3. Comparison of Above Described SDLC Models

Transcription

1 Comparison of Above Described SDLC Models Waterfall Model is little hard to manage due to the rigidity of the model as each phase has specific deliverables and a review process. It works well for smaller projects where requirements are very well understood. Prototype Model places more effort in creating the actual software instead of concentrating on documentation. This way, the actual software could be released in advance. Prototyping requires more user involvement and allows them to see and interact with a prototype allowing them to provide better and more complete feedback and specifications. The presence of the prototype being examined by the user prevents many misunderstandings that occur when each side believe the other understands what they said. The final product is more likely to satisfy the user s desire for look, feel and performance. Spiral model is good for large and mission critical projects where high amount of risk analysis is required like launching of satellite. Iterative and Incremental model is at the heart of a cyclic software development process. It starts with an initial planning and ends with deployment with the cyclic interactions in between. Easier to test and debug during a smaller iteration. Easier to manage risk because risky pieces are identified and handled during its iteration. V-shaped Model has higher chance of success over the waterfall model due to the development of test plans during the life cycle. It works well for small projects where requirements are easily understood. RAD Model is flexible and adaptable to changes as it incorporates short development cycles i.e. users see the RAD product quickly. It also involves user participation thereby increasing chances of early user community acceptance and realizes an overall reduction in project risk. RUP Model is a complete methodology in itself with an emphasis on accurate documentation. It is proactively able to resolve the project risks associated with the client s evolving requirements. Less time is required for integration as

2 124 the process of integration goes on throughout the software development life cycle. The development time required is less due to reuse of components. JAD Model can be successfully applied to a wide range of projects like new systems, enhancements to existing systems, System conversions, Purchase of a system etc. SCRUM Model is successfully applied for simple and large scale projects. It is moderate in implementation and very high experts are required. XP Model is applied for simple and small scale projects. To implements this SDLC high expert people are not required. Comparison between different SDLC models in relation to their features like requirements, cost, resource control, risk involvement, changes incorporated, framework type, interface, reusability etc. is illustrated as below.

3 COMPARISON WATERFALL MODEL, PROTOTYPE MODEL, SPIRAL MODEL, ITERATIVE AND INCREMENTAL MODEL No Model/features Waterfall Model Prototype Model Spiral Model Iterative and Incremental model Specification of All 1 the Requirements in the beginning 2 Project Cost Almost as Estimated Above Estimated Cost Very Costly Above Estimated Cost 3 Guarantee of Success Low Moderate High High 4 Required Expertise Moderate Moderate High Moderate 5 Overlapping Phases No No as Parallel development is there 6 Heavyweight Light weight Heavyweight Light weight 7 Framework type Linear Iterative combination of Linear and iterative Combination of Linear and Iterative 8 Rework cost High Not Low High Almost High 9 Testing After coding phase Completed After every iterative prototype model At the End of Engineering Phase After Every 10 Customer Involvement Low High, After Each Low, After Each High, After Each 11 Basic business Knowledge Required Not much Moderate Not Much Moderate 12 Suitable Project Size Small Scale Low to Medium Scale Large Scale and Complex Low to Medium Scale 13 Cost Control No Almost No 14 Simplicity Simple Moderate Complex Moderate 15 Risk Involvement High Low Low Low

4 Flexibility Rigid Much Flexible Much Flexible Much Flexible 17 Maintenance Least Maintainable Maintainable Maintainable 18 Changes Incorporated Difficult Easily Easily Easily 19 Reusability Least Possible To some Extent To some Extent To some Extent 20 Documentation and Training Necessary But Not Much But Not Much 21 Time Frame Very Long Long Long Long 22 Availability of Working Software At the End of the Life Cycle At the End of Every At the End of Every At the End of Every 23 Customized product Least Possible Possible Possible Much Possible 24 Customer Control over Administrator Very Low 25 Required Team Creativity No But Not Much But Not Much 26 Knowledge Transfer No But Not Much But Not Much 27 Team size Large Team Small Team Large Team Not Large Team 28 Primary Objective High Assurance Rapid Development High Assurance Rapid Development 29 Implementation Easy Easy Complex Easy Big band(all Big band(all 30 Release Cycle Functionality at In Phases Functionality at In Phases Once) Once) TABLE-2 COMPARISON OF SDLC MODELS_1

