Running head: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE MODELS 1

System Development Life Cycle Models

Student’s Name:

Institution:

Date:
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE MODELS 2

System Development Life Cycle (SDL) Models

Software development is a process which comprises of different phases. The process

entails different steps such as software identification, analysis, specification, software design,

programming, testing and maintenance (Kececi & Modarres, 2002). Over the years, different

models of systems development have been developed which under a complete cycle before the

end product. A systems development life cycle (SDLC) is the framework adopted by software

analysts to describe the phases involved while developing IS (Shelly & Rosenblatt, 2010; Shelly

& Rosenblatt, 2011). There are different System Development Life Cycle Models used in

software development process. The major SDLS are waterfall life cycle, spiral life cycle, the

prototyping model, and the incremental build model among many others (Rodríguez-Martínez,

Mora, Álvarez, Garza, Durán & Muñoz, 2012). The aforementioned SDLC models are referred

to as predictive life cycle models. This implies that the cost of designing can be predicted

accurately, the scope articulately determined, and the schedule accurately predicted (Schwalbe,

2011; Shelly & Rosenblatt, 2011). The current research study is an attempt to discuss different

models and compare them in detail. It also looks at Baltzan’s seven step model versus other

software development models.

Types of System Development Life Cycle Models

Waterfall Model

This model is considered among the oldest models of software development (Shelly &

Rosenblatt, 2011). Primarily, the model emphasizes of early planning of its stages and

completion of each stage before moving to the next stage. In projects which are complicated and

with limited resources, a waterfall model is often applied. It is used as the baseline for other

SDLC models used in software development. Waterfall cycle has numerous stages which are
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE MODELS 3

non-overlapping, linear and well defined (Schwalbe, 2011). The assumption of the waterfall

lifecycle is that the project requirements are not altered after initial definition. To carry out

comparison to other SDLC models, the outstanding elements of waterfall model are that: it is a

formal method, it uses the top down development approach, it comprises different independent

phases which are carried sequentially, and it is applied variably meaning it has a beginning and

ending points (Sorensen, 1995). Below is a diagram of waterfall model as adopted from

Munassar and Govardhan (2010).

Figure 1: Waterfall model. Source: Munassar and Govardhan (2010).

Incremental Model

This model is the opposite of waterfall model in the sense that the sections of waterfall

are overlapped to produce usable functionality (Schwalbe, 2011). It attempts to compensate the

time undertaken in waterfall cycle. Implementation of the model is carried in series upon
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE MODELS 4

completion of each stage until the whole project is completed. According to Schwalbe (2011),

this model offers a progressive software development where each stage provides added

capabilities. It borrows most of the waterfall stages. If the risk of project uncertainty is high

during the development of the whole system, this is the model to consider (Sorensen, 1995). The

incremental model is occasionally viewed as part of a spiral model.

Spiral Model

This model draws its steps from the refinement of the waterfall model. It uses iterative

approach instead of adopting linear approach of software development (Sorensen, 1995). As the

name suggests, the model is carried in a spiral way. Its major strength is that resources are held

constant while the system continues to grow (Linger, Lipson, McHugh, Mead & Sledge, 2002;

Schwalbe, 2011). The resources applied in this model do not change. Prototyping model is an

example of spiral model that is applied to cut down cost. Primarily, it is applied upfront after

which waterfall model is introduced and resources increased upon the minimization of costs. The

distance between the coils is used to measure the resources used (Sorensen, 1995). Its major

steps are requirement analysis, preliminary design, detail design, coding, model test, and system

test. The steps are shown in diagram below as adopted from Munassar and Govardhan (2010).
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE MODELS 5

Figure 2. The Spiral model. Source: Munassar and Govardhan (2010).

Prototyping Model

This model uses a prototype which is a replica of the end product. After a prototype is

developed and tested, the real system is then developed. It is often applied in the design of

operational software (Schwalbe, 2011). However, this type of incremental model needs heavy

involvement of the user. System developers use this model to generate the physical design and

functional requirements simultaneously (Schwalbe, 2011). After the development of the system

or software, the prototype can be kept or discarded (Sorensen, 1995).

