Waterfall

From Amachu
Jump to: navigation, search

Waterfall Model

The simplest process model is the waterfall model, which states that the phases are organized in a linear order. The model was originally proposed by Royce, though variations of the model have evolved depending on the nature of activities and the flow of control between them. In this model, a project begins with feasibility analysis. Upon successfully demonstrating the feasibility of a project, the requirements analysis and project planning begins. The design starts after the requirements analysis is complete, and coding begins after the design is complete. Once the programming is completed, the code is integrated and testing is done. Upon successful completion of testing, the system is installed. After this, the regular operation and maintenance of the system takes place. The model is shown in Figure.

Waterfall Model

The basic idea behind the phases is separation of concerns—each phase deals with a distinct and separate set of concerns. By doing this, the large and complex task of building the software is broken into smaller tasks (which, by themselves, are still quite complex) of specifying requirements, doing design, etc. Separating the concerns and focusing on a select few in a phase gives a better handle to the engineers and managers in dealing with the complexity of the problem.

The requirements analysis phase is mentioned as “analysis and planning.”Planning is a critical activity in software development. A good plan is based on the requirements of the system and should be done before later phases begin. However, in practice, detailed requirements are not necessary for planning. Consequently, planning usually overlaps with the requirements analysis, and a plan is ready before the later phases begin. This plan is an additional input to all the later phases.

Linear ordering of activities has some important consequences. First, to clearly identify the end of a phase and the beginning of the next, some certification mechanism has to be employed at the end of each phase. This is usually done by some verification and validation means that will ensure that the output of a phase is consistent with its input (which is the output of the previous phase), and that the output of the phase is consistent with the overall requirements of the system.

The consequence of the need for certification is that each phase must have some defined output that can be evaluated and certified. That is, when the activities of a phase are completed, there should be some product that is produced by that phase. The outputs of the earlier phases are often called work products and are usually in the form of documents like the requirements document or design document. For the coding phase, the output is the code. Though the set of documents that should be produced in a project is dependent on how the process is implemented, the following documents generally form a reasonable set that should be produced in each project:

  • Requirements document
  • Project plan
  • Design documents (architecture, system, detailed)
  • Test plan and test reports
  • Final code
  • Software manuals (e.g., user, installation, etc.)

One of the main advantages of the waterfall model is its simplicity. It is conceptually straightforward and divides the large task of building a software system into a series of cleanly divided phases, each phase dealing with a separate logical concern. It is also easy to administer in a contractual setup—as each phase is completed and its work product produced, some amount of money is given by the customer to the developing organization.

The waterfall model, although widely used, has some strong limitations. Some of the key limitations are:

  1. It assumes that the requirements of a system can be frozen (i.e., baselined) before the design begins. This is possible for systems designed to automate an existing manual system. But for new systems, determining the requirements is difficult as the user does not even know the requirements. Hence, having unchanging requirements is unrealistic for such projects.
  2. Freezing the requirements usually requires choosing the hardware (because it forms a part of the requirements specification). A large project might take a few years to complete. If the hardware is selected early, then due to the speed at which hardware technology is changing, it is likely that the final software will use a hardware technology on the verge of becoming obsolete. This is clearly not desirable for such expensive software systems.
  3. It follows the “big bang” approach—the entire software is delivered in one shot at the end. This entails heavy risks, as the user does not know until the very end what they are getting. Furthermore, if the project runs out of money in the middle, then there will be no software. That is, it has the “all or nothing” value proposition.
  4. It encourages “requirements bloating”. Since all requirements must be specified at the start and only what is specified will be delivered, it encourages the users and other stakeholders to add even those features which they think might be needed (which finally may not get used).
  5. It is a document-driven process that requires formal documents at the end of each phase.

Despite these limitations, the waterfall model has been the most widely used process model. It is well suited for routine types of projects where the requirements are well understood. That is, if the developing organization is quite familiar with the problem domain and the requirements for the software are quite clear, the waterfall model works well, and may be the most efficient process.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox
Print/export