Numerical Analysis of Auto-Ignition of Ethanol

Iraqi Journal for Computer Science and Mathematics
Journal Homepage: http://journal.esj.edu.iq/index.php/IJCM

e-ISSN: 2788-7421 p-ISSN: 2958-0544
A Comprehensive Review of Software Development Life Cycle

methodologies: Pros, Cons, and Future Directions
Abdulbasit ALazzawi1, , Qahtan M.Yas2,* , Bahbibi Rahmatullah3
1
Diyala University, College of Science, Diyala, IRAQ.
Diyala University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Diyala, IRAQ.

2
3
Faculty of Arts, Computing and Creative Industry, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjung Malim, Perak,
MALAYSIA.
*Corresponding Author: Qahtan M.Yas
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52866/ ijcsm.2023.04.04.014

Receive July 2023; Accepted October 2023; Available online November 2023
ABSTRACT: The software development process needs specific and studied steps within a reliable plan to achieve
the requirements for the success of any project. Software development life cycle (SDLC) methodologies have
provided several models that meet the needs of the various proposed projects. These methodologies present various
scenarios that can be applied in the process of developing systems to make them more efficient and predictive. The
paper aims to illuminate the paramount Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) methodologies by conducting a
comprehensive review of the pros and cons of the various models widely used for software design. Furthermore,
the paper discusses fundamental trajectories that are shaping the future landscape of SDLC methodologies. This
review included two main types of software development life cycle approaches such as traditional SDLC (heavy-
weight) and agile SDLC (light-weight) approaches. The traditional approach included several models such as the
Waterfall model, Iterative model, Spiral model, V-Model, and Big Bang Model. Whereas, the agile approach
included various models such as the eXtreme Programming (XP) Model, scrum Model, Feature Driven
Development (FDD) Model, and Kanban Model. A comprehensive analytical study of all software development
life cycle models was achieved and highlighted their most prominent strengths and weaknesses of them. SDLC
methodologies wield substantial ramifications across a multitude of sectors, contingent upon several models
tailored to individual developmental and research contexts. In culmination, the paper furnishes an all-
encompassing perspective on paramount SDLC models, encompassing two principal paradigms: the traditional and
the agile approaches. These encompass fundamental sub-models that encapsulate pioneering models poised for
application in system development, thus facilitating their refinement more efficiently and predictably.
Keywords: SDLC methodologies, Traditional SDLC, Heavy-weight approach, Agile SDLC, Light-weight
approach
1. INTRODUCTION
Software development life cycle methodologies are promising to be adapted in the development of all sectors and
projects. Rapid technological development has led to the emergence of frameworks for the development of projects that
can be applied in all fields. Therefore, all developers and consultants in organizations should apply the SDLC
methodology and choose the appropriate model for each project [1].
The SDLC methodology is meticulously crafted within the contours of an organizational structure, delineating a
constellation of indispensable stages arranged within a systematic and cogent framework.. The methodology structure
is implemented from top to bottom in the form of sequential steps such as requirements analysis and plans, product
design, implementation, testing, and maintenance [2]. SDLC methodology includes two main types: the traditional
heavy-weight approach and the agile lightweight approach to software development [3]. The software development
team depends on the nature of the project according to the feature of each model within the SDLC methodology to be
applied [4]. Each model in the SDLC methodology has strengths and weaknesses [5].
Usually, the outline of a software development process consists of several stages that describe how to create,
replace, maintain, modify, or improve the new software. The life cycle methodology focuses on the quality of the
*Corresponding author: qahtan.myas@uodiyala.edu.iq 1

http://journal.esj.edu.iq/index.php/IJCM
Qahtan M.Yas et al., Iraqi Journal for Computer Science and Mathematics Vol. 4 No. 4 (2023) p. 173-190
software and the overall development stages of the new project. SDLC aspires to create a high-quality program to
satisfy customers and their expectations that are completed within a specific duration and reasonable cost [6]. The
software development process consists of several sequential steps. Typically, these steps refer to all basic processes
such as requirements analysis, design, testing, and maintenance [7].
The SDLC methodology suffers from some limitations and security challenges in its various models when
developing software [8]. These security issues form a major challenge to developers due to the increasing security
vulnerabilities in software. Since the security characteristics of systems are a primary goal, it is a major issue
throughout the software development lifecycle [9]. In addition, the great spread of internet applications, cloud
computing systems, social media, and the internet of things has led to the expansion of these limitations [10]–[12].
Conversely, numerous studies and literary works have delved into the realm of SDLC methodologies, employing
diverse models to craft software products. In a concise survey, S. Shaikh and S. Abro [13] undertook a comparative
analysis of the traditional and agile approaches for software product selection. Their study underscored distinct
features, merits, and drawbacks of software products within the SDM. M. H. Miraz and M. Ali [14] addressed the
burgeoning challenges posed by six traditional SDLC models in the realm of blockchain-enabled smart contracts. These
models proved inadequate, particularly in the realms of testing, verification, and validation phases. Consequently,
addressing this predicament necessitated the formulation of novel standards to surmount the incongruities stemming
from traditional models within the blockchain domain. H. J. Christanto and Y. A. Singgalen [15] advocated a novel
approach to dissect and blueprint an Information System for the Thesis Consultation Process (SIBIMA), thereby
ameliorating real-world quandaries using the SDLC methodology and Waterfall model at Atma Jaya Catholic
University of Indonesia. This approach buttressed educational services by aligning with the university's ethos,
facilitating a symbiotic enhancement of educational quality among students, lecturers, and academic personnel. N.
Rachma and I. Muhlas [16] explored the design of Android-based learning applications through a comparative lens,
contrasting the waterfall models and prototypes during the research and development phase. Their study concluded that
the waterfall model best suits generic systems or programs, whereas prototype models are better suited for tailored
systems and software. In light of the analytical examination, both methods manifest distinct advantages and
disadvantages, thereby furnishing developers with the requisite insights to select the most apropos method for their
software development needs. J. de V. Mohino et al. [17] unveiled an innovative S-SDLC methodology engineered to
seamlessly integrate security factors, thereby expediting the identification of vulnerabilities within stipulated project
timelines without incurring supplementary costs or time investments. This approach harmoniously merges agile traits
into software development environments, harnessing the agility to pinpoint the most pivotal elements and artifacts for
software projects.
This study discusses software development lifecycle methodologies and provides a comprehensive review of the
pros, cons, and new research directions. Section 1, discusses an introduction and general background to software
lifecycle methodologies. Section 2, is an overview and comparative analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the
various SDLC models. Section 3, highlights new research directions. Section 4, limitations of the Research. Section 5,
conclusion and future work.
Various SDLC models have been defined and designed to be used during the software development process. These
are also known as software development process models [3]. The most important and popular SDLC models applied in
the industry are as follows:
1.1 TYPES OF TRADITIONAL SDLC APPROACH

