I agree totally with Mary on this. Anyone who applies the scientific method
to the waterfall process will prove repeatedly that it is totally broken,
highly failure prone, and that most successful projects do not use it (even
if they say they use it). Craig Larman's excellent review article in
Computer magazine on the history of interative and incremental development
documents that the guy that wrote the DOD standard that inflicted the
waterfall method on us confesses that he made a mistake. He had no direct
experience and relied on consultants and textbooks that were fatally flawed.
Fred Brooks spent a decade on DOD standards committees getting the
waterfall method revoked. It is no longer the preferred DOD approach. Too
bad they lost billions on failed projects while Brooks and his committee
were working on dismantling this beauracratic foolishness. All of this is
documented on my web blog chapter and verse with links to critical papers.
Read the DOD paper on the economic impact of the waterfall method. The DOD
could pay for the Iraqi war with money saved by avoiding this methodology.
At 06:50 AM 8/30/2003, you wrote:
>I don't see how Waterfall (sequential development) can be considered a
>form of the Scientific Method. I wonder what your definition of
>Scientific Method might be to come to such a conclusion.