From 9b17ef2956513f378f12fbbb1450213231d620ab Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wouter Horlings Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 17:16:58 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Update information flow section --- content/case_evaluation.tex | 18 ++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/case_evaluation.tex b/content/case_evaluation.tex index 38fdf10..b6e867b 100644 --- a/content/case_evaluation.tex +++ b/content/case_evaluation.tex @@ -30,16 +30,14 @@ Many publications give credit to \textcite{royce_managing_1970}, for the concept Where they refer to the simple 5 to 8 step design concept, similar to the one in \autoref{sec:SE}. What these publications fail to address is that \textcite{royce_managing_1970} says: "I believe in this concept, but the implementation described above is risky and invites failure." Followed by multiple steps of improving the waterfall model. -Royce adds a complete design step, loads of intermittent testing and documentation, and a literal instruction "Do it twice". -With "Do it twice", he adds an extra 6 steps to develop a prototype parallel to the simple waterfall model, with the goal to spot every unforeseen requirement prior to any actual development. - -Interestingly, the mentioned problems that \textcite{royce_managing_1970} is providing a solution for, are similar to the difficulties in this case study. -Studies and publications about the waterfall model would have been far more relevant if the authors included Royce's improvements. -Especially as Royce explains that in his experience, the method without his improvements has never worked and that recovery costs far exceeded the added cost of the proposed improvements. -I expect that these improvements would have had a significant impact on the design process. - - - +Royce adds a complete design step, loads of intermittent testing and documentation, and the instruction to "Do it twice". +On initial thought this feels as a disproportionate amount of extra work. +Especially since the current design plan already includes small feedback cycles. +However, the small feedback cycles only apply to the current design, and do not provide information about the current design direction. +Thus, the current level of detail might work, passing the tests of the current cycle does not guarantee a successful implementation of the design. +Based on the evaluation, it was often difficult to justify the design decisions as there was insufficient information. +A simple proof of concept would improve the information about the direction of the design, required resources and the feasibility of the project. +Although this requires additional work, it is very likely that it improves the projects feasibility and thus reducing the risks of the project. \section{Development Cycle} \subsection{Design and model}