5 COMPARISON OF V-SHAPED MODEL, RAD MODEL, RUP MODEL, JAD MODEL No Model/features V-shaped Model RAD Model RUP Model JAD Model Specification of All 1 the Requirements in the beginning 2 Project Cost Almost as Estimated Almost as Estimated Almost as Estimated Expensive 3 Guarantee of Success Moderate Very Good Very High High 4 Required Expertise Moderate Moderate High Very High 5 Overlapping Phases No No 6 Heavyweight Light weight Heavyweight Lightweight 7 Framework type Non linear Prototype and Iterative Iterative and Incremental Incremental 8 Rework cost High Not very High High High 9 Testing After completion of Each After Completion of Coding At the Construction Phase After Coding Phase 10 Customer Involvement Low High High, After Each Continuous 11 Basic business Knowledge Required Not Much Required Required Very Much 12 Suitable Project Size Large Scale Low to Medium Scale Small as well as Large Scale Small as well as Large Scale 13 Cost Control No due to Urgent Requirement No Almost No 14 Simplicity Moderate Simple Complex Simple 15 Risk Involvement Not High Very Low Low Low 16 Flexibility Little Flexible Very Flexible Very Flexible Very Flexible 17 Maintenance Little Maintainable Easily Maintainable Hard to Maintain Maintainable

6 Changes Incorporated Difficult Easily Easily Easily 19 Reusability Little Possibility 20 Documentation and Training Limited Very Limited 21 Time Frame Long Short Long Moderate 22 Availability of Working Software At the End of the Life Cycle At the End of the Life Cycle At the End of the Life Cycle At the End of Every 23 Customized product Least Possible Possible Possible Possible 24 Customer Control over Administrator Low Very Much 25 Required Team Creativity No 26 Knowledge Transfer No 27 Team size Small Team Small Team Large Team Large Team 28 Primary Objective High Assurance Rapid Development High Assurance Rapid Development 29 Implementation Easy Easy Complex Moderate Big band(all Big band(all 30 Release Cycle Functionality at In Phases Functionality at In Phases Once) Once) TABLE-3 COMPARISON OF SDLC MODELS_2 3.3 COMPARISON OF SCRUM MODEL, EXTREME PROGRAMMING MODEL No Model/features Scrum Model Extreme Programming Model 1 Specification of All the Requirements in the beginning 2 Project Cost Almost as Estimated Almost as Estimated

7 129 3 Guarantee of Success High High 4 Required Expertise Very High Moderate 5 Overlapping Phases 6 Light weight Light weight 7 Framework type iterative and incremental Iterative 8 Rework cost High High 9 Testing After Coding Phase automated testing while coding 10 Customer Involvement High Continuous 11 Basic business Knowledge Required Very Much Very Much 12 Suitable Project Size Large Scale almost small scale 13 Cost Control No No 14 Simplicity Simple Simple 15 Risk Involvement Not High Not High 16 Flexibility Flexible Very Flexible 17 Maintenance Maintainable Easily Maintainable 18 Changes Incorporated Easily Easily 19 Reusability 20 Documentation and Training Limited Limited 21 Time Frame Moderate Short 22 Availability of Working Software At the End of Every At the End of Every 23 Customized product Possible Possible 24 Customer Control over Administrator Very Much 25 Required Team Creativity 26 Knowledge Transfer 27 Team size Large Team Small Team

8 Primary Objective Rapid Development Rapid Development 29 Implementation Moderate Easy 30 Release Cycle In Phases In Phases TABLE-4 COMPARISON OF SDLC MODELS_3