| || |
ASD??? RAD??? Are these returns to bad practices?
I was reading an article by Jim Highsmith about Adaptive Software Development. The gist of his theory seems to be that we throw out our structure and rules and just build the darn thing. We make corrections as we go and eventually (almost magically) end up with something worth having. Now, I'm somewhat new to QA (only about 2yrs) and have been a huge fan of the waterfall method (organized, specified deliverables, etc). Are ASD and RAD worth looking into? I've heard a lot about them but it seems like both methods are a return to poor software development. I'm combing through some articles that cover the basics and, from a QA perspective, I'm not convinced. Must I read a 600 page manual before my revelation? Or, is this "Internet time" idea just an excuse to sell more "for dummies" books? Suggestions?
Re: ASD??? RAD??? Are these returns to bad practices?
I would not necessarily lump "RAD" into anything negative. A methodology is only as good as the people implementing it. I do not agree with the approach of just build it and then correct it which ASD suggests (in some views) - but RAD does not.
An excellent book on this topic is "Rapid Development" by Steve McConnell.
You also might want to check out the concept of Extreme Programming. This is sort of like RAD in some ways but places testing into the mix.
As a general rule, I think the job of QA is try to marry the software testing life-cycle to that of the existing development life-cycle. If that cannot be done in a reliable fashion, then QA might want to suggest a change. (Of course, this is a LOT easier said than done.) This only works if QA is able to prove its worth within the organization or can prove that the solution it is offering is valid.