IT Success!: Towards a New Model for Information Technology

5.2. Managing supply – new model

The downsides of the waterfall method are nothing new. Alternative approaches have existed as long ago as the 1980s and have been successfully implemented in many companies around the world. Unfortunately, they have never become mainstream; we will examine the reasons why further on in this chapter.

Here are some of the most well-known approaches:

• Agile (several flavours exist):

  • ASD (Adaptive Software Development);

  • AUP (Agile Unified Process);

  • Crystal clear;

  • DSDM (Dynamic Systems Development Method);

  • FDD (Feature-Driven Development);

  • Scrum;

  • XP (Extreme Programming);

• JAD (Joint Application Design);

• PD (Participatory Design);

• RAD (Rapid Application Development);

• RUP (Rational Unified Process);

• Spiral method.

We will not get into a discussion about the relative merits of each and deliberately remain at a generic level called 'iterative development' or 'prototyping', since the common denominator amongst all of them is the delivery of a prototype after one or more iterations. There is no one 'right' iterative method; you might chose one or another depending on the nature and scope of the work to be done, and whether you are configuring an off-the-shelf package or developing something from scratch.

Whatever the various permutations and derivatives of these approaches, they all subscribe to the basic premise that it is very difficult for users to say upfront what they want out of a new system. This can only be done once they have had a chance to see what the system ...