Talk:Dual Vee Model
|WikiProject Systems||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Missing historical background of VEE-model
I would like to point out that the article on ’Dual VEE Model’ totally ignores history by claiming that the ’normal’ ’VEE’-model’ has been ’invented’ by Forsberg and Mooz in 1987. The idea of the V-Model is much older: to my knowledge at least the following references use it much much earlier: [Jensen and C.C., 1979, Davis et al., 1988]. It was used in several well-known Software-Development-Process Models like SE/T/EC Modell [Hesse, 1984, Softlab, 1982] and the German V-Model[Bröhl and Dröschel, 1992]. The idea that software development goes from ideas ’down’ to implementation and then ’upwards’ towards system concepts has already been published by [Lehman, 1985]and[Mitchell, 1984]. This idea was actually published rather earlier with the idea of reification (the citatation is missing). Literatur     . . [ 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Good points. I would just add it to the article in the appropriate manner. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Poorly written article
I know the whole idea behind systems engineering is to develop a way to make new things for any possible job, which is inherently abstract. But this article does not present a clear and obvious description of that process. The article fails to define "Architecture" or "Entity", which are the two main "variables" of this model! It contains several interesting diagrams with overly abstract and complex descriptions. There are no examples, either simplified or real-world. Is the intended audience a person with a masters degree in system engineering?
The article has many examples of POV writing. Consider the Overview section (now removed). Why did it open with an unrelated quote by Thomas Kuhn? An encyclopedia isn't supposed to be "literary", and shouldn't use random quotes. Why was the word "we" used repeatedly? An encyclopedia should not take sides (i.e. NPOV). The last sentence of the section stated, "the most prevalent models ... have not been sufficiently explicit," which was an unnecessary accusation against competing models. An encyclopedia should simply describe the differences between competitors and NOT pick a winner. The article is still riddled with superiority/inferiority claims that are simply inappropriate. The entire Overview section gave no new AND descriptive information, which is why I deleted it. I also deleted the Summary section at the end. Encyclopedias aren't persuasive essays and don't have a summary. The encyclopedia article IS the summary. I significantly reduced the language in the Opening section to be easier to read and less POV. I would love to update the language in subsequent sections, but I really don't know what those sections are trying to say. Can someone please help me fix the rest of this article? -- David Hillshafer 23:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I've begun my crusade to make this article readable to an average reader. I've now updated the Background section. First off, this is an article on Dual Vee. If readers want to know about other models, then they can read the other pages. The only information about other models that matters to this article is information that shows how Dual Vee came about. I removed the Spiral section because it didn't contribute to this goal. I deleted all criticisms because it was completely inappropriate. Those criticisms should be written in the Criticisms section on the respective pages, not in an article on Dual Vee. If we want to compare different system engineering models, then we should start a new page that compares them in a neutral way. -- David Hillshafer 22:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I put the Dual Vee into the Background so that it will be easy to see the evolution of the model. Then I promoted the Architecture, Entity, and Intersecting Vees into sections instead of subsections of Dual Vee. It doesn't make sense to have Dual Vee be the only major section in the Dual Vee article. -- David Hillshafer 00:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
This article was based on the book Visualizing Project Management by Forsberg, Mooz, and Cotterman. At Amazon.com, one review quoted from the book on page 119, "At each level, the DA&R process is driven by higher level requirements, constraints of approved baselines such as the utilities provided to the structure and the influences of users and stakeholders at the system level and at every level of decomposition to the level under construction." This abstruse writing style is very similar to the writing style in the original Wikipedia article. This is one indicator that the original article was plagiarized. Another indicator is the original article's complete lack of adherence to well established Wikipedia guidelines (see my comments in "Poorly Written Article" above). The final indicator is the original article's liberal use of pictures that were almost certainly scanned right out of the book.
If this article was plagiarized, then we must either replace every single sentence and picture with one of our own or delete the entire article. Right now, I'm working on replacing the text (as I noted above). Can someone please work on the pictures? -- David Hillshafer 23:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Article title consistency for software development methodologies
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Article title consistency for software development methodologies. Yaris678 (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Bröhl, A. P. and Dröschel, W., editors (1992). Das Vorgehensmodell in der Anwendungsentwicklung - Standard und Leitfaden. Oldenbourg München.
- Davis, A., Bersoff, E. H., and Comer, E. (1988). A strategy for comparing alternative software development life cycle models. IEEE Trans. SE, 14:10:1453–1460.
- H Hesse, W. (1984). S/e/tec - the software engineering environment of softlab. Haase V.H., Hammer R. (eds): Softwaretechnologie für die Industrie (EWICS 84), Oldenbourg Wien-München, pages 219–245.
- Jensen, R. and C.C., T., editors (1979). Software Engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 1979
- Lehman, M. B. L., editor . Program Evolution - Processes of Software Change. APIC Studies in Data Proc. No. 27, Academic Press
- Mitchell, R. (1984). The technical foundations of software engineering. Haase V.H., Hammer R. (eds): Softwaretechnologie für die Industrie (EWICS 84), Oldenbourg Wien-München, 1985 pages 127–139
- Softlab (1982). S/e/tec: die software engineering technologie von softlab. Prospekt 1982.