Skip to main content

Aligning the Traditional Waterfall Review Sequence with the Iterative Approach

Philippe Kruchten, Staff, Freelance Developer
Philippe Kruchten
Philippe Kruchten is former Director and General Manager of the IBM Rational Software Process Business Unit, in charge of the Rational Unified Process (RUP). He worked with Rational for 13 years, in various functions and places: France, Sweden, US, and Vancouver, Canada.

Philippe's main interests right now, besides software architecture and design, are software engineering and the development process. He is campaigning, in Canada, for the concept of state-licensed professional software engineers.

Summary:  from The Rational Edge: A sidebar for the article "Going over the waterfall with RUP," available at http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/4626.html

Date:  26 Apr 2004
Level:  Introductory
Activity:  489 views

Aligning the Traditional Waterfall Review Sequence with the Iterative Approach (Sidebar for

Going Over the Waterfall with the RUP

)

Illustration

The following text is extracted from the RUP. It matches the RUP iterations with some typical reviews found in traditional waterfall processes, such as DOD-STD-2167A and MIL-STD-498.

The default review sequence for a waterfall lifecycle project is a major review upon completion of each important artifact. For example:

  • System Requirements Review (SRR), at the completion of the system specification.
  • Software Specification Review (SSR), at the completion of the software requirements specification.
  • Preliminary Design Review (PDR), at the completion of the architectural design sections of the software design description.
  • Critical Design Review (CDR), at the completion of the detailed design sections of the software design description.

In the RUP, parts of the equivalent artifacts are reviewed as they are completed in each iteration, but the major milestones (and therefore reviews) are aligned with the completion of the phases: Inception, Elaboration, Construction, and Transition. Because of contractual obligations, a project manager wanting to adopt the RUP may have to find a way to reconcile this apparent conflict. Ideally, the project manager should convince the customer that the phase and iteration-based approach in fact gives greater true visibility into project progress, and also reduces risk, so that there is no need for an SRR, an SSR, and so forth. However, this is not always possible, and the project manager has to schedule these reviews at appropriate points. It is possible, in the RUP, to locate the points at which these important artifacts (actually, their RUP equivalents) are essentially complete, although this does not always neatly align with phases or iterations.

Matching traditional waterfall reviews with RUP milestones (see Figure A-1) is done here by assuming that the relative effort spent on requirements, design, and the like, will be approximately the same in the RUP as in the (ideal) waterfall lifecycle, but that the effort will be distributed differently. The result is the following:

  • The SRR (concerned mainly with the Vision) can be scheduled at the end of the Inception phase.
  • The SSR (concerned mainly with the Software Requirements Specification) will occur about a third of the way through the Elaboration phase.
  • The PDR (concerned mainly with the Software Architecture Document) will occur at the end of the Elaboration phase.
  • The CDR (concerned mainly with the Design Model) will occur about a third of the way through the Construction phase.
Figure A-1:  Matching RUP Milestones with Traditional Waterfall Reviews

Figure A-1: Matching RUP Milestones with Traditional Waterfall Reviews

For efficiency, the project manager, in consultation with the customer, should attempt to combine these reviews with the prescribed RUP reviews. This is clearly possible for the SRR and the PDR; they can be combined with Lifecycle Objectives Milestone Review and the Lifecycle Architecture Milestone Review, respectively. It is not so obvious for the SSR and CDR. However, observing that almost all projects will have at least two iterations in Elaboration and at least two in Construction, it is recommended that SSR be combined with the Iteration Acceptance Review for the first iteration in the Elaboration phase, and CDR be combined with the Iteration Acceptance Review for the first iteration in the Construction phase. In both cases, there is then good visibility of mature artifacts, with enough time remaining for any required correction — although the iterative approach should cope with this as a matter of course.


About the author

Philippe Kruchten

Philippe Kruchten is former Director and General Manager of the IBM Rational Software Process Business Unit, in charge of the Rational Unified Process (RUP). He worked with Rational for 13 years, in various functions and places: France, Sweden, US, and Vancouver, Canada.

Philippe's main interests right now, besides software architecture and design, are software engineering and the development process. He is campaigning, in Canada, for the concept of state-licensed professional software engineers.

Comments (Undergoing maintenance)



Trademarks  |  My developerWorks terms and conditions

Help: Update or add to My dW interests

What's this?

This little timesaver lets you update your My developerWorks profile with just one click! The general subject of this content (AIX and UNIX, Information Management, Lotus, Rational, Tivoli, WebSphere, Java, Linux, Open source, SOA and Web services, Web development, or XML) will be added to the interests section of your profile, if it's not there already. You only need to be logged in to My developerWorks.

And what's the point of adding your interests to your profile? That's how you find other users with the same interests as yours, and see what they're reading and contributing to the community. Your interests also help us recommend relevant developerWorks content to you.

View your My developerWorks profile

Return from help

Help: Remove from My dW interests

What's this?

Removing this interest does not alter your profile, but rather removes this piece of content from a list of all content for which you've indicated interest. In a future enhancement to My developerWorks, you'll be able to see a record of that content.

View your My developerWorks profile

Return from help

static.content.url=http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/js/artrating/
SITE_ID=1
Zone=Rational
ArticleID=87733
ArticleTitle=Aligning the Traditional Waterfall Review Sequence with the Iterative Approach
publish-date=04262004
author1-email=
author1-email-cc=

Table of contents

My developerWorks community

Tags

Help
Use the search field to find all types of content in My developerWorks with that tag.

Use the slider bar to see more or fewer tags.

Popular tags shows the top tags for this particular content zone (for example, Java technology, Linux, WebSphere).

My tags shows your tags for this particular content zone (for example, Java technology, Linux, WebSphere).

Use the search field to find all types of content in My developerWorks with that tag. Popular tags shows the top tags for this particular content zone (for example, Java technology, Linux, WebSphere). My tags shows your tags for this particular content zone (for example, Java technology, Linux, WebSphere).

Rate a product. Write a review.

Special offers