[Sigia-l] love thy client (was Re: [Sigia-l] "Study: Content Management Tools Fail")

[Boniface Lau]

> From: sigia-l-admin at asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin at asis.org]On
> Behalf Of John O'Donovan-INTERNET
>  
> Hmmmm bad link maybe - late at night. 

The link was fine. The problem was with the article not having any
references. So, I was not sure what Spiral Model the article was
referring to.


[...]
> I'm not sure you understood the point - a waterfall model does not
> involve much common sense at all. Trying to document and understand
> all elements before proceeding is a known pitfall in software
> projects.
> 
> The standard waterfall model is associated with the failure or
> cancellation of many large systems. Particularly the problem that
> requirements must be fixed before the system is designed.
> Inevitable doom and not very sensible.
> 
> Classic Waterfall model is just:
> 
> Requirements Analysis
> Functional Specification
> Design
> Implementation
> Testing
> 
> In that order. There was room to revise some earlier assumptions but
> no real iteration. Misunderstandings early on can bring down the
> whole project.

Have you read Royce's 1970 article on the waterfall model?


> 
> Moving forward a spiral model is more flexible, for example,
> 
> "The primary advantage of the spiral model is that its range of
> options allows it to accommodate the best features of existing
> software process models, while its risk-driven approach helps it to
> avoid most of their difficulties. In appropriate situations, the
> spiral model becomes equivalent to one of the existing process
> models. In other situations, it provides guidance on the best mix of
> existing approaches to be applied to a given project."

That looks like Boehm's writing. But where exactly are you quoting
from?


Boniface