Talk:Waterfall model

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Engineering Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Systems: Systems engineering Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the field of Systems engineering.

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2020 2021 2023

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

While the term "waterfall" certainly exists, none of the references on the page support that it was ever an actual project management approach. It seems to be nothing more than a pejorative term. A sort of bucket into which all bad project management approaches can be put. Is there any evidence that the "waterfall model" ever existed? Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it absolutely existed. I first started doing software development in the 1980's at Accenture (then Andersen Consulting). The SDLC we were all taught at the time was called Method/1 and it was a classic waterfall model. Ironically, I did a lot of research work for the DoD and we had to use the same methodology for research as all other DoD software developers did. I think it was called Mil Standard 2167a. In any case it was absolutely a waterfall model. In both cases we always filled out the required forms and made the required project plans and then essentially ignored them. One of my bosses had a great name for them: "Write Only Documentation" which was what they were. We did things using what is now called Agile because we just knew that was the better way to do it. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Having looked more deeply at the references on this page, they're dreadful. Royce (the reference on which the whole article almost depends) does not say what he's supposed to have said in the referenced paper and the rest of the references are full of "some say". If no-one has better references I'm going to do a pretty tight cropping of the whole article. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Still no satisfactory references on here. The article seems to be based on misquoting a few articles - generally from very long ago - and then claiming (without reference) that the "waterfall" approach so demonized in previous years as a counterpoint to Agile, existed. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it's the question that is lacking. The "model" adjective is shorthand and synonymous with approach. Feel free to correct the term or make adjustments, but the tags of shame you've place are childish. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

This definately exists, it's a recommended product development process by the FDA in https://www.fda.gov/media/116573/download linked from https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/design-control-guidance-medical-device-manufacturers. Poisonadder1 (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

That paper mentions waterfall, but doesn't recommend it. Nor does it give any reason to believe they're not just talking about something everyone seems to have heard of but perhaps never actually existed. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Seriously - this whole article is cantering around almost without any decent references. Should the whole page be just blanked out until some can be found? The ones I've found would indicate that the term is largely a bogey man term and that the method never actually existed. But I'm not sure they prove the negative either. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreeed - Waterfall was only a software industry thing. Everyine who was an engineering the 1980's knows this.

And nobody outside of Software industry has ever heard the word "Waterfall" untiil somebody tried to sell them Agil.

Again we have the critical flaw in Wikipedia. How do you prove something didn't exit? THere's no references for things that didn't happen. Waterfall outside of Siftware never happened. People can post that it's a thing and it stays in. you post that it never happened with referenecs. And it gets taken out.

Wikipedia admins are not checking references in edits 2601:286:C200:1E90:447B:B3AC:AEDD:EDD1 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Having lived in engineering and consulting industry for 47 years. Waterfall is a software industry only term. Nobody outside of the software industry ever used it in the 20th century. It's only used to describe "everything note agile is waterfall". Which is obviously not true. 2601:286:C200:1E90:447B:B3AC:AEDD:EDD1 (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article must be based on sources, you cannot make additions based on your personal opinions. That is called 'original research' here and is prohibited by a core policy, which you can read at WP:OR. Wikipedia's not a place for ediorializing. MrOllie (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2024 and 5 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Whimsical Rock (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Whimsical Rock (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I have taken an interest in this article and will be editing it for the next couple of weeks. I will primarily focus on editing tone, format, and overall structure and will also take a look at some more specific copyediting points I found throughout the article. Please feel free to provide any insight or comments on any future edits I make. Thank you! Whimsical Rock (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

While looking through the hyperlinks, I noticed that the link for "deployment" in the second-to-last sentence of the first paragraph of the article actually links to the page on "Implementation." I do not have in-depth knowledge on the Waterfall model, and while looking into implementation brought me to the conclusion that both deployment and implementation would be interchangeable in this case, I wonder if it might lessen confusion to change the wording on the introduction or if it was worded as such on purpose by someone more knowledgeable on the matter. Whimsical Rock (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The redirect Just what I asked for, but not what I want has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 2 § Just what I asked for, but not what I want until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply