Comments for agilequalityassurance.com

Comment on Agile - It’s a Social Thing by admin

admin — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:18:28 +0000

Hi Xavier,

Apologies, this has to rate amongst the latest replies to any post anywhere I’ve just gone onto your site, looks very interesting, thanks for passing on the link!

Comment on Agile - It’s a Social Thing by Xavier Shedlock

Xavier Shedlock — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:43:31 +0000

Excellent site. Have you been in Quality Assurance for awhile? What do you make of Microsoft’s Alan Page and others writing essays about how they improve software? I heard a presentation by Page a couple years ago about large-scale automation, very interesting stuff. Click here if you’d like to check out my site.

Comment on Agile v Waterfall - Which Is The More Risky? by Joseph Mallia

Joseph Mallia — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 06:37:03 +0000

Hi to All,

Agile v Waterfall - Which Is The More Risky? — I will definitely say waterfall. Why?

Waterfall is more expensive and rigid, without any leeway to change and confirm your product as it will be developing. Waterfall lacks the responsibility and participation of users or project’s sponsors, while in Agile this is a must. What happens if during analysis something was misinterpreted or changes take place from the company or outside boundaries! We are in huge… huge trouble. Agile can adopt to these changes.

Agile does not mean no documentation, rules and what so ever. It is a way of prioritizing and doing things in collaboration with your sponsor to meet business objectives better with less expense.

Joseph

Comment on Agile v Waterfall - Which Is The More Risky? by Bob

Bob — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:43:50 +0000

I read his comment the other way around (Rocket=waterfall) I believe what he’s trying to say is if there are no changes and all requirements can be perfectly known, recorded, and communicated up front, then waterfall has better throughput than incremental/iterative approaches. However, if the project requires changes, then you are in trouble… big trouble.

Agile has slightly less through put, but is nimble as heck. This nimble-ness accomodates changes (embraces them, actually) so that the overall impact is getting to the destination more quickly.

Not a controversial idea. This comment was made many years ago by early Agile adopters. I don’t see it as much of a knock - how often do you get a project with perfect requirements?

Comment on Agile v Waterfall - Which Is The More Risky? by BABS

BABS — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:33:58 +0000

Hi David,
Just want to confirm that I have understood you properly… “I often compare Agile vs Waterfall to a rocket vs a jet plane.” So…
Agile = Rocket
Waterfall = Jet plane
Is this correct?

Assuming above, you mean to say that Agile will get you to a “random” result faster, and Waterfall will get you to a “definite” result slower. And if this “random” result is what the client wanted, he is lucky. Is this correct?

Sorry that I confused myself!?
BABS

Comment on Agile v Waterfall - Which Is The More Risky? by David Kramer

David Kramer — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:34:42 +0000

One of the problems I’ve seen selling Agile is that it initially feels to managers that they’re giving up control, when they actually have more control, and that it’s less predictable, when in fact we only give up long-term time estimate because they are lies anyway.

I often compare Agile vs Waterfall to a rocket vs a jet plane. The rocket can go a lot faster, but once you light those solid booster engines, you’re going wherever you’re pointed. If that happens to be a good place when you get there, then great. But in the real world, the slower-moving-but-steerable jet plane is going to get you where you need to be at the end.

So it really comes down to what’s more important; having a guess at where you will be at then end and when that might be, or knowing that at the end you will have what you need, and that it will most likely be sooner than with Waterfall.