<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Saba&#039;s &#187; PROCESS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sabarish.com/category/process/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sabarish.com</link>
	<description>Saba&#039;s ramblings on anything and everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:08:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Future of Software Development</title>
		<link>http://www.sabarish.com/the-future-of-software-development-18.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.sabarish.com/the-future-of-software-development-18.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sabarish</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DEVELOPMENT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PROCESS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PROGRAMMING]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SOFTWARE]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabarish.com/?p=18</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.sabarish.com/the-future-of-software-development-18.html" title="The Future of Software Development"></a>Software development has come a full circle states Alex Iskold in a scathing, pull-no-punches broadside upon the Waterfall model. Read it here: the future of software development Alex states that arrogance was the main problem with the waterfall model. The &#8230;<p class="read-more"><a href="http://www.sabarish.com/the-future-of-software-development-18.html">Read more &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sabarish.com/the-future-of-software-development-18.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Iterative vs. waterfall software development</title>
		<link>http://www.sabarish.com/iterative-vs-waterfall-software-development-8.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.sabarish.com/iterative-vs-waterfall-software-development-8.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sabarish</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DEVELOPMENT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PROCESS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[REQUIREMENTS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabarish.com/?p=8</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.sabarish.com/iterative-vs-waterfall-software-development-8.html" title="Iterative vs. waterfall software development"></a>Nowadays, this question seems to figure at every technical interview that that I been involved with (at either side of the table). What would you choose &#8211; Waterfall model or the Iterative approach? The correct answer &#8211; it depends. The &#8230;<p class="read-more"><a href="http://www.sabarish.com/iterative-vs-waterfall-software-development-8.html">Read more &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sabarish.com/iterative-vs-waterfall-software-development-8.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Managing Requirements</title>
		<link>http://www.sabarish.com/managing-requirements-7.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.sabarish.com/managing-requirements-7.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sabarish</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[BPMS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BUSINESS PROCESS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PROCESS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[REQUIREMENTS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sabarish.com/?p=7</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.sabarish.com/managing-requirements-7.html" title="Managing Requirements"></a>FACT #1: The Standish Group’s 1994 Chaos Report found that the top three project impairment factors across 352 companies and 8,000 projects were Lack of user input (12.8% of respondents), Incomplete requirements and specifications (12.3%), and Changing requirements and specifications &#8230;<p class="read-more"><a href="http://www.sabarish.com/managing-requirements-7.html">Read more &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sabarish.com/managing-requirements-7.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

