Both the Waterfall and Whirlpool developments methods are very much valid, practised, and accurate in their own way. However, there are a number of differences between the two, and one which I believe appeals more to me as a web-developer than the other.
The Waterfall methodology is largely considered to be the traditional approach. This methodology contains stages in a set order, once one thing is completed; the next is started. The Waterfall methodology largely depends on five core phases, and as such is executed as below, with no exception to its order:
Requirements>>Analysis>>Design>>Build>>Test
The ‘strict’ nature of this methodology means that all projects that operate under this are consistent; however, it can be argued that using the Waterfall methodology appears to focus more on just getting the job ‘done’, rather than getting it done properly.
This is where the Whirlpool methodology comes in to its own. Like the Waterfall method, the Whirlpool has a similar set of stages in its lifecycle. A common series of phases in a Whirlpool method can be seen below:
Business Modelling>>Requirements>>Analysis & Design>>Implementation>>Test>>Deployment
Unlike Waterfall however, the Whirlpool model does not have to be used in this order, this is merely the sequence of phases that would be expected to happen if a project were to run 100% smoothly, as we know from experience, this does not often happen.
The Whirlpool methodology is designed so that previous stages in the cycle can be ‘re-visited’ this potentially allows for mid-project decision changes, and increases the margin for error/misunderstanding in the earlier stages.
The only slightly negative point about this is that it is liable to be inconsistent, this can put strain on time restraints, project budgets etc.
Being so flexible means that the quality of the final result is more likely to be both higher in quality, and accuracy to the clients requirements.
Out of the two methodologies discussed in this blog-entry, I strongly believe that in most circumstances the Whirlpool method would be the preferred, especially for me, my style of project management, especially in web design.
During a web design project many things can unexpectedly change. From a sudden change of heart from the client, to having to change your design as part of a technical- blunder.
For this reason alone I concur that the Whirlpool methodology is a certain must to any web-design project as it is capable of dealing with many of the inconsistencies, strains and problems associated with modern web-design.
Sources:
My Head
http://www.puffinonline.com/Tecademy/003%20Waterfall%20vs%20Whirlpool.pdf
it's virtually done, just minor tweaks and file size now. Oh yeah, and to remove lorm ipsum with english hehe http://www.edsonweb.co.uk/wollaton/index.html
Annoyingly, thanks to Google's 'unique' ability to not let you un-do any mistakes. I've had to try and swtich all my accounts over to a seperate one.
Not overly interesting to anyone, but just incase you could do with doing the same, this link was really usefull: http://www.bloggertricks.com/2008/02/how-to-transfer-bloggerblogspot-blog.html
I have been aruging with myself over the last two days about weather my website is better being more dynamic (moving images etc), but risking the functionality and accessability, or having it less 'flashy' (excuse the pun), and have it work perfectly.
the non-flashy version im keeping on my main link (ref the previous post) @ http://www.edsonweb.co.uk/wollaton
the dynamic site ive got stored speratly @ http://edsonweb.co.uk/wollaton/withflash.html
Ok, so this is the final design i'm going to use for my project, the front page of the site will look pretty much exactly like this bar any minor details that may be changed later on.
