Comparison of Project Management Methodologies - Research Paper Example

 Comparison of Project Management Methodologies Introduction Choosing an appropriate project methodology, especially one that entails software development, requires the consideration of more than personal sentiments. The best methodology for one’s project is a strategic query since choosing an unsuitable one can result in disasters of vast proportions. For instance, the wrong methodology can interrupt deliveries, dissatisfy clients, overwhelm the entire project or organization, and lead to termination. The waterfall methodology was the de facto choice for most organizations during the 1980s and 1990s, but grew less common with the advancement of the internet and computer innovations. Today, there are substitute methodologies such as agile, incremental, and RAD that have more adaptable life cycles and support quick development procedures. The following paper compares and contrasts these four methodologies in terms of their effectiveness in various projects and organizational settings, along with the roadblocks faced while implementing them in organizations. The agile methodology is more suitable than the waterfall, incremental, and RAD methodologies because it makes a project’s deliveries more meaningful when other factors change and have to focus on the value of the project’s outcomes. Comparison of Project Management Methodologies 1. Waterfall Methodology The waterfall methodology is a consecutive design procedure similar to construction and industrial workflows. One can use the waterfall methodology to proceed to the next step after completing all of a project’s eight phases (Balaji, 2012). Since the waterfall methodology is consecutive, one cannot reverse a step once one phase is through. Reversing phases or steps harms the entire project, thereby forcing project members to start from scratch. As a result, one is forced to have a clear project product and an all-encompassing plan in place before beginning. 2. Agile Methodology The agile methodology initially served as a solution to the demerits of the waterfall methodology. Rather than a consecutive design procedure, agile methodology adheres to an incremental strategy. Using agile methodology on a one-dimensional project plan will compel the project or organization leader to continue operating on small units (Al Ahmar, 2010). Operations on these small units take several weeks or months while assessing and testing projects urgencies. 3. Incremental Methodology The key goal of iterative advancement is to build a framework incrementally. If a project group used the incremental methodology, one may have to begin with primary partial framework facets and ultimately include more facets until the whole framework is done. In comparison to the waterfall methodology, the iterative methodology fosters adaptability in accepting new requirements or corresponding adjustments (Al Ahmar, 2010). 4. RAD The RAD (Rapid Application Development) methodology aims to advance quickly and deliver a superior framework at a comparatively low investment cost. This methodology tries to lower integral project risk by collapsing the project into smaller units and offering an environment that undertakes new changes in the course of the development process (Giachetti, 2011). A project group may have to apply iterative prototyping, dynamic user engagement, and computerized growth instruments. Reason for Using the Agile Methodology One can use Agile methodology over the other three methodologies because fast production is more imperative for a project than the quality of the product. Time is a limiting factor for a given project that the waterfall, RAD, or incremental methodology cannot fulfill. In addition, a given project’s clients will have the ability to scope it (Giachetti, 2011). At this stage of then given project, there is no clear image of their appearance or nature of the final product. Waterfall methodology requires a clear image of the final product while the RAD methodology requires a sample of the final product (Balaji, 2012). Despite involving ambiguous steps, one might interchange methodologies during different phases. Interchanging methodologies at different phases is suitable for steps that have clear requirements and intended results (Balaji, 2012). One can interchange the agile methodology with the waterfall one during steps or stages that have clear goals and descriptions of the outcome. One can take elements of the agile and waterfall methodologies and blend them in an effort to create the finest possible development procedure for a given project. In addition, an organization has to deliver an operational software much more rapidly and deliver consecutive iterations regularly at a steady pace. The RAD and incremental methodologies are suitable for short projects. A project that involves close cooperation between developers and the enterprise makes the agile methodology appropriate for the project (Giachetti, 2011). Suitability of Project Management Methodologies The waterfall methodology is suitable for big projects that do not require long periods for competition. Additionally, there should be no disclosures after the final deliverance of the application of the project using the waterfall methodology (Al Ahmar, 2010). Such an organizational culture assures requirements do not change, and there is absolution about the project. However, many organizations today are aware that such conditions are becoming rare. The agile methodology works best in organizational cultures that embrace the fast changing markets and technologies in various sectors. These changes cater to the developing and diverse software development requirements for flexibility over all other features. The agile methodology is more adaptable than the waterfall methodology. This adaptability means that projects users are more probable to meet clients’ requests. An organization that wants its deliveries to be meaningful even when other factors change has to focus on the value of its projects’ products (Balaji, 2012). An incremental methodology works best in an environment where members do not understand their projects requirements properly. Having an understanding of project entails an organizational culture subject to constantly changing external dynamics, expectations, budgets, and technology. This methodology is also more suitable for an organization that uses WIS (Web Information Systems) and event-determined frameworks (Al Ahmar, 2010). An organizational culture that applies leading-edge applications can also use an incremental methodology for its projects. The RAD methodology works best in a small-to-medium scaled organizational setting with a working period of no more than six years (Giachetti, 2011). An organizational culture where application is extremely collaborative with an explicitly stated user group would successfully use this methodology without computational complications. An organization where the project member interface clearly defines the functionality of the project framework would also find the RAD methodology effective. Roadblocks to Implementing a New Project Approach in an Organization Attempting to implement a new project approach