Although there are several field-proven approaches to enterprise-grade software implementation (including extension, customization, and configuration), in reality, not a single practice is meant to be a “one size fits all” when factors of time, budget, and adaptability are taken into consideration. The additional constraints coming from the aerospace industry also pose a challenge to selecting a suitable implementation method, as well as requiring the software suppliers to be experienced in servicing mission-critical systems
To address the topic of how to find the most optimal solution implementation approach for your IETP/IETM solution implementation project, it’s important first to clearly understand the differences between the two most common categories of project development methodologies – agile and waterfall.
Overview of waterfall and agile methodologies:
Waterfall, as its name implies, is the linear project management approach for software implementation where the completion of one phase serves as the prerequisite for the start of a succeeding phase. The 5 common stages in the waterfall Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) are requirement, design, implementation, verification, and maintenance. As a chronological, highly plan-oriented formula, each successive phase must be thoroughly completed before the next phase can begin, in which there only is limited to no back-and-forth alteration allowed between any phases.
The main advantage of the waterfall approach lies in its predictability and simplicity. It informs everyone involved of which stage the project is currently in within the cycle and a clear requirement-backed direction for focusing attention, this includes assigning current tasks in deadline-based order of completion. It is also a reason why waterfall projects can be managed on any project management tool with simple Gantt chart features and by project managers coming from any experience level and industry-related background.
The main catch of the waterfall approach, of course, is its rigidity and the extended amount of time for the implementation to come to market. For projects the size of aerospace software deployment, phases can last extremely long. In the scenarios where the deployment is a three-tier relationship (Vendor – Buyer – Buyer’s Customer), the final end-users will be in a holding pattern until they receive anything. This is undesirable to the customer in the middle since they would also need to keep their own customers happy.
Therefore, apart from the traditional waterfall methodology, many IETP software projects may yield a much better result by going agile – a term used to classify a group of several iterative deployment methodologies designed to push faster product time-to-market. Stemming from the need to create a software solution directly from the customer’s indeterminate needs rather than a firm set of requirements, agile principles can be utilized to quickly deliver features to users for early hands-on testing, in which the cycle or “sprint” is repeated several times before a final product is realized.
Agile methodologies work best when multiple changes may be required, focusing on staged software releases or versions, and centering on working software as a guide, as opposed to comprehensive documentation. It also caters better to projects with more flexible timelines and budgets, due to the nature of alteration that may be applied to resolve issues or new scenarios introduced to the process.
Some common forms of agile implementation are Rapid Application Development/Deployment (RAD) and SCRUM. In the software industry, practical extensions of agile, such as DevOps, are also a common approach used to ensure product delivery. As well, it also serves to fill some of the functional gaps that being agile alone may fall short to deliver regarding organizational engagement and transparency.
So what’s the best methodology for the deployment of software for a niche industry such as IETP/IETM solution implementation for aviation? Even though every project is different, a traditional, waterfall approach does appear to be the better choice since it caters to a firm set of mission-critical requirements and prevents uncertainties regarding constraints of time and budget.
However, in reality, even software projects in this industry need to stay agile to a great extent, especially when implementing an end-to-end solution that requires a high level of configuration and customization, which is often the case in IETP software. This also means the approach chosen must allow the involvement of stakeholders and the flexibility needed for adapting to changes. Again, in projects where there is a three-tier relationship (Vendor – Buyer – Buyer’s Customer), the customer in the middle inevitably has to allow some extent of agile methodology in order to deliver early features to their own customers.
As a result, it is not a wise idea to firmly stick with either approach but rather to find a way to utilize industry best practices wherever appropriate, while maintaining a highly ROI-centric, predictable structure. This can be accomplished by modifying the waterfall model, combining/incorporating agile practices, or both. For example in aviation, IETM/IETP solution developers like SYNAXIOM have constructed the SYNAXIOM360 Framework (SA360-F) methodology, an agile-waterfall hybrid methodology developed to tackle software implementation for sizeable organizations of various industries, including one of the world’s largest aircraft manufacturers. ‘
Built to address software implementation for projects irrespective of its size, industry, and customer, SA360-F has proven itself to be exceptionally effective towards the integration of tailored products to complex systems by adhering to vital high-level requirements while staying agile to an extensive degree.
One of the real-life applications of SA360-F includes the ongoing implementation of the IETP data distribution service for Bombardier by SYNAXIOM. Although the implementation comes in multiple iterations, the product will only be considered finished and ready for release to end-users when all the agreed-upon requirements are met. This is especially important, as the software being delivered will be used by Bombardier’s customers, and therefore, must be as complete and robust as possible to guarantee the top quality customer experience demanded by Bombardier’s management. By utilizing the SA360-F principles and methodology, SYNAXIOM was able to offer a competitive fixed-priced billing while overcoming the unpredictable puzzles of mission-critical system software deployment, driving the project to its inevitable success.
Unlike the common 5-phase waterfall approach, SA360-F is divided into 3 particularly task-intensive phases consisting of Blueprint (Discovery Solution and Design), Implementation (Incremental Solution Implementation), and Support (Solution support/training). While the project’s inevitable success is reinforced by prudent scope planning, clearly defined objectives, and set expectations, the time-to-market and cost required are significantly reduced by utilizing agile practices while engaging all stakeholders every step of the way through crystal-clear transparent communication.
For the full document on SA360-F methodology, please make a request directly to info@synaxiom.com.