Talk:V-model

Proposed for deletion[edit]

This article was proposed for deletion Feb. 2005. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/V-Modell. Joyous 19:56, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

There is a reference near the bottom of the page to an explanation of the v-model in french. That french page is quite interesting and describes the v-model known more widely. (I wish I could remember the reference.) The english page is not about the same subject at all and should not be linked to from the english language v-model page. V-model is not the same as v-modell.

Confused[edit]

Although I found a source (and cited it too on the article page) that said both V-model and VEE model is the same, I am still confused. I was looking for the VEE model as often talked about in Systems engineering. The one here, and further discussed as a Software development process is probably same. However, now, I am not sure about V-modell with a double l. Please discuss it here, or link to sources if you know what's going on. Perhaps the purpose of this page can be to disambiguate between V-model, VEE-model, and V-modell Gnusbiz 20:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V-Modell is a software engineering process model developed by the German Bundeswehr (armed forces) in 1991, revised in cooperation with the German Department of the interior in 1992, 1997 and 2005. I have added a link to the complete English documentation right to the end of this dicussion page. It is the standard for all projects that deal with German authorities.--DasWoelfchen 21:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeto V model[edit]

The V model in software development is essentially the same V model that was devised in 1980s as a project management/product development tool. The German wikipedia page is more elaborate on this see [1]. It appears that the V model or VEE model (as it is called in systems engineering) is often customized for an industry. Then of course, there is a confusion regarding "V modell". I suggest we merge the V-Model (software development) page into the main page as a section and highlight the differences there. Gnusbiz 17:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Wikified the article and made it more apply to Systems Engineering. Maybe now this is more clear we can forget about the merge (although you are right that it is still the same model) - Mdd 15:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what might contribute to the confusion is the fact that the V-Modell deals with both, pure software development as well as (embedded) hardware development - due to its military origin (cf. the references to the VDI sources below). Anyway, both variances share the same characteristics and main tasks, so a merge could be a good idea. If you need somebody that sheds some light upon the German V-Modell article, please let me know!--DasWoelfchen 22:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010[edit]

There's very little unique to the V-Model (software development) article that can't easily be merged into this article. It makes no sense to have two articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011[edit]

It's now been 3.5 years since this merge was suggested. I agree that there is little substantively different and am in support of the merge. Greyskinnedboy Talk 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011[edit]

They should definitely be merged, as the V-model can be interpreted by any to its own use. Whether it is a Service or a Product, the structure is the same from this high level perspective. More detailed portions could refer to either services or tangible products. But most product developments require both tangible parts (thus design and tests) and software (thus design and tests) with the purpose to offer a solution/tool to end-users. [Jorn Eiting - Synz BV] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.85.54.230 (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VDI Standard for developing mechatronic systems[edit]

Hello, the V-Modell is core part of VDI2206 "Design methodology for mechatronic systems" of the German Association of Engineers (VDI), see: [2] (Hint: Don't read it, the English translation is terrible...)

The VDI 2206 guideline (for mechatronic systems development) is the successor of the VDI 2221 (mechanical development; for example: Pahl/Beitz, 1988) and the VDI 2422 (Electrical development). Actually, the VDI 2206 adopts the Spiral Model form Software development (Boehm, 1987), but mix SW+ME+EE alltogether and compatible with each other.

The V-model approach is quite useful because you can use it for all kind of technical development projects: from technology development, over platform development, application development, variant design, down to production ramp-up, production relaunch.

Some Sources:

Suggestion: Put the V-Model (software development) into this section, and show:

Inputs of a "macro cycle": Requirements (depends on the kind of project, e.g. customer requirements, previous technical development project, previous "macro cycle", etc.)
common tasks of the "macro cycle", e.g.
systems design (of SW+ME+EE; usually done by cross-functional skilled systems engineers or a team of discipline architects) and
systems integration (of SW+ME+EE; usually done by quality assurance people)
different tasks of the "macro cycle", i.e. when SW and ME and EE are working seperatly (usually specialists within an discipline or within engineering departments, e.g. software programmer, mechanical design/engg, electrical/electronic design/engg)
Outputs of a "macro cycle", e.g. analytical protottypes, functional models, A-, B-, C-,... prototypes (from here manufacturing engineers and supplier engineers step into the scene...), pilot production models, mass-produced prodcuts,...
Mechatronic? (<- Isn't that a Transformer?) Denglish bitter?