in an organization involves dealing with several roadblocks. First, a lean project that requires a standard work needs to demonstrate perfectly the worth of trust amongst the project members (Jadhav, Mantha, and Rane, 2014). This demonstration would require a project team to replace all current average operating processes with a qualification capable of lowering fluctuation, getting rid of waste, and offering a basis for additional development. The requirement of experienced project members for this implementation will inhibit the commencement of a project. Second, getting a production or project manager who is knowledgeable from experience and formally implemented practices is extremely difficult. A production manager who can offer insights about kick starting the project from historical and practical points of view is essential (Jadhav, Mantha, and Rane, 2014). If a project has dozens of operators separate teams, its manager can coordinate these terms on alternating shifts and be extremely effective. Without such guidance, even assembling required modules could prove impossible for a given project. Third, rejecting certain project stakeholders can be a roadblock for implementing a new project although necessary. For instance, the new project approach can involve removing a number of operators from the project to either cut back on resources or make the project site less crowded. Without a Process Owner, one can find it hard to reject certain project stakeholders. A Process Owner can help in appealing to the remaining project members, gaining a better insight of the needs, acquiring their ideas, and fostering the new strategy to consistency. These steps will help in gaining the support of major project stakeholders for any given project (Jadhav, Mantha, and Rane, 2014). Conclusion The agile methodology is more suitable than the waterfall, incremental, and RAD methodologies because it makes a project’s deliveries more meaningful when other factors change and have to focus on the value of the project’s outcomes. The product of any given project is aimed at an industry with quickly changing benchmarks, which makes the Agile methodology even more suitable. On the other hand, the waterfall methodology requires an industry or operating environment with clear and fixed standards. The requirement of experienced project members for this implementation will inhibit the commencement of the project, thereby making both the RAD and incremental methodologies unsuitable. Annotated Bibliography Al Ahmar, M. A. (2010). Rule-Based Expert System For Selecting Software Development Methodology. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 143-8. Researcher Al Ahmar contends that software development methodology is an official strategy for designing and overseeing procedures for building a software framework. One of the problems dealt with by software developers and addressed in this article is choosing the methodology suitable for using in a software project (Al Ahmar, 2010). The article introduces modeling and development of the model professional framework that assists software project leaders and programmers in choosing the best software project management methodology. The article deduces that the developed framework is planned effectively as a rule-oriented professional framework object-based modeling. Al Ahmar also found out that user interaction with such a framework centers on a manageable graphical interface. Balaji, S. (2012). Waterfall V-Model Vs Agile: A Comparative Study ON SDLC. International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management, 2(1), 26-30. Balaji argues that modern enterprises that build software solutions deal with the hard decision of selecting the best SDLC (Software Development Life-Cycle). Appropriate SDLCs serve as project management methodologies as well. This article considers the waterfall methodology worth testing for an actual software development project. The researcher compares the process and outcome of the waterfall methodology with the V-model. The V-model characterizes a software development procedure that project stakeholders might think of as an addition to the waterfall methodology. This consideration comes about from the difference between the V-model and the agile methodology. Rather than sending in a direct manner, the V-model’s procedural steps curve upwards after the encryption stage to form an ordinary V shape (Balaji, 2012). The researcher differentiates this facet with the agile methodology by defining it as a practice-oriented approach for modeling and recording software-centered frameworks. Giachetti, R. E. (2011). Design of Enterprise Systems: Theory, Architecture, and Methods. Los Angeles, CA: CRC Press. Giachetti presents his readers with educational solutions for resolving the challenging way of applying knowledge of distinct elements of project management within certain types of organizational cultures and environments. This book considers the numerous diverse fields formulated by individuals from different backgrounds that contribute to their structure of a project. According to Giachetti, combining knowledge from numerous fields in order to plan a project characterizes the field of project engineering and management. Giachetti thinks that first teaching students about ways to think about project systems is a priority since project frameworks are very complicated, including numerous autonomous fields of research (Giachetti, 2011). Jadhav, J., R., Mantha, S., S., & Rane, S., B. (2014). Exploring barriers in lean implementation. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 5(2), 122. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1650580254?accountid=458 The purpose of Jadhav, Mantha, and Rane’s research was to introduce a review of studies conducted on lean project management strategies while concentrating on roadblocks in the implementation. This review involved a methodical literature appraisal of peer-reviewed articles, reports, dissertations, and exemplary texts. This appraisal served as the research’s design and methodology. The article identified 24 roadblocks while implementing a new lean project management approach (Jadhav, Mantha, and Rane, 2014). The efficiency of lean implementation approaches does not solely depend on the application of suitable instruments and methodologies. Rather, the efficiency of these approaches also depends on the engagement and leadership skills of the project’s manager, members’ attitudes, resources, and organizational setting. References Al Ahmar, M. A. (2010). Rule Based Expert System For Selecting Software Development Methodology. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 143-8. Balaji, S. (2012). Waterfall V-Model Vs Agile: A Comparative Study ON SDLC. International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management, 2(1), 26-30. Giachetti, R. E. (2011). Design of Enterprise Systems: Theory, Architecture, and Methods. Los Angeles, CA: CRC Press. Jadhav, J., R., Mantha, S., S., & Rane, S., B. (2014). Exploring barriers in lean implementation. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 5(2), 122. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1650580254?accountid=458 Read More