AGILE AND WATERFALL SOFTWARE
This small, three-day retreat would help shape the way that much of software is imagined, created, and delivered-and, just maybe, how the world works. But it was here, nestled in the white-capped mountains at a ski resort, that a group of software rebels gathered in 2001 to frame and sign one of the most important documents in its industry’s history, a sort of Declaration of Independence for the coding set. Around 25 miles outside Salt Lake City, Snowbird is certainly no Silicon Valley it is not known for sunny and temperate climes, for tech-innovation hubs, or for a surplus of ever eager entrepreneurs. Want to find out more? See our approach to CRM implementation.Snowbird, Utah, is an unlikely place to mount a software revolution. But once this has happened, the implementation team usually take over. In contrast, Waterfall tends to spend a lot of time with the customer at the start, trying to document all the perceived requirements. In contrast, Agile not only has the ability to adapt to changing needs, but it expects them and plans for them.Īgile sees the customer as part of the implementation team and includes them at each part of the process. Often a client feels locked into a project that no longer meets the current business need. If business processes change during the project Waterfall isn’t set up to adapt to this. Waterfall isn’t geared to take into account a customer’s evolving needs. This also makes it more likely that the project will finish on time, and on budget. With Agile, testing happens regularly through the whole process, so the customer periodically checks that the product is what they envisioned. The customer then has to find extra budget to get the product they now need. If the customer’s needs weren’t captured well initially or they have changed since the start of the project, testing may come too late in the cycle to make big adjustments.
With Waterfall, the product is mainly tested at the end of the project. This is harder to do with Waterfall because the customer has to outline all their preferences upfront, without seeing a working version. Seeing a working version early on in the project allows the customer to say ‘I like this, but I don’t like that’, and so shape the product according to their requirements. In contrast, Agile builds a working version of the whole project ( an MVP) so the customer can shape how it’s built. Once a step has been completed in Waterfall, it’s difficult to go back and make changes. Not so with Agile – requirements are checked and confirmed throughout the project. However, if these requirements aren’t documented precisely, or there was a misunderstanding around the detail of what the customer wanted, it makes things very difficult. Waterfall relies heavily on initial requirements. In the realm of CRM deployments, here are 5 reasons why we believe Agile is better than Waterfall. It’s better for our customers, and that means it’s better for all of us. At The CRM Team, we joined the Agile revolution, and it’s now the only implementation method that we use. They no longer can afford to be locked into long IT projects that, once set in motion, can’t be changed or adjusted. In a changing world, speed and the agility now matter to customers. It worked, was reliable and suited IT professionals. Waterfall methodology used to be the way all IT deployments were done.
0 kommentar(er)
