Four software development
methodologies
How do the top software development methodologies (waterfall, rapid
application, agile, and DevOps) work? And which method is best for your
project?
Successful projects are managed well. To manage a project efficiently, the
manager or development team must choose the software development
methodology that will work best for the project at hand. All methodologies
have different strengths and weaknesses and exist for different reasons.
Here’s an overview of the most commonly used software development
methodologies and why different methodologies exist.
1. Agile development methodology
Teams use the agile development methodology to minimize risk (such as
bugs, cost overruns, and changing requirements) when adding new
functionality. In all agile methods, teams develop the software in iterations
that contain mini-increments of the new functionality. The Agile methodology
was developed as a response to growing frustrations with Waterfall and other
highly structured, inflexible methodologies. This approach is designed to
accommodate change and the need to produce software faster. Agile values
individuals and their relationships and interactions over tools; it features
customer collaboration throughout the development process; it responds to
change instead of following a set-in-stone plan; and it focuses on presenting
working software, rather than documentation.
Unlike Waterfall, Agile is well equipped to handle the complexity and
variability involved in development [Link] the Agile approach, teams
develop in short sprints or iterations, each of which includes a defined
duration and list of deliverables, but in no particular order. During sprints,
teams work towards the goal of delivering working software (or some other
tangible, testable output). Agile is collaboration-heavy, focusing on team
strengths and efficiency, along with internal feedback from various
departments and clients. Client satisfaction is the highest priority with the
Agile approach, which teams achieve by continuously delivering working,
tested, prioritized features. Below is the figure representing agile
methodology
Pros: The primary benefit of agile software development is that it allows
software to be released in iterations. Iterative releases improve efficiency by
allowing teams to find and fix defects and align expectation early on. They
also allow users to realize software benefits earlier, with frequent incremental
improvements.
Cons: Agile development methods rely on real-time communication, so new
users often lack the documentation they need to get up to speed. They
require a huge time commitment from users and are labor intensive because
developers must fully complete each feature within each iteration for user
approval.
Agile development methods are similar to rapid application development (see
below) and can be inefficient in large organizations. Programmers, managers,
and organizations accustomed to the waterfall method (see below) may have
difficulty adjusting to an agile SDLC. So a hybrid approach often works well
for them.
There are many different forms of the agile development method, including
scrum, crystal, extreme programming (XP), and feature-driven development
(FDD), detailed below:
1.1 Scrum
Another way to implement the Agile approach, Scrum borrows from Agile’s
foundational beliefs and philosophy that teams and developers should
collaborate heavily and daily. With Scrum, software is developed using an
iterative approach in which the team is front and center experienced and
disciplined workers on smaller teams might find the most success with this
method, as it requires self-organization and self-management.
Team members break down end goals into smaller goals at the beginning and
work through them using fixed-length iterations or sprints to build software
and showcase it often (which usually last two weeks). Meetings play an
important role in the Scrum approach, and during each sprint, daily planning
meetings and demos take place to follow progress and gather feedback. This
incremental method promotes quick changes and development and adds
value to complex projects. Scrum incorporates the structure and discipline of
more traditional software development methodologies with the flexibility and
iterative practices of modern Agile.
1.2 Extreme Programming (XP)
Another Agile framework, Extreme Programming (or XP) focuses on producing
higher quality software using the best practices in software development. As
with most Agile approaches, XP allows for frequent releases in short
development sprints that encourage change when needed. In general, XP
follows a set of values, rather than steps, including simplicity (develop what
is required, nothing more); communication (teams must collaborate and work
together on every piece of the software); consistent feedback; and respect.
Extreme Programing requires developers to first plan and understand the
customer’s user stories their informal descriptions of certain features. Other
practices include: scheduling and dividing work into iterations. Design with
simplicity in mind, code and test often, which helps to create fault-free
software. Listen to feedback to best understand the functionality, and then
test more.
1.3 Feature-Driven Development
An iterative and incremental approach to software development, Feature-
Driven Development (FDD) is derived from the Agile methodology and is
considered one way to implement it. Similar to Waterfall, FDD is typically
viewed as an older methodology, a sort of precursor to modern Lean/Agile
implementations. FDD still focuses on the goal of delivering working software
frequently and is an especially client-centric approach, making it a good fit
for smaller development teams. Features are a foundational piece of FDD.
Features are client-valued pieces of work that, according to the FDD
approach, should be delivered every two weeks.
To produce tangible software often and efficiently, FDD has five steps, the
first of which is to develop an overall model. Next, build a feature list and
then plan by each feature. The final two steps—design by feature and build
by feature—will take up the majority of the effort. At each step, status
reporting is encouraged and helps to track progress, results, and possible
errors. Although efficient response to change is one of FDD’s better
attributes, an understanding of the client’s requirements and the overall
model at the beginning of the project can reduce any surprises during
development. Additionally, any feature that takes longer than two weeks to
design and build must be further broken down into separate features until it
meets the two-week rule. The rigid structure of FDD make it less desirable to
teams who balance project-driven and break-fix types of work.
2. DevOps deployment methodology
DevOps is not just a development methodology but also a set of practices
that supports an organizational culture. DevOps deployment centers on
organizational change that enhances collaboration between the departments
responsible for different segments of the development life cycle, such as
development, quality assurance, and operations.
Pros: DevOps is focused on improving time to market, lowering the failure
rate of new releases, shortening the lead time between fixes, and minimizing
disruption while maximizing reliability. To achieve this, DevOps organizations
aim to automate continuous deployment to ensure everything happens
smoothly and reliably. Companies that use DevOps methods benefit by
significantly reducing time to market and improving customer satisfaction,
product quality, and employee productivity and efficiency.
Cons: Even in light of its benefits, there are a few drawbacks to DevOps:
· Some customers don’t want continuous updates to their systems.
