Articles Project and Process Management Artifact reviews in an iterative lifecycle
|
| from The Rational Edge: Reviews are a great way to improve quality on a waterfall project. But for an iterative project, we want short cycles to do that job for us. This provocative article rethinks the role of reviews in iterative development lifecycles. Read more>> When software development teams or individual practitioners move from a waterfall approach to an iterative one, they tend to do too many reviews when engaging in the iterative lifecycle. This is understandable. In a waterfall-type process, reviews are vital to success, because, teams do not revisit code developed earlier; i.e., they do not go backwards to a previous "phase." Also, waterfall cycle times are long, so that by the time problems are discovered downstream, the authors are often unavailable to help -- and even when they are, they have forgotten much of what the work was about! Reviews are the only safeguard against poor quality when you're using a waterfall approach.
By contrast, iterative development uses short cycles (3-9 weeks on average). Each team member has a role dedicated to the success of the iteration, rather than to the completion of their own unique discipline. This means that when a problem is found downstream, the key players are not only available, they are ready and expecting to continue to contribute to work they had begun earlier in the lifecycle.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Hits: 2772 Trackback(0)Comments (1)
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
 |
... I concur to this thought process on review in operational work. Any ideas on what are the various types metrics (For Quality and Efficiency measurements) used in iterative or operational work would be really helpful. Thanks. |