• Waterfall Model
• Iterative Model
• Spiral Model
• V-Model
• Big Bang Model
1.2 TYPES OF AGILE SDLD APPROACH

• eXtreme Programming (XP) Model
• Scrum Model
• Feature-Driven Development (FDD) Model
• Kanban Model
To ensure the success of the software development process, each model must include a series of unique sets of
steps. SDLC models relied upon essential steps such as requirements analysis, designing, implementation, testing, and
174
maintenance of high-quality software [18],[17]. See figure 1, illustrates the essential steps in the development process
of the SDLC approach.
FIGURE 1. Essential steps for the development process of the SDLC approach
1.3 ESSENTIAL STEPS APPLIED FOR SDLC MODELS
Several steps must be applied to ensure the success develop of SDLC models [18],[19]. These steps will be
discussed in detail and their impact on the development process of various models.
• Step 1: Requirements analysis

This stage is very important as the customer's requirements are to be analyzed and documentation in a clear and
natural language. A specialized team starts collecting information about the proposed project and saved it in the
document. This document contains a full description of the project development process. The document containing the
customer's requirements is named the Software Requirements Specification (SRS). Finally, the developers analyze the
information, draw up a project development plan and conduct a feasibility study according to the economic and
technical roles of the new product [19], [20].
• Step 2: Designing
Design is the next stage after analyzing the information for the project that depicts the structural form of the
requirements within a clear programming language. This stage includes the design of the project form and how it will
be implemented. Thus, this design is documented in a document called Software Design Description (SDD). Thus, the
SDD document is reviewed by experts under strict criteria to assess risk, product quality, design, cost, and timetable to
get the best product [19], [20].
• Step 3: Implementation and unit testing

This stage includes the coding part that was precisely documented in SDD in the design stage earlier. The testing
process is conducted for all small and working units in the project. In the product inspection stage, modifications can be
made in the coding if necessary [20]–[22].
• Step 4: Testing
The testing phase of the program is important to identify errors and how address them to improve product quality.
Sometimes the unit tester cannot properly check the program interface between the units. Therefore, a full system test
must be performed and then the software that is part of the system should also be tested. The maximum of the software
development budget is used in the software testing phase of the SDLC. This stage is important to build trust in the
developers before the product is delivered to the customer and or published in the market [20]–[22].
• Step 5: Maintenance
The program maintenance stage is the last stage of program development to be delivering the product to the
customer, operating it, and publishing it in the market. The new product is deployed through a specific segment to be
tested in a real business environment called User Acceptance Testing (UAT). At this stage, the errors in the coding part
of the product are corrected gradually to be improved and then deleted the old parts of the product are during the period
of its use [19], [20].
175
2. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SDLC MODELS

The software development life cycle (SDLC) models are designed that are applied in the development of new
projects. Usually, these models are also called Software Development Process Models (SDPM) [23]. Each model has
specific steps that are followed to ensure the success of the model development process. The development models
include two main types, the traditional model, and the agile model, which will be discussed in detail in this section [24].
2.1 TRADITIONAL SDLC TYPES
The traditional model is one of the oldest approaches to the software development process [24]. One of the most
important features of this model is its sequential approach, meaning that all its steps are carried out sequentially, step by
step. The traditional approach is mainly based on planning, analysis, and detailed discussion of the project. This model
documents all steps of the product such as gathering requirements, designing, coding, and testing all steps, and then
deploying the product [25]. This approach included several models that will be discussed in detail. See figure 2, shows
the design of the traditional approach architecture.
Discover
System Traditional Approach
Requirement
Design
Technical
Deign
Develop
Coding &
Testing
Test
Deployment
FIGURE 2. Sequence Model

2.1.1 WATERFALL MODEL DESIGN
The waterfall model is the first model within the SDLC approach that was proposed by Royce in the year 1970
[25]. This model is easy to understand and can be used successfully to develop new projects. In addition, this model is
known as the sequential linear life cycle model. In this model, the software development process is applied in separate
stages [26]. The waterfall model is successfully applied if the current stage is completed to complement the next stage
sequentially [2]. See figure 3, depicts the stages of the waterfall model sequentially.
Requirement
Analysis
System Design
Implementation
Testing
Deployment
Maintenance
FIGURE 3. Waterfall model based on sequence model
• PROS AND CONS OF THE WATERFALL MODEL

For each model there are strengths and weaknesses which are discussed in detail as follows:
176
Table 1. - Pros and Cons of the waterfall model

Strengths Weaknesses
•The program does not run •Simple and easy to
until the model lifecycle is understand and use
completed •Easy to manage due to the
•The amount of risk and strength of the model.
ambiguity in this model is •Each stage has a specific
high output and review process.
•In complex and object- •Ease of processing all
oriented projects is bad stages and completing them
•Long-term and ongoing sequentially
projects are weak •Suitable for small projects
•Change in project because the requirements are
requirements is causing a understandable
problem •The model has specific and
•Measuring the progress of clear stages
the model stages is •Model landmarks are very
difficult understandable
•Adjusting the scope often •Distribute and arranging
shut down the model tasks is easy
•Difficulty identifying •Ease of documenting
technical and commercial results and model stages
obstacles and challenges
early
2.1.2 ITERATIVE MODEL DESIGN
The iterative model is one of the SDLC models that rely on implementing the requirements of software
development through small units repeatedly to reach a completed system. The iterative or incremental model is divided
into several architectures units to meet the requirements of the software development process [27]. Each architecture
unit is comprised of design, development, testing, and implementation. In each version, the development process
continues to obtain the final version to be ready to publish according to the requirements of the proposed model. To
ensure the success of the iterative version of software development, all requirements must be checked and tested at each
cycle of development for the new model [28]. See figure 4, shows the iterative model design.
Built1
Design & Testing Implementation
Development
Built2
Requirements Development
Built3
Development
FIGURE 4. Iterative processing
• PROS AND CONS OF THE ITERATIVE MODEL

