%&tex
\chapter{Case Evaluation}
\label{chap:case_evaluation}

\section{Preparation Phase}
\subsection{One-man development team}
The case study was performed by me, as a single developer.
Against all expectations, this one-man development team made the preparation phase more difficult instead of easier.
The goal of the problem description and the specifications step is to get the stakeholders on the same line \autocite{shafaat_exploring_2015}.
This involves creating agreed-upon requirements for the system, but with only one stakeholder, this agreement is implicit.
Moreover, it undermines the incentive of the problem description and specifications step.
Part of this is that there is no penalty for future reviews of the specifications, as I already agreed.

Furthermore, specific details and decisions were often made subconsciously, while I was commuting, waiting in line, or even showering.
Making structured documentation of these decisions at a later point in time without missing any of them was impossible.
The social interaction within a design team stimulates this documenting process as it improves the recall and interpretation of information.
It also improves the judgement and selection between design alternatives \autocite{lamb_221_2008}.

\subsection{Information Flow}
%% Aanknopen op het vorige verhaal?
Although team members improve the information flow within a design team, it does not guarantee that all information is available.
Throughout the case study, more and more information becomes available.
During the initial design, new insight was gained that would have been useful during the problem description and the specifications step.
And while making the tests, it became clear that the specifications were incomplete.
It is possible to review the specifications step, but the succeeding steps have to be redone as well. 
During the case study, I decided to continue with the design due to the scope of the research, namely the development design cycle was.

Dealing with these design changes is a known weakness of the waterfall model.
Many publications give credit to \textcite{royce_managing_1970}, for the concept of the waterfall model.
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 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}
            Prior to the case study I expected the model to be the design.
            So when the level of detail of the design is increased, this is achieved by expanding the model with more detail or components.
            Resulting in different versions of a single model where each version has more detail than the previous one.
            However, during this development a 2D dynamics model, 3D dynamics model and a 3D component model.
            Although these models have components in common, they are not compatible.
            Therefore, adding detail to the design requires two or three models to be updated.

            Furthermore, the step from 2D to 3D physics was in no means a small increment in detail.
            The first four levels of detail, as describe in the previous section, all were implemented in with two dimensions.
            As the later details required a third dimension, all the detail was directly converted from 2D into 3D.
            This is a large amount of work, introducing a high cost when the conversion fails.
            Moreover, it creates a new 3D physics model, parallel to the 2D physics model instead of adding detail to the latter.
            Alternative approaches for 3D model physics could be:
            \begin{itemize}
                \item Ignore 2D and start implementation in 3D modelling.
                \item Retrace all incremental detail steps of the 2D model in a 3D model.
            \end{itemize}
            Both options are not ideal, the first one does not allow a simple basic model and the second approach redoes work.
            The advantage of starting with 3D is that allows for a continuous development of one model, instead of switching the complete model.
