Not That Different, No?
Check out this slide I plucked from a pitch that will remain unnamed:
Notice the note under the waterfall diagram. Now, let’s look at the original, “unadapted” version and accompanying quote from Winston W. Royce’s classic 1970 paper:
Notice that Mr. Royce clearly noted in his paper that the sequential, never-look-back, waterfall process is a stone cold loser. Next, let’s look at another diagram from Mr. Royce’s paper; one that no fragilista ever mentions or shows:
OMG! An iterative waterfall with feedback loops? WTF!
Finally, let’s look at BD00’s syntegrated version of the agile, lower half of our consultant’s diagram and the iterative waterfall diagram from Mr. Royce’s paper:
Comparing the agile and “chunked“, iterative, waterfall models shows that, taken in the right context, they’re not that different…. no?
Leave a Reply
Why am I here?
WTF?
Meh!
D'oh!
My BTC Address
Bulldozer00's Blog 
I would like to leave a comment but I am afraid it was brain overload for me! Will you be posting about the Mardi Gras soon?
Hi Rainee. I wasn’t planning on writing a blog post on the specifics of my trip to Mardi Gras, but I’ll rethink the situation.
What seems arguably different is how tight a cycle time is desired/feasible, and if you can jump back several steps directly vs running the chain sequentially backwards.
Yepp, they’re definitely arguable because they’re context-specific. I think Royce was talking about big real-time, non-IT-database systems. Even with that in mind, they’re not that different when it comes down to it, no?