Other common software development models are waterfall model, iteration model, V-

shaped model, spiral model, extreme model and Baltzan’s seven step model (Munassar &

Govardhan, 2010). Waterfall and spiral models have been discussed above. The interaction

model is a semi-mini waterfall model in nature. Feedback generated after one step is used as a

basis for the next step. Just like incremental model, software developed after each step can be
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE MODELS 6

used immediately (Munassar & Govardhan, 2010). V-shaped model is sequential in nature and

each step is completed before the next step is carried (Munassar & Govardhan, 2010). It is more

like waterfall model although testing is over-emphasized. Testing is carried on each stage to

ensure functionality. It is simple, and works better for less detailed projects. Below is a diagram

of V-shaped model adopted from Munassar and Govardhan (2010).

Figure 3: V-shaped model. Source: Munassar and Govardhan (2010).

Extreme programming focuses on project development and systems delivery based on

functionality (Munassar & Govardhan, 2010). Primarily, it depends on user involvement, pair

wise programming and constant code improvement. The model incorporates incremental

planning supported by small releases and simple designs. Project is based on four phases and

each step has to be completed before the next step is carried. Baltzan’s seven step model was

proposed by Baltzan Paige. The seven steps involved are planning, analysis, design,

development, testing and maintenance. Just like the other models, this model uses seven steps

where each step is completed before the next step.

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE MODELS 7

Table 1

Strengths and weakness comparison of the models

Model Strengths Weakness

Waterfall  Well defined and documented  It is inflexible and

(Schwalbe, 2011). outdated

 Minimizes planning overheads  Assumes that project

 Better for inexperienced staff requirement does not

 Phases are independent and change

sequential  Does not leave room

 Easy to use and implement and better for risk management

for weak teams and mature products  It is expensive and

(Schwalbe, 2011). difficult to initiate

changes (Munassar &

Govardhan, 2010).
Incremental  Offers progressive development of  It is difficult to carry

software. project audits and

 Allows functionality and added formal reviews.

capabilities.  Problems incurred are

postponed.

 Lacks flexibility
Spiral  Relevant where risks are high and  Its costly model

large projects are involved.  High level of expertise

 Software developed at initial stages is required.

of software life cycle  Not appropriate for

small projects
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE MODELS 8

 Risk analysis stage

determines the success

of the project.
Prototyping  Satisfaction is guaranteed  It is costly for large

applications

Iteration model  Divided in small phases making it  It leaves room for

less demanding over-iteration

 Allows earlier software development

V-shaped model  Simple to use since each stage has  Its rigid and expensive

well-defined deliverables.  Has limited flexibility

 Better than waterfall model.  Lacks clear way for

 Adaptable for small projects testing problems

(Munassar & Govardhan, 2010).

Extreme  Adaptable for small projects  Lacks scalability

programming  Iterative method  Requires experienced

 Ensures quality assurance and skillful team

 Much emphasis placed on final (Munassar &

product Govardhan, 2010).

 Its costly
Baltzan’s seven  Simple method  Leads to resource

step model  Better for inexperienced staff waste.

 Not time efficient as

each step has to be

completed.
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE MODELS 9

Conclusion

Based on the research findings, the major SDLC models and software development

models are waterfall model, incremental model, prototyping, spiral model, iteration model,

extreme programming, Baltzan’s seven step model, and V-shaped model. The water fall model

acts as the baseline for all these models. All the models have well defined steps and phases. In

addition, they ensure functionality and development of projects. Moreover, the models have a

starting and an ending point.

References

Kececi, N., & Modarres, M. (2002). Software development life cycle model to ensure software

quality. University of Maryland.

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE MODELS 10

Linger, R. C., Lipson, H. F., McHugh, J., Mead, N. R., & Sledge, C. A. (2002). Life-Cycle

models for survivable systems. Networked Systems Survivability Program. Carnegie

Mellon University

Munassar, N. M. A., & Govardhan, A. (2010). A comparison between five models of software

engineering. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 7(5), 94-101.

Rodríguez-Martínez, L., Mora, M., Álvarez, F., Garza, L., Durán, H., & Muñoz, J. (2012).

Review of relevant system development life cycles (SDLCs) in service-oriented software

engineering (SoSE). Journal of Applied Research and Technology, 10(2), 94-113.

Schwalbe, K. (2011). Information technology project management. Boston, MA: Course

Technology.

Shelly, G. B., & Rosenblatt, H. J. (2011). Systems analysis and design. 9th edn .Boston: Course

Technology Cengage Learning.

Shelly, G. B., & Rosenblatt, H. J. (2010). Systems analysis and design. 8th edn. Boston, MA:

Course Technology, Cengage Learning.

Sorensen, R. (1995). A comparison of software development methodologies. Software

Technology Support Center. Retrieved from

http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/1995/01/Comparis.asp.