Alternative Software Life Cycle Models

offbeatnothingSoftware and s/w Development

Dec 2, 2013 (4 years and 7 months ago)


Alternative Software Life
Cycle Models

By Edward R. Corner

vol. 2, chapter 8, pp. 289

Presented by: Gleyner Garden


Software Engineering II

Feel free to interrupt!


The classic waterfall model
that we are familiar with was
developed around 1970 by
Dr. Winston Royce

Many different models have
been proposed since then

They all exist to help cope
with the great complexity and
expense of software
products, and to help create a
product that meets the user’s
needs and expectations



a definition of process followed by a software
development organization


a methodology


a reference model for a software development
process that provides:

a common basis for standards, and where these standards
belong with respect to the model

a description of major functions involved in software

insight towards the important aspects or features necessary
for common understanding and focus

Alternative Models

Rapid, Throwaway Prototype:

Gomaa and Scott made it popular in 1981

Focuses on ensuring product meets user’s needs

Goal is to improve the quality of requirements
specifications by providing a “quick and dirty”
partial implementation during requirements phase

Use of this implementation by the users can expose
miscommunications in the requirement

Alternative Models

Incremental Development:

Constructing a partially implemented, yet useful
build and then incrementally added functionality

Requirements can be defined for each increment in
advance, or during development between increments

If done correctly, can increase reliability and
decrease risk

Requires a very flexible system architecture, and
especially if the overall end
result is not fully
planning for

Alternative Models

Evolutionary Prototypes:

Views the software life cycle as a set of prototypes that are
evolved through iterative experimentation and refinement

Intended to addresses customer satisfaction

Sort of a mixture of Rapid Prototyping and Incremental
Development, without the need for a full understanding of

Hard to scale up to large systems

Expensive to use for complex mission
critical applications

Alternative Models

Reusable Software:

Reduce costs by incorporating existing designs,
programs, modules, and data into new software

Compatible with all life cycle models

Avoid reinventing the wheel

Less schedule needed, since code is already written,
and less bugs to fix, since software has been

Alternative Models

Automated Software Synthesis:

Automated transformation of formal requirements
into operational code

Relies heavily on automated tools (


Evaluation of Alternative Life Cycle

User’s needs are
constantly evolving

Creates new requirements
which must be met to
meet expectations

Project gets behind

Waterfall example shows
how development is

Evaluation of Alternative Life Cycle

Shortfall is a measure of how far the system at a given time t, is from meeting the actual
requirements at time t

Lateness is a measure of the time that elapses between the appearance of a new requirement and
its satisfaction

Adaptability is the rate at which the software solution can adapt to new requirements

Longevity is the time a system solution is adaptable to change and remains viable

Inappropriateness captures the behavior of the shortfall over time (area between needs and actual

Evaluation of Alternative Life Cycle

Rapid Prototyping:

Increases likelihood that
customers and developers
are on the same page at
time t0

At t1 the delivered
function is higher for the
rapid prototyping

Shows overall, that
function is closer to needs
than the waterfall model

Evaluation of Alternative Life Cycle

Incremental Development:

Deliberately built to satisfy fewer
requirements initially, but
facilitates incorporation of new
requirements which increases

Initial development time is
reduced because of limited

Software can be enhanced more
easily for a longer period of time

Stair steps show series of well
defined, planned, discrete builds
of the system

Evaluation of Alternative Life Cycle

Evolutionary Prototypes:

Number and frequency of
operational prototypes is

Initial prototype emerges rapidly
to provide a framework for the

Each prototype explores a new
area of user need, while refining
previous function

More adaptable

Not stepped because we are
introducing new functionality with
more refined old functionality

Evaluation of Alternative Life Cycle

Reusable Software:

Potential to significantly
decrease initial development

Only development time is
different here

Evaluation of Alternative Life Cycle

Automated Software

Development time is greatly

Development costs are
reduced so much that
adapting old systems is not
as good as re
the entire system

Low longevity, but very low

Defining, Selecting, or Adapting a
Life Cycle Model

Life cycle model evaluation provides insight as to how
we might define, select, or adapt a life cycle model to
improve our process

Points that should affect selection:

Requirements volatility (likelihood that requirements will

The way that requirements change (big jumps, gradually)

The longevity of the application

The availability of resources to develop or effect changes; it
may be easier to get resources up front than to devote
significant resources for enhancements


It was a very good paper that describes and
evaluates several different life cycle approaches

I would have liked to know if he used any real
data to get a general idea as to what the different
evaluation plots looked like