For each model there are strengths and weaknesses which are discussed in detail as follows:
Table 2. - Pros and Cons of the Iterative model

Strength Weaknesses
•This model is scalable quickly and early •The need for more resources
•Results can be obtained quickly and periodically •Often the low cost does not match the size of the
•The model is scalable changing requirements
•Easy to measure progress •System architecture design problems often arise
•Cost is limited to change requirements because not all requirements are collected at the
•Ease of conducting tests and handling errors through beginning of the model lifecycle
iterations •Defining the system needs to specify the number of
•Ease of identifying and resolving potential risks iterations/increments
during iterations •Not suitable for small-scale projects.
177
•Ease of managing and analyzing risks provided that •Model management is complicated
the highest risk step is taken •There is a high risk if the end of the project is
•A new product can be delivered for each iteration unknown
•Possibility of applying the identified challenges and •Significant experience in analyzing potential risks is
risks to the next iteration required to ensure project progress
•Supports changing requirements.
•Less time spent on the initial run
•Suitable for large and bulky projects
•The speed of completion of the program facilitates the
evaluation process and feedback from customers
2.1.3 SPIRAL MODEL
The spiral model consists of four stages based on the integration of two approaches, the iterative development
model with the sequential development model (waterfall) which is focused on risk analysis that is developed by
scientist Barry Boehm [29]. Essentially, the model progressively improves the product through an iterative process
around the coil. The model starts with the stage of collecting business requirements in the baseline spiral [13]. In
addition, in the product maturity stage in the next spirals, the rest of the main system, sub-system, and unit
requirements are identified. While the conceptual design stage of the spiral consists of the architectural and logical
design of the units as well as the design of the final product in the later stages of the spiral [30]. Thus, in the last stage
of the spiral, the product is deployed in the labor market. See figure 5, shows the spiral model design.
FIGURE 5. Loop Processing steps diagram [31]
• PROS AND CONS OF SPIRAL MODEL

For each model there are advantages and disadvantages which are discussed in detail as follows:
Table 3. - Pros and cons of the spiral model
•Able to deal with changes in project requirements •Model management is too complicated
•It handles a large number of prototypes •An early end to the project is uncertain
•More accurate in dealing with requirements •His steps are complicated
•Quick to display the system to users •Often the spiral continues indefinitely
•Ability to manage risks well •It needs documentation and intermediate stages
178
2.1.4 V. MODEL
The V-model shares a resemblance with the waterfall model, as both are executed through a sequence of stages
cascading from the uppermost tier downwards. [32]. In this model, the testing process is associated with each stage of
the development cycle. This model is strictly disciplined as no stage begins until the completion of the one before it
[25]. Typically, the coding design of the model is linked on both sides of the model, in addition to verification on one
side is done with validation on the other side of this model [33]. Thus, the testing process takes place parallel for each
side of the model. See figure 6, shows the V model design.
Developer’s Life cycle Tester’s Life cycle

Acceptance Test Design
Requirement Acceptance
Analysis Testing
System Test Design
Validation stage
Verification stage
System Design System Testing
Integration Test
Architecture Design Integration
Design Testing
Unit Test
Design
Module Design Unit Testing
Coding
FIGURE 6. V model diagram
• PROS AND CONS OF SPIRAL MODEL

Table 4. Pros and cons of the V. model

•This model is very disciplined •The model is ambiguous and highly risky
•Its stages are sequential •Not suitable for complex and object-oriented projects
•Perfect for small projects •Not suitable for long-term and ongoing projects
•Easy to understand and use •Not useful for projects with moderate and high
•Model management is very easy changes
•It is not possible to return and change its functions
when the test stage is reached
2.1.5 BIG BANG MODEL
The Big Bang model is one of the SDLC models assigned for small projects and does not follow specific steps [34].
This model depends on the inputs (money and efforts) and the outputs (the product), it often does not correspond to the
customer's requirements due to its exact purpose being ambiguous. This model has characterized its speed and less
analysis, as well development team is very small. The Big Bang model design focuses on all possible project
development resources with less or no planning [35]. Usually, changes in the model requirements do not affect the
entire project renewal process. Thus, this model is ideal for small projects that do not need a full understanding of the
requirements with a small development team, in addition, it is also useful for practical and academic projects [36]. See
figure 7, shows the Big Bang model design.
179
FIGURE 7 Big Bang model architecture
• PROS AND CONS OF THE BIN BANG MODEL

Table 4. Pros and cons of the Big Bang model

•Simple and easy model •Ambiguous and the risk is high
•It doesn't require planning or non-existent •Not suitable for object-oriented projects and complex
•Model management is easy •Not useful for ongoing and long-term projects
•It doesn't require large resources •Less understanding of the requirements leads to high
•The model is very flexible costs
•It is a suitable educational platform for new students
2.2 AGILE SDLC TYPES
The agile approach is a lightweight type of software development and it is often called the ‘moving quickly'
approach. This approach relies upon the software development on small parts called ‘iterations’ or ‘increments’, where
each part represents a stage of development for the project. [37],[24]. The agile approach focuses primarily on customer
collaboration and interaction with the product development process rather than traditional methods such as
requirements analysis, plans, and tools [13]. This approach consists of various models that will be discussed in detail.
See figure 8, illustrates the agile approach architecture.
Discover
Agile Approach
Test Design
Module 1
Develop
Discover
Test Module 2 Design
Develop
Discover
Test Module 3 Design
Develop
FIGURE 8. Agile approach architecture
2.2.1 EXTREME PROGRAMMING (XP) MODEL
The Extreme Programming (XP) model, a subdivision of the agile methodology, was conceptualized in the 1990s and crystallized
into its definitive structure after several subsequent years. Rooted in the collaborative efforts of the development team, this model
centers on creating the necessary program. The process involves delivering the product to the customer and systematically repeating
iterations. Following each iteration, rigorous testing is conducted, culminating in the collection of valuable feedback [34]. . The
180
extreme programming model is one of the most common models of the agile approach that has been developed in the
current era. This model has weaknesses, such as a lack of documentation and poor design, which makes it not ideal for
medium and large projects. In addition, the structure of the model is so complex that no specific design activity can be
adopted [38]. Whereas, this model is suitable for small enterprises to develop new high-quality products. The XP
model includes a set of simple and specific principles applied in the software development process based on four main
stages: planning, coding, design, and testing [39]. See figure 9, illustrates the eXtreme Programming (XP) model
architecture.
FIGURE 8. eXtreme Programming (XP) model architecture [39]
• PROS AND CONS OF THE EXTREME PROGRAMMING (XP) MODEL