Some industries have regulations that require extensive testing before
a project can move to the operations phase.
If different departments use different environments, undetected issues
can slip into production.
Some quality attributes require human interaction, which slows down
the delivery pipeline.
3. Waterfall development method
Many consider the waterfall method to be the most traditional software
development method. The waterfall method is a rigid linear model that
consists of sequential phases (requirements, design, implementation,
verification, maintenance) focusing on distinct goals. Each phase must be
100% complete before the next phase can start. There’s usually no process
for going back to modify the project or direction. When it comes to software
development, Waterfall is the most traditional and sequential choice.
Although it’s usually viewed as an ”old school” or outdated method, it’s
helpful to understand the history and structure of Waterfall to better
appreciate the flexibility of more modern methodologies. First created in
1970, Waterfall was one of the most prominent methodologies for several
decades because of its plan-driven approach.
Waterfall requires plenty of structure and documentation up front. It is
divided into self-contained stages or steps. The first stage is vital, requiring a
full understanding by both developers and customers of the project’s
demands and scope before anything begins. The stages are relatively rigid
and often follow this sequence: determine the project’s requirements and
scope, analyze those requirements, design, implement, test, deploy and
finally, maintain. There’s a lack of flexibility with this approach, meaning
what is decided by the customer and developer at the beginning must be
seen through. Should any changes need to be made or mistakes addressed
toward the end stages, the Waterfall method generally requires a full restart.
Typically, one stage must be finished before the next can begin, which can
help with organization and assignments. And because the full scope of the
project is understood in advance, software progress can easily be measured.
Waterfall is often utilized by large, plan-driven teams who have a very clear
understanding of the project’s scope;—however, development teams who
don’t operate in a vacuum will likely find better results with the flexibility and
agility of more modern methodologies.
Pros: The linear nature of the waterfall development method makes it easy
to understand and manage. Projects with clear objectives and stable
requirements can best use the waterfall method. Less experienced project
managers and project teams, as well as teams whose composition changes
frequently, may benefit the most from using the waterfall development
methodology.
Cons: The waterfall development method is often slow and costly due to its
rigid structure and tight controls. These drawbacks can lead waterfall method
users to explore other software development methodologies.
4. Rapid application development
Rapid application development (RAD) is a condensed development process
that produces a high-quality system with low investment costs. Scott Stiner,
CEO and president of UM Technologies, said in Forbes, “This RAD process
allows our developers to quickly adjust to shifting requirements in a fast-
paced and constantly changing market.” The ability to quickly adjust is what
allows such a low investment cost. The rapid application development
method contains four phases: requirements planning, user design,
construction, and cutover. The user design and construction phases repeat
until the user confirms that the product meets all requirements.
Pros: Rapid application development is most effective for projects with a
well-defined business objective and a clearly defined user group, but which
are not computationally complex. RAD is especially useful for small to
medium projects that are time sensitive.
Cons: Rapid application development requires a stable team composition
with highly skilled developers and users who are deeply knowledgeable about
the application area. Deep knowledge is essential in a condensed
development timeline that requires approval after each construction phase.
Organizations that don’t meet these requirements are unlikely to benefit from
RAD.
Which software development
methodology should I use?
These four software development methodologies are the most pervasive in
software development. Each one has its own strengths and weaknesses and
works effectively in different situations.
References
1. PE, I., Software Engineering
Methodologies. 20MEOE11/20MEOE12/20MEOE13, p.23.
2. Abdalla, R. and Mishra, A., 2021. Agent-Oriented Software Engineering
Methodologies: Analysis and Future Directions. Complexity, 2021.
3. Amlani, R.D., 2012. Advantages and limitations of different SDLC
models. International Journal of Computer Applications & Information
Technology, 1(3), pp.6-11.
4. Adenowo, A.A. and Adenowo, B.A., 2013. Software engineering
methodologies: a review of the waterfall model and object-oriented
approach. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 4(7),
pp.427-434.
5. Amlani, R.D., 2013. Comparison of different SDLC models. International
Journal of Computer Applications & Information Technology, 2(1), pp.1-8.
6. Juneja, P. and Kaur, P., 2019, September. Software engineering for big
data application development: systematic literature survey using
snowballing. In 2019 International Conference on Computing, Power and
Communication Technologies (GUCON) (pp. 492-496). IEEE.
7. Jahic, B., 2022. SEMKIS: A CONTRIBUTION TO SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGIES FOR NEURAL NETWORK DEVELOPMENT (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Luxembourg, Esch/Alzette, Luxembourg).
8. Kumar, M. and Rashid, E., 2018. An efficient software development life
cycle model for developing software project. International Journal of
Education and Management Engineering, 8(6), pp.59-68.
9. Senarath, A., Grobler, M. and Arachchilage, N.A.G., 2019. Will they use
it or not? Investigating software developers’ intention to follow privacy
engineering methodologies. ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security
(TOPS), 22(4), pp.1-30.
10. Al-Jabari, M., Tamimi, T. and Ramadan, A.A., 2019. Multimedia Software
Engineering Methodology A Systematic Discipline for Developing Integrated
Multimedia and Software Products.
11. Gómez-Sanz, J.J. and Fuentes-Fernández, R., 2015. Understanding agent-
oriented software engineering methodologies. The Knowledge Engineering
Review, 30(4), pp.375-393.
12. Gu, Q. and Lago, P., 2011. Guiding the selection of service-oriented
software engineering methodologies. Service Oriented Computing and
Applications, 5(4), pp.203-223.
13. BUTT, S.A., ABBAS, S.A. and AHSAN, M., 2016. Software development life
cycle & software quality measuring types. Asian Journal of Mathematics and
Computer Research, pp.112-122.