Steve Jones wrote:
> I blogged about this
> (http://service-architecture.blogspot.com/2006/03/soa-project-management-killing.html
> <http://service-architecture.blogspot.com/2006/03/soa-project-management-killing.html>)
> a while ago. One of the things I've done with places where Waterfall as
> become institutionalised is use Services to break the projects up into
> programmes, so even if they insist on their "corporate standard"
> waterfall process then we've broken it down into a series of small (1
> month ideally) projects. Because a series of small projects begins to
> look oddly like iteration.
>
> Now of course the real question is why do IT departments continue to use
> a waterfall approach? Its like someone proposing communism as a viable
> govermental system with the difference that it was the 70s where
> waterfall was discredited rather than the 80s.
>
Worst case scenario:
I suspect it's because waterfall isn't really a process at all rather
just the name we give to the default behaviour of most development teams
which is chaotic, undisciplined etc.
Iterative development etc are models that require some discipline, some
process knowledge, some accountability etc and are therefore "harder"
to
adopt.
Good to see you on the list by the way Steve,
Dan.
