The Myth of the 'Waterfall' SDLC (2019)

#1

Post by karateka » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 11:08 AM UTC

The Myth of the 'Waterfall' SDLC (2019)
bawiki.com

Re: The Myth of the 'Waterfall' SDLC (2019)

#2

Post by Yhippa » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

I was on a project where we used Agile. The team genuinely wanted to improve itself over time and we didn't have hard due dates. The thing was done when it was done.

Despite that, something felt really off. Requirements and scope kept popping out of nowhere. We tried moving onto something new yet requirements kept popping up from things we didn't consider.

The project was somewhat of a legacy refactor so it was easy to say "just redo X in system Y" but for some reason it didn't work out that way. I think this project could have used some the old waterfall paradigm where you did a lot of the requirements analysis up front.

Sure, you're not going to capture everything, but in this case I think it would have helped everyone involved if there was more foresight put into it up front instead of continually bumping things into the night and making stories for it.

Re: The Myth of the 'Waterfall' SDLC (2019)

#3

Post by scottrogowski » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

The difference between what mainstream agile is and what the original authors of the agile manifesto were trying to achieve is vast.

This talk from one of the authors is an amazing rebuttal of what agile has become and clarification of what it is supposed to be https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a-BOSpxYJ9M

Re: The Myth of the 'Waterfall' SDLC (2019)

#4

Post by smitty1e » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 2:06 PM UTC

I agree with TFA that 'Waterfall' is substantially a mythical creation in terms of formal definiton.

Nobody defined 'Waterfall' as contrasted with Agile any more than 'they' argued constant climate as the Climate Change folks would have it.

Nevertheless, I have seen, especially in a government context, the very bureaucratic rigidity that the Agile practitioners decry. SAFE wasn't begotten in a vacuum or as a sales driver.

Re: The Myth of the 'Waterfall' SDLC (2019)

#5

Post by bhawks » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

Waterfall in practice being so horribly bad for software engineering projects is kind of sad because of how low the bar is set. It's 2021 and agile-ists still compare themselves to that dead horse.

I'd rather see more rigor being put in making a methodology that's measurably better than the clusterf of short-term task tracking spreadsheets and cargo cult dogma of agile in practice today.

Re: The Myth of the 'Waterfall' SDLC (2019)

#6

Post by nayuki » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 2:20 PM UTC

This talk describes how the waterfall development model was a caricature that got accidentally turned into reality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP9AIUT9nos "Lone Star Ruby Conference 2010 Real Software Engineering by Glenn Vanderburg"

Re: The Myth of the 'Waterfall' SDLC (2019)

#7

Post by trabant00 » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 2:22 PM UTC

I recently took a mandatory SAFe course. The introduction consisted of mainly justifying the practice by comparing it to the waterfall method. The latter being defined absolutely ridiculos. The client is not allowed to see incremental versions until the entire thing is completely finalized, maybe 2 years later. The initial design is not allowed to be altered. Testing can't start until the entire application is done, etc.

If you have to misrepresent the alternative (false dichotomy anyway) then maybe you don't have anything of value to bring to the table. That's what it felt to me.

Re: The Myth of the 'Waterfall' SDLC (2019)

#8

Post by kstenerud » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

Royce's waterfall model is what was actually being used until the mid-2000s in most software houses. And it was one of those processes that looks good on paper, but doesn't actually save you time or effort.

I don't know where this "rigid" model comes from, but I never encountered it in the early days. Everyone knew you couldn't just complete a phase in totality and then move on to the next; there had to be overlap and stepping back up to an earlier phase as you discovered new things.

I suspect the "rigid" variant is merely the hyperbole that waterfall has been reduced to since there are no more proponents of it left. Doesn't make the Royce variant useful, though.

Re: The Myth of the 'Waterfall' SDLC (2019)

#9

Post by chasd00 » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

In consulting they talk of a “hybrid model” which is basically iterated waterfall. Which, ftfa, is regular waterfall.

It works in consulting because you know the end product and schedule before agreeing to do the work (or at least you’re suppose to).

I use to be anti waterfall just because everyone else was but, at the end of the day, it works pretty well in its niche.

Re: The Myth of the 'Waterfall' SDLC (2019)

#10

Post by specialist » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

Nice work.

Agile Methodology was a self-defense coping measure for dealing with psychotic customers who cannot or will not do proper project management.

It was never meant as a replacement for PMI.

IMHO, "waterfall" is not having feedback loops, iteration. All of the methodologists (I read) in the 90s cautioned against "throwing it over the wall", as detailed in this OC's description of rigid sequences.

Plenty of today's "Agile" lacks proper feedback loops. Where primary assumptions are not revisited, when new information does not lead to course corrections.

Maybe "waterfall" is just dysfunctional communication, where reasonable people aren't talking to each other.

Any way. This is a great write up.