CFP last date
20 December 2024
Call for Paper
January Edition
IJCA solicits high quality original research papers for the upcoming January edition of the journal. The last date of research paper submission is 20 December 2024

Submit your paper
Know more
The week's pick
Responsive image
Improved Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm with Self-Adaptive Shuffling for Fuzzy Logic PD+G Controller Optimization in Robotic Manipulators

Duc Hoang Nguyen
Random Articles
Reseach Article

A Contrast and Comparison of Modern Software Process Models

Published on February 2013 by Pankaj Vohra, Ashima Singh
journal_cover_thumbnail

International Conference on Advances in Management and Technology 2013
Foundation of Computer Science USA
ICAMT - Number 1
February 2013
Authors: Pankaj Vohra, Ashima Singh
91470db4-36e7-4593-b579-b8cadd9b7524

Pankaj Vohra, Ashima Singh . A Contrast and Comparison of Modern Software Process Models. International Conference on Advances in Management and Technology 2013. ICAMT, 1 (February 2013), 23-27.

@article{
author = { Pankaj Vohra, Ashima Singh },
title = { A Contrast and Comparison of Modern Software Process Models },
journal = { International Conference on Advances in Management and Technology 2013 },
issue_date = { February 2013 },
volume = { ICAMT },
number = { 1 },
month = { February },
year = { 2013 },
issn = 0975-8887,
pages = { 23-27 },
numpages = 5,
url = { /proceedings/icamt/number1/10837-1013/ },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
}
%0 Proceeding Article
%1 International Conference on Advances in Management and Technology 2013
%A Pankaj Vohra
%A Ashima Singh
%T A Contrast and Comparison of Modern Software Process Models
%J International Conference on Advances in Management and Technology 2013
%@ 0975-8887
%V ICAMT
%N 1
%P 23-27
%D 2013
%I International Journal of Computer Applications
Abstract

Software Processes are the lifeline of any Software Development Model. Software Processes decide the survival of a particular software development model in the market as well as in software organization. The set of processes those proved to be effective and efficient for software development in one organization may or may not be followed in another organization. That is other organization finds another approach for software development more convenient to work with. This paper explains the progression and remarkable change in Software Processes and their respective models. It also summarizes a contrast of classical software processes with Agility and CBSE.

References
  1. Boehm, B. 1988. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement. Computer, Vol. 21, 5 (5), May 1988, pp. 61-72.
  2. Basili, V. R. & Reiter, R. 1981. A Controlled Experiment Quantitatively Comparing Software Development Approaches. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 7, 3 (3), pp. 299-320.
  3. Larman, C. & Basili, V. R. 2003. Iterative and Incremental Development: A Brief History. IEEE Software, Vol. 20, pp. 47-56.
  4. Benington, H. D. 1983. Production of Large Computer Programs. Annals of the History of Computing, Vol. 5, 4 (4), October, pp. 350-361.
  5. Royce, W. W. 1970. Managing the Development of Large Software Systems. In: The proceedings of the WESCON. San Francisco. IEEE CS. Pp. 328-339.
  6. Lycett, M. , Macredie, R. D. , Patel, C. & Paul, R. J. 2003. Migrating Agile Methods to Standardized Development Practice. Computer, Vol. 36, 6 (6), June, pp. 79-85.
  7. Larman, C. & Basili, V. R. 2003. Iterative and Incremental Development: A Brief History. IEEE Software, Vol. 20, pp. 47-56.
  8. Larman, C. 2004. Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager's Guide. Pearson Education, Inc. Boston. 342 p.
  9. Gilb, T. 1981. Evolutionary Development. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 6, 2 (2). April, pp. 17.
  10. Gilb, T. 1988. Principles of Software Engineering Management. Addison-Wesley. Wokingham, UK, 464 p.
  11. Gilb, T. 2005. Competitive Engineering: A Handbook for Systems Engineering, Requirements Engineering, and Software Engineering Using Planguage. Butterworth-Heinemann. 480 p.
  12. Agile Alliance Manifesto for Agile Software Development. 2001
  13. Beck, K. 1999. Embracing Change with Extreme Programming. IEEE Computer, Vol. 32, 10 (10), pp. 70-77.
  14. Beck, K. 2000. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. 190 p.
  15. Schwaber, K. 1995. Scrum Development Process. In: The proceedings of the OOPSLA'95 Workshop on Business Object Design and Implementation. Springer-Verlag. Pp. 117-134.
  16. Williams, L. & Cockburn, A. 2003. Agile Software Development: It's about Feedback and Change. IEEE Computer Society, Vol. 36, 6 (6), June, pp. 39-43.
  17. Highsmith, J. A. 2000. Adaptive Software Development: A Collaborative Approach to Managing Complex Systems. Dorset House Publishing. New York, NY. 358 p.
  18. Jeffries, R. E. 1999. eXtreme Testing: Why Aggressive Software Development Calls for Radical Testing Efforts. Software Testing & Quality Engineering, Vol. March/April, pp. 23-26.
  19. Cockburn, A. 1998. Surviving Object-Oriented Projects. Addison-Wesley. Reading, Mass. 250 p.
  20. Stapleton, J. 2003. DSDM: Business Focused Development. Second Edition. Addison Wesley. London. 239 p.
  21. Coad, P. , LeFebvre, E. & De Luca, J. 1999. Java Modeling In Color With UML: Enterprise Components and Process. Prentice Hall. 221 p.
  22. Abrahamsson, P. , Salo, O. , Ronkainen, J. & Warsta, J. 2002. Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis. VTT Publications 478. VTT Electronics. Espoo. 107 p. ISBN 951-38-6009-4; 951-38-6010-8.
  23. Humphrey, W. S. 1995. A Discipline for Software Engineering. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. 242 p.
  24. Florac, W. A. , Carleton, A. D. & Barnard, J. R. 2000. Statistical Process Control: Analyzing a Space Shuttle Onboard Software Process. IEEE Software, Vol. 17, 4 (4). July–August, pp. 97-106.
  25. Paulk, M. , Curtis, B. , Chrissis, M. & Weber, C. 1993. Capability Maturity Model for Software (Version 1. 1). CMU/SEI-93-TR-024. Software Engineering Institute (SEI). February. 65 p.
  26. SEI, C. M. S. E. I. Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMISM), Version 1. 1. Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute. 2001.
  27. Bell Canada Trillium: Model for Telecom Product Development & Support Process Capability. Release 3. 0. Bell Canada. December, 1994. 118 p.
  28. Kuvaja, P. & Bicego, A. 1993. Bootstrap: Europe's Assessment Method. IEEE Software, Vol. 10, 3 (3), May, pp. 93-95.
  29. Pressman, R. S. , Software Engineering—A Practitioner's Approach, New York: McGrawHill International Ltd. , 2010. 847 p
  30. Mili, Mili, Yacoub, Addy Edward, Reuse-Based Software Engineering, AWiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons,INC. ,2002. 540 p.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences

Keywords

Software Processes Agile Development Change Driven Process Models Iterative Process Extreme Programming Component Based Software Engineering Software Process Improvement