To successfully complete the software development project, one must thoroughly understand the many specified processes and techniques that go into making stable software. Every strategy has benefits and drawbacks, and every person has their own reasons for favoring a certain way. The project manager or development team will choose the most effective software development approach for a given assignment.
A practical software project can be achieved using either the waterfall or agile approach. The difference is seen in how they speed up the project’s completion. This demonstrates that implementing the development process has presented unique obstacles for both systems. Waterfalls have been identified with how projects can be built successfully because they exhibit the features of the waterfall approach (Khoza & Marnewick, 2020). The phases that make up this approach and are later referred to as the software development sequence define it in detail. That is why the tried-and-true waterfall cycle mode is so easy to grasp; it has to stick to a few basic rules to function correctly. Since the model mimics a waterfall’s straightforward progression, we can see that each stage’s result is the result of the previous step.
The best use cases of the waterfall approach emphasize standardization from the start; the agile methodology’s emphasis on sharing features early on directly opposes this idea. As a result of the method’s emphasis on two-way communication and interaction across its many phases, the project saves money by making more efficient use of its scarce implementation resources (Kisling, 2019). Through iterative slam cycles, projects may be scheduled to adhere to their intended phases more closely, and their activities can be prioritized more fluidly and often over the project’s duration.
Since agile is commonly linked to many dishonest issues, it is not a reliable methodology. These flaws make it harder to regularly deliver new projects and kick off development with this approach. In this case, the method’s tolerance of the project’s integrity means that architectural change issues are of relatively low importance. Mistakes with the project have been mostly covered up and assumed, as fixing them would require extensive and costly procedures (Khoza & Marnewick, 2020). Techniques that have made the project legitimate based on the ideas of the experts involved in the alterations to the project are the only things that has been considered in this endeavor.
Due to its design, the waterfall approach to software development was unsuccessful. This is because the approach takes the “one-way street,” meaning that each phase must be completed just once, without any opportunity for error correction. Errors are likely to be present in the project if the initial stage fails. Since all methods need to be overlapped to produce efficiency, which is not applicable in this methodology, many specialists who have tried to utilize it have failed, not in succession (Khoza & Marnewick, 2020). However, there are blunders that emerged from the project’s development using the agile model. It’s a well-known problem that not every project succeeds as planned because of a lack of solid material dealing with beautiful skills.
In conclusion, the present technology makes it easy to adapt the project to the client’s needs. Since both agile and waterfall have drawbacks when it comes to fulfilling functional requirements for projects, all businesses should adopt the use of AI. Due to its association with numerous dishonest issues, the agile methodology is not the trusted approach, so the project is unreliable. The technique tolerates the project’s integrity; therefore, the difficulties associated with architectural change are not a primary concern here. Errors in the project have been covered up and assumed because fixing them would require a lot of time and money. Based on the advice of the experts consulted during the project’s evolution, the sole thing with which this project is concerned is the methods by which its legitimacy has been established.
References
Khoza, L., & Marnewick, C. (2020). Waterfall and agile information system project success rates-A South African perspective. South African Computer Journal, 32(1), 43-73.
Kisling, E. (2019). Transitioning from Waterfall to agile: shifting student thinking and doing from milestones to sprints. Proceedings of Southern Association for Information Systems, 14, 1-2.