the bullshit is equally worthless? I have to be an adherent to one of these religions?

Post reply on HN