Without additional review I'm not for merger. Luis F. Gonzalez 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)hello guys[reply]

How is it pronounced?[edit]

Do the German's really call it the "Vee Model", as in "Wie" model or is it "Fau" model?
Just watchen the Blinkenlichten... Luis F. Gonzalez 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right it is rather pronounced "Fau Modell" (speaking F as in fish, AU as the OU in house and put the emphasis on the second syllable of Modell, as you would do in the word Hotel). As lots of the German Geeks and IT specialists use to speak a German dialect - let's call it Denglish - some of them tend to call it "Vee Model". By the way, the Blinklichten stuff is really funny - from a German perspective - although the plural of Blinklicht in German is Blinklichter (just to fulfill the prejudice of the German humourless correctness ;)) --DasWoelfchen 21:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from the article[edit]

I removed the following text from the article because it doesn't seems to be related to the V-model in systems engineering - Mdd 14:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the V-Model is the V-Model XT (http://www.v-modell-xt.de) which was finalized February 2005. It is not really comparable to CMMI. While CMMI only describes "What" has to be done, the V-Model also describes "How" and "When" it has to be done and "Who" is responsible for doing it.

If you want to know more about the V-Modell XT please refer to this English document V-Model XT Complete Documentation. I have added this link as well to the link-list in the document. If you think that is inappropriate, please feel free to remove it!--DasWoelfchen 21:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contrast to waterfall[edit]

"classic waterfall" is not iterative.

v-model appears to be a good template for what can happen within an iteration.

168.251.194.19 (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfall[edit]

Article said: "It is similar to the Classic Waterfall model as it is quite rigid and contains many iterations."

This is not correct, and so I deleted the statement (wrong in two ways: 1. waterfall development for a given project does not iterate; 2. sdlc development efforts do not iterate - for iteration think "Agile"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gef05 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V-model doesn't iterate either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer look - Multiple waterfalls[edit]

I think the main point of the V-diagram image is to show the progress and linkage between stages, of increasingly deep detail then ascending integration/testing, and that testing looks back across and gets what to test for from the inital concept and goals.

But in respose to the above waterfall comments, note that in actual practice the V or waterfall seems to be done by multiple V-model or waterfalls, and multiple streams within each. Depends on how much detail you look at it is all. I do not have softcopy of the graphic I'm thinking of, but there are three cases in particular

subsystems = parallel streams : when a large effort has 4 subsytems, because they are independant teams (or even separate contracts) they may all begin Preliminary Design at the same time but each begins its own Detailed Design as it completes it's part of the Preliminary. The graphic I've seen is a zoom onto the Detailed design, showing 4 pipes of two parts slanted down and one of them is longer in the first segment and another is very short in the second segment.
spirals = overlapping V-models: another way real-world staffing and business model works is to have multiple versions ongoing at once in different levels of work. Whether it is Firefox or Ford or whoever, they are already working on the next model while the prior one is still being built. You might have a red V and a blue V where the blue one starts as soon as the red one begins testing so the next spiral begins with the goals not included and with ideas come up with during the design of this version. Or you might have a red V and blue V and white V where the red V finishing Concept just means those staff with their concept-specific skills shift into doing the blue V concept work
multiple versions: I do not think of his as parallel parts within the V or overlapping V-s, but there are often different versions or products for the same release time. For example, there might be three sets of development and test environemnts with three different configuration managements -- say a Training build, a Normal ops build, and an Admin build (for data conversion and cleansing), in which case a matched set is released. Or Microsoft might release a 'Standard' version and a more capable 'Professional' version.

I do not think these belong within the article though -- it's getting off the track of what the V is about and would make the article pick one specific. Markbassett (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The v-model is not an SDLC so it can be superimposed on any SDLC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the pictures as they give the wrong impression[edit]

Please be advised that these pictures (specially the first) is not giving the main idea of the v-model as shown by the International Counsil On Systems Engineering, see http://g2sebok.incose.org/app/mss/menu/index.cfm

I will delete this picture therefore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.120.70 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They give the correct impression. What incorrect impression do you think they're giving? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The impression, that The v-model is only about allocation of requirements. It does not show the idea of evolving baselines and validation of requirements are done. The picture gives the idea that it is a just one way flow of requirements (allocation). The CORE of the V is missing. It is missing the idea of derived requirements. The pictures -as now given - are already on Wikipedia, please see "double V model" that describes the "correct" wow as given by the International Counsil. Do you agree that they, together with NASA have invented / improved Systems engineering and the V-model? So, why should we not refer to it?

The links that where present are corrupt, not working anymore. Therefore I updated the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.120.70 (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In greater detail, if I can copy a line from your "addition" and then drop it, inside of quotes, into Google, and it comes up with an exact match, it's a copyright violation. I did this on multiple lines from multiple sections on what was added. So I'm not sure what we should make of your statement that "it is a reference only". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your "references" simply point back to where you selected the text, copied, and then pasted into this article so the material doesn't even have to pass through Google first. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While we're discussing your changes, stop copying directly from http://g2sebok.incose.org/app/mss/asset.cfm?ID=INCOSE G2SEBOK 3.33&ST=F and other pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter that you think you're correcting incorrect material, you have copied material directly from another source and pasted them here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title consistency for software development methodologies[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Article title consistency for software development methodologies. Yaris678 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links in references[edit]

Links 9 & 10 are dead KeithC (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KeithC: Mark them with {{dead link}} Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]