Editing Rapid application development (section)

== History ==
Rapid application development was a response to plan-driven [[Waterfall model|waterfall]] processes, developed in the 1970s and 1980s, such as the [[Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method]] (SSADM). One of the problems with these methods is that they were based on a traditional engineering model used to design and build things like bridges and buildings. Software is an inherently different kind of artifact. Software can radically change the entire process used to solve a problem. As a result, knowledge gained from the development process itself can feed back to the requirements and design of the solution.<ref>{{cite book|last=Brooks|first=Fred|title=No Silver Bullet Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering|editor1-last=Kugler|editor1-first=H.J.|series=Information Processing '86|date=1986|publisher=Elsevier Science Publishers B.V (North-Holland)|isbn=0-444-70077-3|url=http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~sklar/teaching/s10/cis20.2/papers/brooks-no-silver-bullet.pdf|access-date=2 July 2014}}</ref> Plan-driven approaches attempt to rigidly define the requirements, the solution, and the plan to implement it, and have a process that discourages changes. RAD approaches, on the other hand, recognize that software development is a knowledge intensive process and provide flexible processes that help take advantage of knowledge gained during the project to improve or adapt the solution.

The first such RAD alternative was developed by [[Barry Boehm]] and was known as the [[spiral model]]. Boehm and other subsequent RAD approaches emphasized developing prototypes as well as or instead of rigorous design specifications. Prototypes had several advantages over traditional specifications:

* Risk reduction. A prototype could test some of the most difficult potential parts of the system early on in the [[software lifecycle|life-cycle]]. This can provide valuable information as to the feasibility of a design and can prevent the team from pursuing solutions that turn out to be too complex or time-consuming to implement. This benefit of finding problems earlier in the life-cycle rather than later was a key benefit of the RAD approach. The earlier a problem can be found the cheaper it is to address. 
* Users are better at using and reacting than at creating specifications. In the waterfall model it was common for a user to sign off on a set of requirements but then when presented with an implemented system to suddenly realize that a given design lacked some critical features or was too complex. In general most users give much more useful feedback when they can experience a prototype of the running system rather than abstractly define what that system should be. 
* Prototypes can be usable and can evolve into the completed product. One approach used in some RAD methods was to build the system as a series of prototypes that evolve from minimal functionality to moderately useful to the final completed system. The advantage of this besides the two advantages above was that the users could get useful business functionality much earlier in the process.<ref name="dimap.ufrn.br">{{cite journal|last1=Boehm|first1=Barry|title=A Spiral Model of Software Development|journal=IEEE Computer|date=May 1988|url=http://www.dimap.ufrn.br/~jair/ES/artigos/SpiralModelBoehm.pdf|access-date=1 July 2014|doi=10.1109/2.59|s2cid=1781829|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180329032706/http://www.dimap.ufrn.br/~jair/ES/artigos/SpiralModelBoehm.pdf|archive-date=29 March 2018}}</ref>

Starting with the ideas of [[Barry Boehm]] and others, [[James Martin (author)|James Martin]] developed the rapid application development approach during the 1980s at [[IBM]] and finally formalized it by publishing a book in 1991, ''Rapid Application Development''. This has resulted in some confusion over the term RAD even among IT professionals. It is important to distinguish between RAD as a general alternative to the waterfall model and RAD as the specific method created by Martin. The Martin method was tailored toward knowledge intensive and UI intensive business systems.

These ideas were further developed and improved upon by RAD pioneers like James Kerr and Richard Hunter, who together wrote the seminal book on the subject, Inside RAD,<ref>Kerr, James M.; Hunter, Richard (1993). Inside RAD: How to Build a Fully Functional System in 90 Days or Less. McGraw-Hill. {{ISBN|0-07-034223-7}}.</ref> which followed the journey of a RAD project manager as he drove and refined the RAD Methodology in real-time on an actual RAD project.  These practitioners, and those like them, helped RAD gain popularity as an alternative to traditional systems project life cycle approaches.

The RAD approach also matured during the period of peak interest in [[business process re-engineering|business re-engineering]]. The idea of business process re-engineering was to radically rethink core business processes such as sales and customer support with the new capabilities of Information Technology in mind. RAD was often an essential part of larger business re engineering programs. The rapid prototyping approach of RAD was a key tool to help users and analysts "think out of the box" about innovative ways that technology might radically reinvent a core business process.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Drucker|first1=Peter|title=Post-Capitalist Society|date=3 November 2009|publisher=Harper Collins e-books|isbn=978-0887306204|url=https://archive.org/details/postcapitalistso00druc}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Martin|first1=James|title=Rapid Application Development|date=1991|publisher=Macmillan|isbn=0-02-376775-8|url=https://archive.org/details/rapidapplication00mart}}</ref>

Much of James Martin's comfort with RAD stemmed from [[DuPont (1802–2017)|Dupont]]'s Information Engineering division and its leader Scott Schultz and their respective relationships with John Underwood who headed up a bespoke RAD development company that pioneered many successful RAD projects in Australia and Hong Kong.

Successful projects that included [[ANZ Bank]], [[Lend Lease]], [[BHP]], [[Coca-Cola]] Amatil, [[Alcan]], [[Hong Kong Jockey Club]] and numerous others.

Success that led to both Scott Shultz and James Martin both spending time in Australia with John Underwood to understand the methods and details of why Australia was disproportionately successful in implementing significant mission critical RAD projects.