Module - Design, Development and Creativity
Class or Article - Article
Lesson or Name - McCracken, D. D. & Jackson, M. A.
(1982) Life cycle concept considered
harmful
Additional Info - N/A
While agreeing that there needs to be an element of fluidity in project to allow for some user/client change is a necessity. It is inevitable that this will happen and it is fuelled either by advancements in technology or a growth of knowledge in the end-user/client as they begin to understand the problem more in depth. While McCraken and Jackson may believe that the life-cycle is shortsighted to the industry, it does however provide an element of understanding for the business into a a part of the business or project not everyone understands. This also make the project consumable from a non-IT perspective as to what the team is doing. While they feel it is counter intuitive it does provide reasurance to the business, however even in their own assumption that it is shortsignted they too are being shortsighted as the lifecycle as the business understand it does not need to be how IT work. They can in themselves work to their own tune and when speaking to the business frame it in a lifecycle.
This is the same issue Agile currently has, business love the concept, but business want to know where in a project they currently are so they are demanding timelines and a sense of rigor. While Agile does not use the conventional waterfall planning, the business may well force this on them. However if they present it back in a consumable lifecycle manner, how the project is run behind the veil is irrelevant once milestones are being achieved.
Precis / My Notes
McCraken and Jackson argue that no life-cycle is the same as another and to predicate that is a dangerous perception in itself, in essence each project has a lifecycle of its own. The idea of a lifecycle in itself perpetuates our failures to communicate across the gaps between end-users and systems analysis. As a result there are a number of areas gaining interest such as, Heavy User Involvement, fluid requirements (Allows changes to business requirements during the project/process) Flexible development process. All of these combines enable the end user to change during a project and in turn identify and address that end users need change during a project as there understanding and knowledge grows. McCraken and Jackson believe the concept of a lifecycle in itself is an element of shortsightedness from the industry and that the idea of a lifecycle if simply unsuited to the needs of a development cycle.
McCraken and Jackson argue that no life-cycle is the same as another and to predicate that is a dangerous perception in itself, in essence each project has a lifecycle of its own. The idea of a lifecycle in itself perpetuates our failures to communicate across the gaps between end-users and systems analysis. As a result there are a number of areas gaining interest such as, Heavy User Involvement, fluid requirements (Allows changes to business requirements during the project/process) Flexible development process. All of these combines enable the end user to change during a project and in turn identify and address that end users need change during a project as there understanding and knowledge grows. McCraken and Jackson believe the concept of a lifecycle in itself is an element of shortsightedness from the industry and that the idea of a lifecycle if simply unsuited to the needs of a development cycle.
Reflection
While agreeing that there needs to be an element of fluidity in project to allow for some user/client change is a necessity. It is inevitable that this will happen and it is fuelled either by advancements in technology or a growth of knowledge in the end-user/client as they begin to understand the problem more in depth. While McCraken and Jackson may believe that the life-cycle is shortsighted to the industry, it does however provide an element of understanding for the business into a a part of the business or project not everyone understands. This also make the project consumable from a non-IT perspective as to what the team is doing. While they feel it is counter intuitive it does provide reasurance to the business, however even in their own assumption that it is shortsignted they too are being shortsighted as the lifecycle as the business understand it does not need to be how IT work. They can in themselves work to their own tune and when speaking to the business frame it in a lifecycle.
This is the same issue Agile currently has, business love the concept, but business want to know where in a project they currently are so they are demanding timelines and a sense of rigor. While Agile does not use the conventional waterfall planning, the business may well force this on them. However if they present it back in a consumable lifecycle manner, how the project is run behind the veil is irrelevant once milestones are being achieved.
Quotes
N/A
N/A
Comments
Post a Comment