For each model there are Strengths and Weaknesses which are discussed in detail as follows:
Table 4. Pros and cons of the extreme programming (xp) model

• Fulfill customer needs with product quality •No documentation
• Ease of adapting to the constant changes in •The structure of the model is too weak
requirements •Little attention to design
• Adopt pair programming to improve product •An urgent need for integration among programmers
quality for a mutual understanding of programming and
• Ideal for small projects advanced skills
2.2.2 SCRUM MODEL
The Scrum model is the most important and modern among the agile models. It was developed by Ken Schwaber
and Jeff Sutherland developers in 1993. According to them, the scrum model is defined as a framework that allows
developers to solve complex project problems and deliver a high-quality, innovative product. This model is simple and
easy to understand to manage and control each step of product development to meet the requirements of the customer in
a gradual and practical way [40]. In this model, all activities are carried out within a standard framework consisting of
several sprints. These sprints organize all activities by size and complexity of design [41]. Scrum is continuously
adaptable to all changes in requirements. This model organizes the work of the teams to get the work done more
productively to reach a high-quality product [42]. See figure 10, shows Scrum model architecture.
181
FIGURE 10. Scrum model architecture [43]
• PROS AND CONS OF SCRUM MODEL

Table 7. Pros and cons of Scrum model

•Team members communicate effectively and •Staff lack full knowledge of scrum
efficiently •Poor technical practice in the scrum model
•A good management •Difficulty mastering the model
•Receive customer comments about the product on a •Not suitable for medium and large projects
regular basis
•Its products are of high quality to meet the needs of
the customer
•Daily scrum team meetings provide significant growth
and productivity
2.2.3 FEATURE DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT (FDD) MODEL
A Feature Driven Development (FDD) model was developed by researchers Jeff DeLuca and Peter Coad in late
1999. This module mainly focuses on the design and construction phases, as well as the quality aspects of the product
during the development process. In addition, in this model, the project progress steps are monitored during the product
delivery process [44]. FDD model works incrementally and iteratively with a slight difference in some factors, and it is
similar to another model. One weakness of this model is that it is not suitable for large and long-term projects.
Conversely, it is an ideal model for small and medium projects only. The size of the team is directly proportional to the
size of the project, usually [45]. This model is effective in new projects that require updating and upgrading the code
used to reach the second version of the current application. It is a flexible and effective approach that adapts to the
different types of systems to be developed [46]. See figure 11, shows Feature Driven Development (FDD) model
architecture.
182
Develop Build Plan by

Design Build
an overall Features Feature
by by
Model List
Feature Feature
FIGURE 11. Feature Driven Development (FDD) model architecture
• PROS AND CONS OF FEATURE DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT (FDD) MODEL
Table 8. Pros and Cons of Feature Driven Development (FDD) Model

•Recursive ascending pattern •Cannot validate the system
•Focuses on design, construction and product quality •Lacks the necessary training to write the requirements
•Suitable for small and medium enterprises •Weak to handle changing requirements
•The size of the team is proportional to the size of the •Lack of experienced and trained staff
project •Not suitable for large projects
•Flexible model and adapts to the development of •It involves a lot of risks
systems
2.2.4 KANBAN MODEL
The Kanban model was developed by Toyota Company for tracking their manufacturing operations. It is
considered one of the most approved methods by systems development organizations around the world. The Kanban
approach is based on the concept of just in time (JIT). The Kanban approach provides information about what is needed
and how much is needed for delivery within a specified time schedule. It has the ability to easily identify bottlenecks
during development stages that may affect the workflow [47]. In addition, it maintains transparency among the work
team within the Kanban board management. It also has the ability to know each task at any time, which helps to
monitor the workflow. It is also characterized by following the limit option, which helps to organize tasks at the
maximum [48]. The main objective of the Kanban model is to reduce the time period possible to complete the project.
Briefly, three basic principles can be identified, which are that each worker should know his current task, the
computing developer must make developmental changes to the system, and if the Kanban model is applied, the
employees must be prepared to be leaders within the program development [49]. See figure 12, shows the Kanban
model architecture.
183
Comments
To Do Ongoing Completed
FIGURE 12. Kanban model architecture
• PROS AND CONS OF KANBAN MODEL

Table 9. Pros and cons Kanban model

•It is an easy-to-use model •Does not work independently
•It can be applied in various industries •Cannot be used in a dynamic
•Customizable environment
•Supports cooperation •It does not support repetition
•Minimal overheads •lack of time
•There are no timings for each stage
3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR THE TRADITIONAL AND AGILE APPROACHES
In the comparative analysis section, the most important differences, weaknesses and strengths between the
traditional and agile approaches will be discussed. Table 10, shows the main differences between the traditional and
agile approaches according to several criteria.
Table 10. A major differences between of the Traditional and Agile approaches [13],[24]
Key criteria Traditional approach Agile Approach
Requirements development Fixed changing Frequently changing
Customer role limited Large
Developer skills Sufficient skills Knowledgeable
Development type Stable Easily changeable
Project size Large Small and medium
Potential risks Limited effect Great effect
Coding value Expensive Cheap
Team members Large team Small team
Changes cost High Low
Table 11. Comparative analysis of the Traditional and Agile approaches [50]
Approaches Strengths Weaknesses
Traditional Predictive approach Weekly meetings are not suitable for
approach Depends on a detailed development plan developers
More documentation in orientation Time frame for each iteration is short
Strictly complete all changes in Lack of communication between developers
requirements and customers
Suitable to the large projects
Emphasize documentation in orientation
It has a specific requirement model before
implementation and coding
Coding is documented by business
analysts
184
Agile Adaptive approach It does not depend on a detailed development

