Talk:Waterfall model

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2013; 2014; 2015; 2016; 2017; 2018; 2020;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Engineering Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Systems Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Systems engineering.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

todo

I still think it would be good to have a remark in the beginning that the waterfall model is the methodology which was used in softwre development before there was much debate on different methodologies. That is why I inserted a small remark some weeks ago ("It was the first and only wide spread software development process in the 1970ies before Agile software development came in the 2000 decade."). This insertion was reverted by WalterGörlitz, so the gap is open again, I think.

I have looked up what was our "Bible of software methodology" at that time: Schnupp, Peter / Christiane Floyd: Software. Programmentwicklung und Projektorganisation. Publishing company: Berlin de Gruyter, (1976), ISBN 10: 3110059533 ISBN 13: 9783110059533.

Basically, you see the phases of the waterfall model there, but not the name "waterfall model". There was no need for a name of the methodology, as it was the only one, besides "naive development"; in much the same way as a steam locomotive was simply called a locomotive before electric or diesel locomotive existed. (MatEngel (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Peer review

Waterfall model received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Just added a lot of material, I'd like to make sure that it's all correct... GeorgeBills 14:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly scanned the article, and (IMHO) it's technically correct. I may tweak some stuff if I get some time, but the general sense of the article looks right. Jim Huggins 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a link to Tarmo's blog counts as vanity link... Tarmo is a journalist for the biggest computers related magazine in Finland, but still... :/ I'm not very familiar with Wiki customs. --sigmundur —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.86.94.11 (talk • contribs) 26 June 2006.

Blogs by notable authorities are generally acceptable, at least in the absence of a better citation. - Jmabel | Talk 17:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I can't draw at all, it would be nice if someone could whip up the coloured boxes in a slightly nicer form and replace Image:Waterfall_model.jpg. GeorgeBills 04:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, "maintenance" is mis-spelled ... :) Jim Huggins 22:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created a replacement diagram: Image:Waterfall_model.png. I'll leave the 'reqimage' tag above for now, in case someone thinks this article needs more diagrams. PaulHoadley 03:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to have thought so in almost the last year, so looks like it's all good. -Stellmach 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Waterfall_model.svg )currently show the phases overlapping. This should probably be changed so the are aligned at the ends of each box or so they have a bit of space between each to. This would make it clear that the phases do not overlap in the unmodified waterfall model. 62.107.105.61 (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That image is in wikicommons, commons:File:Waterfall model.svg. There are two earlier versions there. Feel free to change it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

Great article, one would almost start to believe there ever was such a thing as a watterfall model. Problem is, it does not exist, nor has any project aver used such a model. The whole waterfall model in the original article started its life as a strawman, and has seen many incarnations that have repeatedly been used again and again to attack older aging models. Models that one or two decades ago were advocated using the watterfall stwaman model are ironically today being attacked using the same strawman fallicy. I believe this artiocale should be deleted and replaced with a proper analysis of the decades old strawman falicy that the waterfall model represents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:4962:1:5604:A6FF:FEF1:6202 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide any reliable sources to support your opinion, then we should certainly add a discussion about this in a criticisms section, but the sources clearly show that it does exist and is not a straw man. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that (AFAICS) all of the references in the article are either 'in contrast' mentions or are 'historic' analisis quoting these 'in contrast' papers. Development processes have always been itterative, even those that define phases have explicit or implicit feedback loops. AFAIK there are no documented examples of processes in practice using a true waterfall model where the phases are frozen once the next phase begins. The burdon of the proof should not be with me, but with the people claiming that the waterfall model has ever actualy been used as a real model in practice. I would thus sugest both adding a 'quotations needed' in the parts that claim that the model has actualy ever been used AND adding criticisms section mentioning the posibility of the model being nothing but a stwawman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:4962:1:5604:A6FF:FEF1:6202 (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to refer to Profesor Dischave who a few years back stated

"For those information technology professionals and other interested parties I encourage you to do some research. Look for the seminal work that introduces a “waterfall” methodology to the discipline. If you find it please share it with this community. I would like to read it, but in the meantime please read Winston Royce’s, “Managing the Development of Large Software Systems.”[i] I think you will find Royce does a nice job proving that the “Waterfall” systems development methodology is indeed a myth."

http://get.syr.edu/news_alt.aspx?recid=401

I don't think adding a 'criticisms section' is sufficient, but it might be a start. I maintain that there is no actual proof to be found that shows that a real development method ever existed that could truly be considered waterfall. From this I challenge the legitimacy of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.70.45.2 (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Controversy[edit] Although many references to the waterfall model exist, and while many methodologies could be qualified as 'modified' waterfall, the key aspect of waterfall as being a non-iterative process, and lack of citations regarding the actual use of such a non-iterative waterfall model have made one critic,[17] among many, pose the thesis that the waterfall model itself, as a non-iterative development methodology, is in fact a myth and a straw-man argument used purely to advocate alternative development methodologies.

I write novels (4 of them). I've written reams of user manuals. I've read dozens of books on computer programming, (I'm a 30 year programmer.) It is my semi professional opinion that the above section, titled 'Controversy,' is nearly all gibberish and virtually indecipherable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.33.25 (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be WP:BOLD and remove it. It does appear to be rambling. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EITVOX criteria not been talked both in Waterfall Model & modified Waterfall Model

Entry, Input, Task, Validation, Output, Exit criteria is very standard one whether it is Waterfall Model or any Modern modified Waterfall Model. This needs to be discussed in a generic nature, in both of the page Waterfall Model and Modified Waterfall Models regardless whether it gets into any specific development model page or not,- as AI - Artificial Intelligence involved nowadays rather not by any human effort in which not all its counterparts of EITVOX has a criteria as its logistics is in a quantum ride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansathas (talk • contribs) 06:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leprechauns of Software Development research into the history

I found this interesting. It's samples from a book in progress about how to apply skepticism to claims in software engineering. One of the sample chapters is a worked example of debunking the origin myths (for and against are both myths) of the waterfall development methodology. [1] The author does some research, complete with citation graphs for the original paper. Probably not ready to use as a source itself, but a good pointer for what to research for a good wikipedia summary - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Waterfall model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140702113551/http://get.syr.edu/news_alt.aspx?recid=401 to http://get.syr.edu/news_alt.aspx?recid=401

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]