Content deleted Content added
IronGargoyle (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by 195.194.89.201 (talk) to last revision by Jambungle (HG) |
IronGargoyle (talk | contribs) Reverted 6 edits by IronGargoyle, 195.194.89.201, Jambungle and 41.221.105.50 to last revision by Mogism (HG) |
||
Line 5:
SSADM is a [[Waterfall model|waterfall method]] for the analysis and design of [[information systems]]. SSADM can be thought to represent a pinnacle of the rigorous document-led approach to system design, and contrasts with more contemporary [[Agile software development|agile]] methods such as [[Dynamic Systems Development Method|DSDM]] or [[Scrum (development)|Scrum]].
SSADM is one particular implementation and builds on the work of different schools of [[structured analysis]] and development methods, such as Peter Checkland's [[soft systems methodology]], Larry Constantine's [[structured design]], Edward Yourdon's [[Yourdon Structured Method]], Michael A. Jackson's
The names "Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method" and "SSADM" are [[trademark|registered trademarks]] of the [[Office of Government Commerce]] (OGC), which is an office of the United Kingdom's Treasury.<ref>{{cite web
Line 26:
* 1993: SSADM V4 Standard and Tools Conformance Scheme
* 1995: SSADM V4+ announced, V4.2 launched
* 2000: CCTA renamed SSADM as "Business System Development". The method was repackaged into 15 modules and another 6 modules were added.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://web.archive.org/web/20090402163313/http://www.modelsys.com/msssadm.htm |title = Model Systems and SSADM |year = 2002 |publisher = Model Systems Ltd |accessdate = 2009-04-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title= SSADM foundation |publisher= [[The Stationery Office]] |series= Business Systems Development with SSADM |year= 2000 |page= v |isbn= 0-11-330870-1 }}</ref>
== SSADM techniques ==
Line 42:
=== Stage 0 – Feasibility study ===
In order to determine whether or not a given project is feasible, there must be some form of investigation into the goals and implications of the project. For very small scale projects this may not be necessary at all as the scope of the project is easily understood. In larger projects, the feasibility may be done but in an informal sense, either because there is not time for a formal study or because the project is a “must-have” and will have to be done one way or the other. Iesha and Michael are important in this process as they determine wheter or not the experiment is feasible.
When a feasibility study is carried out, there are four main areas of consideration:
| |||