Approach It adapted to the dynamic requirements plan
changes It is difficult for beginner developers or new
The product is frequently tested members
Minimum risks Delay completing iterations
Interaction with the clients Increase development costs
Open communication and minimal Frequent change in requirements causes
documentation design problems
Suitable to small and medium projects It is unable to include reusable components
More comments in source code that may lead to more risks
Focuses on the importance of
communicating with the customer
Teams collaborate closely often in same
environment
4. FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In this section, a new view on the topic of our study will be presented based on previous studies relevant to the
review. Furthermore, this review also offers a novel perspective by outlining potential future directions in the field
software development life cycle (SDLC) methodologies are promising to be adapted in the development of all sectors
and projects [1]. Briefly defined, the concept of the software development life cycle methodology is a structured
analysis consisting of specific logical steps. The SDLC methodology is represented in a systematical and logical
framework consisting of a set of defined steps. The methodology is implemented from top to bottom in the form of
sequential steps [2]. This methodology depends on several criteria that represent all the basic steps for building the
required model. Typically, these steps refer to all the basic operations required to implement the model such as
requirements analysis, design, testing, and maintenance [18]. Basically, these criteria should be taken into account for
future studies on this topic. It is known the SDLC methodologies that have been applied to develop various projects
within industrial sectors that depend on multiple criteria to determine the important elements in these sectors. Multi-
criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques represent a promising research area to solve various problems facing
researchers [51]–[54]. This vital field includes many important techniques in decision-making. Proper techniques were
used as AHP and ANP methods to calculate the criteria weights for any case study, especially for developing software
in the industrial sectors. This technique relies on the opinions of experts in the evaluation process based on their
preferences [54]–[56]. This technique also has the ability to calculate the order of priority and importance of each
criterion. In addition, many other decision-making techniques can compute the ranking of alternatives based on criteria
weights taken from other methods, such as SAW, HAW, WPM, WSM, MEW, TOPSIS, VIKOR, GRA, MOORA, and
others[57]–[61]. On the other hand, machine learning algorithms represent the ideal direction for the classification and
prediction of the SDLC model's performance [62]. Therefore, these techniques represent a promising direction for
many researchers to obtain reliable results based on multiple criteria for each case study.
5. LIMITATIONS
Several limitations are outlined in this review. The most important limitations related to SDLC methodologies in
this research will be reviewed as follows [8]:
• LIMITATIONS OF THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH
• The regression method applied in this approach does not allow going back, so the step must be completed.
• The inaccuracy of the timetable required to complete the project sometimes leads to the failure of the project
within its specified period.
• This approach is inflexible because it does not allow changes to be made according to customer requirements.
• It is suitable for large term projects.
• Any change of the approach structure leads to the start again of the project and an additional cost to the project.
• Increased software development time and expenses as the customer keeps adding requirements to the list.
• Only the member in the current stage is working and the rest of the team remains in the idle stage.
185
• LIMITATIONS OF THE AGILE APPROACH
• Stakeholders are often used in project management if there is no specific timetable for the end of the project.
• Project costs are clearly affected if the tasks are not specified accurately.
• The failure of the project is certain if the developer team does not fulfill their required tasks.
• Ideal for small and medium enterprises
• Requires a highly experienced team to complete the project within the specified period.
• The strict control of the team is frustrating to work for them that affects the completion of the project.
• Leaving a team member during the development period negatively affects the project.
• Failure to conduct the test, failure affects the quality of the project.
6. CONCLUSION
Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) methodologies represent the best solution to the software
development process in all areas of life. This methodology included various traditional and agile models that can be
applied to conduct various software development processes to make them predictable and more efficient. The aim of
this study is to conduct a comprehensive review of SDLC methodologies and identify their strengths and weaknesses.
SDLC methodologies included the most important approaches are the traditional approach which consists of the
waterfall model, the spiral model, the iterative model, the V model, and BANG. In addition to the agile approach,
which consists of the XP model, the scrum model, the FDD model, and the Kanban model. Several strengths,
weaknesses, and limitations of this approach have been identified. Research limitations represented the study doesn't
cover all models due to the similarity in their characteristics and the lack of sufficient studies on them. Future works
emphasize the need to conduct more surveys and analytical studies on these models because they are closely related to
various aspects of life. It can also focus on new research directions using methodologies such as decision-making
techniques and machine learning in software development by adopting SDLC methodologies .
Funding
None.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
These authors would like to thank the University of Diyala\Scientific Research Committee (SRC) for supporting
this major research project and also to some friends who gave me good advice during working on this research.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author declares no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
[1] H. F. Rahmani and E. Himawati, “Combining SDLC Method And ITIL Framework by Involving Auditors,” J.
AKSI (Akuntansi dan Sist. Informasi), vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 6–12, 2020, doi: 10.32486/aksi.v5i1.431.
[2] H. S. Modi, N. K. Singh, and H. P. Chauhan, “Comprehensive Analysis of Software Development Life Cycle
Models,” Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol., vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 117–122, 2017, [Online]. Available:
https://irjet.net/archives/V4/i6/IRJET-V4I618.pdf
[3] A. Alzayed and A. Khalfan, “Understanding Top Management Involvement in SDLC Phases,” Int. J. Comput.
Appl., vol. 183, no. 37, pp. 30–49, 2021, doi: 10.5120/ijca2021921759.
