Agile V. Waterfall
Waterfall to Agile
References
Pavolka, R., Mount, V., Neymeyr, A., & Rhodes, C. From Waterfall to Rapid Prototyping (2005). Supporting Enterprise-wide Adoption of the Oncourse Collaboration and Learning (CL) Environment at Indiana University. SIGUCCS ’05 Proceedings of 33rd Annual ACM SIGUCCS Fall Conference, 312 – 319.
Northrop, Robert (2004). The Fall of Waterfall. Intelligent Enterprise 7.3, 40-41.
Adams, John (2013). Change in Software Techniques Helps FHLB Reduce Defects. American Banker, Technology Section, Volume 178 No. 23. I.
Agile v. Waterfall
Agile Development Methods (Agile) and the Waterfall Method (Waterfall) are two different styles of designing and managing the Soft Development Life-Cycle (SDLC) within an organization. Waterfall being the more traditional approach and Agile newly born just twelve years ago, there is much debate over which approach works best and when.
Companies have used Waterfall for decades of successful projects and in most companies the approach has been ingrained into the very fabric of the company. The organization of teams and human resources in information technology (IT) can be anywhere from loosely to entirely based on the method that the organization is using. More and more organizations are starting to see the advantages of Agile now and are questioning older methods almost entirely because of the fast-paced business world of the twenty-first century. Agile allows an organization to respond to that change more quickly without sacrificing quality work or customer satisfaction. Waterfall, on the other hand, with its precise planning can offer better time management and money savings. In a fast-paced society where the time it takes to bring a product to market could mean the difference between success and failure, Agile is making its way into more and more organizations everyday. And, everyday more and more of these organizations are struggling with the change that is required to adopt Agile
References
Pavolka, R., Mount, V., Neymeyr, A., & Rhodes, C. From Waterfall to Rapid Prototyping (2005). Supporting Enterprise-wide Adoption of the Oncourse Collaboration and Learning (CL) Environment at Indiana University. SIGUCCS ’05 Proceedings of 33rd Annual ACM SIGUCCS Fall Conference, 312 – 319.
Northrop, Robert (2004). The Fall of Waterfall. Intelligent Enterprise 7.3, 40-41.
Adams, John (2013). Change in Software Techniques Helps FHLB Reduce Defects. American Banker, Technology Section, Volume 178 No. 23. I.
Agile v. Waterfall
Agile Development Methods (Agile) and the Waterfall Method (Waterfall) are two different styles of designing and managing the Soft Development Life-Cycle (SDLC) within an organization. Waterfall being the more traditional approach and Agile newly born just twelve years ago, there is much debate over which approach works best and when.
Companies have used Waterfall for decades of successful projects and in most companies the approach has been ingrained into the very fabric of the company. The organization of teams and human resources in information technology (IT) can be anywhere from loosely to entirely based on the method that the organization is using. More and more organizations are starting to see the advantages of Agile now and are questioning older methods almost entirely because of the fast-paced business world of the twenty-first century. Agile allows an organization to respond to that change more quickly without sacrificing quality work or customer satisfaction. Waterfall, on the other hand, with its precise planning can offer better time management and money savings. In a fast-paced society where the time it takes to bring a product to market could mean the difference between success and failure, Agile is making its way into more and more organizations everyday. And, everyday more and more of these organizations are struggling with the change that is required to adopt Agile
References: Northrop, Robert (2004). The Fall of Waterfall. Intelligent Enterprise 7.3, 40-41. Adams, John (2013). Change in Software Techniques Helps FHLB Reduce Defects. American Banker, Technology Section, Volume 178 No. 23.