[4] M. Kumar, “A Comparative Study of Universally Accepted SDLC Models for Software Development,” Int. J.
Sci. Res. Sci. Technol., vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 1084–1092, 2018, [Online]. Available: www.ijsrst.com
[5] A. Adel and B. Abdullah, “A Comparison Between Three SDLC Models Waterfall Model, Spiral Model, and
Incremental/Iterative Model,” IJCSI Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 106–111, 2015, [Online].
Available:
https://www.academia.edu/10793943/A_Comparison_Between_Three_SDLC_Models_Waterfall_Model_Spira
186
l_Model_and_Incremental_Iterative_Model
[6] S. Kumar Dora and P. Dubey, “Software Development Life Cycle (Sdlc) Analytical Comparison and Survey on
Traditional and Agile Methodology,” J. Res. Sci. Technol., vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 22–30, 2013, [Online]. Available:
www.abhinavjournal.com
[7] R. N. Salsabila and P. I. Listyorini, “Patient Clinical Data Integration in Integrated Electronic Medical Record
System using System Development Life Cycle ( SDLC ),” 2nd Int. Conf. Heal. Sci. Technol. 2021, no. 269, pp.
21–26, 2021, [Online]. Available:
http://ojs.udb.ac.id/index.php/icohetech/article/view/1073%0Ahttp://ojs.udb.ac.id/index.php/icohetech/article/d
ownload/1073/916
[8] R. D. Amlani, “Advantages and limitations of different SDLC models,” Int. J. Comput. Appl. Inf. Technol., vol.
1, no. 3, pp. 6–11, 2012.
[9] S. Z. Hlaing and K. Ochimizu, “An integrated cost-effective security requirement engineering process in SDLC
using FRAM,” in Proceedings - 2018 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational
Intelligence, CSCI 2018, IEEE, 2018, pp. 852–857. doi: 10.1109/CSCI46756.2018.00170.
[10] A. M. Fernandes, A. Pai, and L. M. M. Colaco, “Secure SDLC for IoT Based Health Monitor,” Proc. 2nd Int.
Conf. Electron. Commun. Aerosp. Technol. ICECA 2018, no. Iceca 2018, pp. 1236–1241, 2018, doi:
10.1109/ICECA.2018.8474668.
[11] G. K. Ouda and Q. M. Yas, “Design of Cloud Computing for Educational Centers Using Private Cloud
Computing : A Case Study,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2021, pp. 1–8. doi: 10.1088/1742-
6596/1804/1/012119.
[12] D. S. Ibrahim, A. F. Mahdi, and Q. M. Yas, “Challenges and Issues for Wireless Sensor Networks : A Survey,”
J. Glob. Sci. Res., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1079–1097, 2021.
[13] S. Shaikh and S. Abro, “Comparison of Traditional and Agile Software Development Methodology: a Short
Survey,” Int. J. Softw. Eng. Comput. Syst., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1–14, 2019, doi: 10.15282/ijsecs.5.2.2019.1.0057.
[14] M. H. Miraz and M. Ali, “Blockchain Enabled Smart Contract Based Applications: Deficiencies with the
Software Development Life Cycle Models,” vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 101–116, 2020, [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.10589
[15] H. J. Christanto and Y. A. Singgalen, “Analysis and Design of Student Guidance Information System through
Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) dan Waterfall Model,” J. Inf. Syst. Informatics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp.
259–270, 2023, doi: 10.51519/journalisi.v5i1.443.
[16] N. Rachma and I. Muhlas, “Comparison Of Waterfall And Prototyping Models In Research And Development
(R&D) Methods For Android-Based Learning Application Design,” J. Inov. Inov. Teknol. Inf. dan Inform., vol.
5, no. 1, p. 36, 2022, doi: 10.32832/inova-tif.v5i1.7927.
[17] J. de V. Mohino, J. B. Higuera, J. R. B. Higuera, and J. A. S. Montalvo, “The application of a new secure
software development life cycle (S-SDLC) with agile methodologies,” Electron., vol. 8, no. 11, 2019, doi:
10.3390/electronics8111218.
[18] S. Malik, “Software testing: Essential phase of SDLC and a comparative study of software testing techniques,”
Int. J. Syst. Softw. Eng., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 38–45, 2017, [Online]. Available:
https://www.academia.edu/40510082/Software_Testing_Essential_Phase_of_SDLC_and_a_Comparative_Stud
y_of_Software_Testing_Techniques
[19] A. Coronato, “Agile software development life cycles,” Eng. High Qual. Med. Softw. Regul. Stand. Methodol.
tools Certif., pp. 161–172, 2018, doi: 10.1049/pbhe012e_ch13.
[20] “SDLC Tutorial/ tuyorialspoint.” https://www.tutorialspoint.com/sdlc/index.htm
[21] T. T and M. Prasanna, “Research and Development on Software Testing Techniques and Tools,” vol. 4, no. 4,
pp. 1479–1493, 2018, doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-7598-6.ch109.
[22] T. Jindal, “Importance of Testing in SDLC,” Int. J. Eng. Appl. Comput. Sci., vol. 01, no. 02, pp. 54–56, 2016,
doi: 10.24032/ijeacs/0102/05.
[23] I. H. Sarker, F. Faruque, U. Hossen, and A. Rahman, “A survey of software development process models in
187
software engineering,” Int. J. Softw. Eng. its Appl., vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 55–70, 2015, doi:
10.14257/ijseia.2015.9.11.05.
[24] Y. Leau, W. K. Loo, W. Y. Tham, and S. F. Tan, “Software Development Life Cycle AGILE vs Traditional
Approaches,” vol. 37, no. Icint, pp. 162–167, 2012.
[25] T. Chittagong and T. Islam, “Introducing a New Sdlc Trigon Model for,” in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Sustainable Development in Technology for 4th Industrial Revolution 2021 (ICSDTIR-2021),
2021, pp. 1–7.
[26] P. Agarwal, A. Singhal, and A. Garg, “SDLC Model Selection Tool and Risk Incorporation,” Int. J. Comput.
Appl., vol. 172, no. 10, pp. 6–10, 2017, doi: 10.5120/ijca2017915143.
[27] S. S. Kute and S. D. Thorat, “A Review on Various Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Models,” Int. J.
Res. Comput. Commun. Technol., vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 776–781, 2014.
[28] O. J. Okesola, A. A. Adebiyi, A. A. Owoade, O. Adeaga, O. Adeyemi, and I. Odun-Ayo, “Software
Requirement in Iterative SDLC Model,” Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput., vol. 1224 AISC, pp. 26–34, 2020, doi:
10.1007/978-3-030-51965-0_2.
[29] S. Shylesh, “A study of software development life cycle process models,” SSRN Electron. J., pp. 1–7, 2017.
[30] A. K. . Z. Islam and D. A. Ferworn, “A Comparison between Agile and Traditional Software Development
Methodologies,” Glob. J. Comput. Sci. Technol., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 7–42, 2020, doi:
10.34257/gjcstcvol20is2pg7.
[31] N. B. Ruparelia, “Software development lifecycle models,” ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, vol. 35, no. 3,
pp. 8–13, 2010, doi: 10.1145/1764810.1764814.
[32] I. Journal, V. Kumari, and S. Kulkarni2, “IRJET-Use of Artificial Intelligence in Soware Development Life
Cycle Requirements and its Model Use of Artificial Intelligence in Software Development Life Cycle
Requirements and its Model,” Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol., p. 1857, 2018, [Online]. Available: www.irjet.net
[33] N. Dwivedi, D. Katiyar, and G. Goel, “A Comparative Study of Various Software Development Life Cycle
(SDLC) Models Neha,” Int. J. Res. Eng. Sci. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 141–144, 2022, [Online]. Available:
https://madhavuniversity.edu.in/software-development-life-cycle.html
[34] M. H. Miraz and M. Ali, “Blockchain Enabled Smart Contract Based Applications: Deficiencies with the
Software Development Life Cycle Models,” Balt. J., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 101–116, 2020, [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.10589
[35] A. Singh and P. J. Kaur, “Analysis of software development life cycle models,” Lect. Notes Electr. Eng., vol.
476, pp. 689–699, 2019, doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-8234-4_55.
[36] A. Dubey and L. C. McInnes, “Position paper - Proposal for a scientific software lifecycle model,” in
Proceedings of SE-CoDeSE 2017: 1st International Workshop on Software Engineering for High Performance
Computing in Computational and Data-Enabled Science and Engineering - Held in conjunction with SC 2017:
The International Conference for High Performanc, 2017, pp. 22–26. doi: 10.1145/3144763.3144767.
[37] R. P. Pawar, “A Comparative study of Agile Software Development Methodology and traditional waterfall
model,” IOSR J. Comput. Eng., pp. 1–8, 2015.
[38] B. G. Sudarsono, “Using an Extreme Programming Method for Hotel Reservation System Development,” Int.
J. Emerg. Trends Eng. Res., vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 2223--2228, 2020, doi: 10.30534/ijeter/2020/01862020.
[39] I. G. N. Suryantara and J. F. Andry, “Development of Medical Record With Extreme Programming SDLC,”
Int. J. New Media Technol., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 47–53, 2018, doi: 10.31937/ijnmt.v5i1.706.
[40] V. Hema, S. Thota, S. Naresh Kumar, C. Padmaja, C. B. Rama Krishna, and K. Mahender, “Scrum: An
Effective Software Development Agile Tool,” in IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
2020, pp. 1–11. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/981/2/022060.
[41] J. Andry and W. Rakkha, “Development Point of Sales Using SCRUM Framework,” J. Syst. Integr., vol. 10,
no. 1, pp. 36–48, 2019, doi: 10.20470/jsi.v10i1.359.
[42] M. A. Subih et al., “Comparison of agile method and scrum method with software quality affecting factors,”
188
Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 531–535, 2019, doi: 10.14569/ijacsa.2019.0100569.
[43] “TOOLS TUTORIALS,” 2022. https://www.toolsqa.com/agile/scrum/sprint
[44] H. K. Flora and S. V. Chande, “A Systematic Study on Agile Software Development Methodologies and
Practices,” Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 3626–3637, 2014, [Online]. Available:
http://www.ijcsit.com/docs/Volume 5/vol5issue03/ijcsit20140503214.pdf
[45] A. Jerom, R. Sp, and P. G. Scholar, “A Survey on Comparative Analysis of Agile Software Development
Methodologies,” Recent Trends Comput. Sci. Softw. Technol., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 36–48, 2019, [Online].
Available:
https://www.academia.edu/43902409/A_Survey_on_Comparative_Analysis_of_Agile_Software_Development
_Methodologies?from=cover_page
[46] V. Upadrista, “Agile Methodology,” Art Consult. Sell. IT, pp. 99–106, 2015, doi: 10.1201/b18065-15.
[47] W. Zayat and O. Senvar, “Framework Study for Agile Software Development Via Scrum and Kanban,” Int. J.
Innov. Technol. Manag., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1–25, 2020, doi: 10.1142/S0219877020300025.
[48] P. Kumar, P. Sahithi, M. Pradeep Kumar, and B. Tech Student, “Implementing Scrum and Kanban Approaches
for E-Commerce Web Application: An Agile Framework,” IJSRD-International J. Sci. Res. Dev., vol. 9, no.
April, pp. 2321–0613, 2021, [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353014043
[49] K. Risener, “A Study of Software Development Methodologies,” Comput. Sci. Comput. Eng., pp. 1–31, 2022,
[Online]. Available: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/csceuht/103
[50] M. STOICA, M. MIRCEA, and B. GHILIC-MICU, “Software Development: Agile vs. Traditional,” Inform.
Econ., vol. 17, no. 4/2013, pp. 64–76, 2013, doi: 10.12948/issn14531305/17.4.2013.06.
[51] Q.M. Yas, Mahdi, A.F., AL-Shamary, A.K.J. and Radam,N.S, “A Multi Criteria Analysis in Ranking
Composite Material Using Gray Relational Analysis: A Case Study,” in In 2020 International Conference on
Electrical, Communication, and Computer Engineering (ICECCE), 2020, pp. 1–7.
[52] Q. M. Yas, B. N. Adday, and A. S. Abed, “Evaluation Multi Diabetes Mellitus Symptoms by Integrated Fuzzy-
based MCDM Approach,” Turkish J. Comput. Math. Educ., vol. 12, no. 13, pp. 4069–4082, 2021.
[53] Q. M.Yas, E. M. Hameed, A. Badr, and B. Al-bander, “Multi Risk Factors Evaluation for Lung Cancer
Incidence Based Decision Support Systems,” Turkish J. Comput. Math. Educ., vol. 12, no. 13, pp. 3409–3419,
2021.
[54] A. A. Zaidan, B. B. Zaidan, M. A. Alsalem, O. S. Albahri, A. S. Albahri, and M. Y. Qahtan, “Multi-agent
learning neural network and Bayesian model for real-time IoT skin detectors: a new evaluation and
benchmarking methodology,” in Neural Computing and Applications, Springer London, 2020, pp. 8315–8366.
doi: 10.1007/s00521-019-04325-3.
[55] Q. M. Yas and G. K. Ouda, “Toward on Develop a Framework for Diagnosing Novel- COVID-19 Symptoms
Using Decision Support Methods,” in Communications in Computer and Information Science, 2022, pp. 1–18.
[56] A. K. Jassim Al-Shamary, Q. M. Yas, A. M. Badr, R. Al Shalabi, and S. H. Aldulaimi, “Multi Criteria Decision
Making Technique for Evaluation and Selection performance Large Scale Data of Composite Materials,” in
2022 ASU International Conference in Emerging Technologies for Sustainability and Intelligent Systems,
ICETSIS 2022, IEEE, 2022, pp. 96–103. doi: 10.1109/ICETSIS55481.2022.9888862.
[57] Q. M. Yas and F. K. Zaidan, “A NEW HYBRID MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION APPROACH FOR
EVALUATING AND BENCHMARKING VACCINES,” Int. J. Tech. Phys. Probl. Eng., vol. 15, no. 54, pp.
33–38, 2023.
[58] A. A. M. Al-Azzawi, M. L. Talal, B. J. Khadhim, and Q. M. Yas, “Selecting Optimal Educational Boards
Based on a Decision Support Approach,” Int. J. Tech. Phys. Probl. Eng., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 345–351, 2023.
[59] Q. M. Yas and A. A. Zadain, “Towards on Develop a Framework for the Evaluation and Benchmarking of Skin
Detectors Based on Artificial Intelligent Models Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques,” Int. J.
Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell., vol. 31, no. 03, p. 1759002, 2017, doi: 10.1142/S0218001417590029.
[60] F. M. Jumaah, A. A. Zaidan, B. B. Zaidan, R. Bahbibi, M. Y. Qahtan, and A. Sali, “Technique for order
performance by similarity to ideal solution for solving complex situations in multi-criteria optimization of the
189
tracking channels of GPS baseband telecommunication receivers,” Telecommun. Syst., pp. 1–19, 2017, doi:
10.1007/s11235-017-0401-5.
[61] S. H. Aldulaimi, “The Evaluation of Virtual Training and Employee Effectiveness : A Case Study from
Babco,” Glob. Sci. J., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 2309–2324, 2022.
[62] B. Al-bander, Q. M. Yas, H. Mahdi, and R. K. H. S. Al-hamd, “Benchmarking of deep learning algorithms for
skin cancer detection based on a hybrid framework of entropy and VIKOR techniques,” Turkish J. Electr. Eng.
Comput. Sci., vol. 29, pp. 2634–2648, 2021, doi: 10.3906/elk-2103-65.
190

Numerical Analysis of Auto-Ignition of Ethanol

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Numerical Analysis of Auto-Ignition of Ethanol

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Numerical Analysis of Auto-Ignition of Ethanol

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iraqi Journal for Computer Science and Mathematics

Journal Homepage: http://journal.esj.edu.iq/index.php/IJCM

A Comprehensive Review of Software Development Life Cycle

Diyala University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Diyala, IRAQ.

*Corresponding Author: Qahtan M.Yas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52866/ ijcsm.2023.04.04.014

*Corresponding author: qahtan.myas@uodiyala.edu.iq 1

1.1 TYPES OF TRADITIONAL SDLC APPROACH

1.2 TYPES OF AGILE SDLD APPROACH

1.3 ESSENTIAL STEPS APPLIED FOR SDLC MODELS

• Step 1: Requirements analysis

• Step 3: Implementation and unit testing

2. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SDLC MODELS

2.1 TRADITIONAL SDLC TYPES

FIGURE 2. Sequence Model

FIGURE 3. Waterfall model based on sequence model

• PROS AND CONS OF THE WATERFALL MODEL

Table 1. - Pros and Cons of the waterfall model

2.1.2 ITERATIVE MODEL DESIGN

FIGURE 4. Iterative processing

• PROS AND CONS OF THE ITERATIVE MODEL

Table 2. - Pros and Cons of the Iterative model

2.1.3 SPIRAL MODEL

FIGURE 5. Loop Processing steps diagram [31]

• PROS AND CONS OF SPIRAL MODEL

Table 3. - Pros and cons of the spiral model

Developer’s Life cycle Tester’s Life cycle

System Test Design

System Design System Testing

FIGURE 6. V model diagram

• PROS AND CONS OF SPIRAL MODEL

Table 4. Pros and cons of the V. model

2.1.5 BIG BANG MODEL

FIGURE 7 Big Bang model architecture

• PROS AND CONS OF THE BIN BANG MODEL

Table 4. Pros and cons of the Big Bang model

2.2 AGILE SDLC TYPES

Test Module 2 Design

Test Module 3 Design

FIGURE 8. Agile approach architecture

2.2.1 EXTREME PROGRAMMING (XP) MODEL

FIGURE 8. eXtreme Programming (XP) model architecture [39]

• PROS AND CONS OF THE EXTREME PROGRAMMING (XP) MODEL

Table 4. Pros and cons of the extreme programming (xp) model

2.2.2 SCRUM MODEL

FIGURE 10. Scrum model architecture [43]

• PROS AND CONS OF SCRUM MODEL

Table 7. Pros and cons of Scrum model

2.2.3 FEATURE DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT (FDD) MODEL

Develop Build Plan by

FIGURE 11. Feature Driven Development (FDD) model architecture

• PROS AND CONS OF FEATURE DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT (FDD) MODEL

Table 8. Pros and Cons of Feature Driven Development (FDD) Model

2.2.4 KANBAN MODEL

FIGURE 12. Kanban model architecture

• PROS AND CONS OF KANBAN MODEL

Table 9. Pros and cons Kanban model

3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR THE TRADITIONAL AND AGILE APPROACHES

Agile Adaptive approach It does not depend on a detailed development