Models of Integration Implementation - Research Paper Example

Models of Integration Implementation Introduction The concept of integration is crucial to the understanding of software development in broad-spectrum, as well as contemporary marvels such as e-commerce, virtual groups, and virtual establishments. Yet, the idea of integration is poorly defined in literature and the effect of attaining high levels of integration is not well understood (Petrice, 2002). This paper addresses the level to which separate and independent models establish an integrated whole. The most common software development models applied for the development process is; waterfall model, spiral model, and the v-shaped model (Petrice, 2002). Any software development procedure is divided into numerous logic stages that permit the developer to consolidate work competently, in order to build a software product of the necessary functionality within a precise period and financial plan. Waterfall model This model is a progressive scheme process, in which advancement is seen as flowing progressively down, like a waterfall, over the phases of formation, commencement, analysis, scheme, assembly, testing, and upkeep. According to this model, each stage must be finalized before the subsequent stage can begin (Petrice, 2002). This model traces its roots in the construction and manufacturing industries, which comprise highly organized physical settings in which after-the –fact fluctuations are excessively inflated, if not unbearable. This hardware sloping model was merely adjusted for software development at the time for the reason that no software development approaches existed. Winston frequently quotes formal explanation of this model as a 1970 article. He however did not specifically use the word waterfall in the article. He termed the model as an example of faulty, non-working model (Petrice, 2002). According to Royce, the software in request is premeditated and a blue print is drawn for implementers or coders to trail. Once design is thorough, an application of that plan is made by coders, and just before the later stages of the implementation stage, distinct software components manufactured are joined to present new functionality and abridged risk over the removal of errors (Petrice, 2002). This model is not suitable for a high-level plan; it is only applicable in a low-level project plan (Petrice, 2002). This is due to lack of prototype in the earlier stages of the process, until the implementation stage. This might present a catastrophe for a high-level plan, in terms of costs and time spent, for any fault would necessities the repeat of the development process. Absence of prototype may also cause developers to develop a different model from the customer expectations and desires, which would be a loss. Advantages of this model Time spent in the software assembly sequence can lead to superior budget at advanced phases. This is so because a fault detected in the early stages is cheaper in terms of money, effort, and time to fix, than the same flaw detected later in the process. This model is also simple and easy to use and manage, because each stage has precise deliverables and an appraisal procedure (Petrice, 2002). Disadvantages Critics argue that this model is intransigent, in that after an application is in the analysis phase, it is very challenging to go back and alter something that was not understood in the notion phase. It is also challenging to approximate time and cost for each stage of the development process. Furthermore, it is vital to collect all possible requests during the collecting and analysis stage in order to scheme the system. Not all requests are established at once, as the requests from clients goes on getting added to the list even after the end of the “requirement gathering and analysis” stage, this distresses the system progression process and its accomplishment in negative features (Petrice, 2002). Spiral Model This model syndicates essentials of both design and prototyping in-stages, in an effort to combine benefits of top-down and bottom-up ideas. Also known as the system development model, it syndicates the features of the prototyping model and waterfall model. It is envisioned for large, costly and complex models (Petrice, 2002). It involves the following steps: Definition of new system requirements in details Creation of a preliminary design Constructing a prototype, from the preliminary design, to approximate characteristics of the final product. Evolving a second prototype through a fourfold technique; it entails assessing strengths and weaknesses of the first prototype in terms of associated risks, defining the requirements of the second prototype, planning and designing the second prototype, and constructing and testing the second prototype. The second prototype is assessed in the same method as was the first prototype, and, if required, another prototype established from it in accordance to the fourfold procedure. The previous steps are repeated until the customer is contented that the advanced prototype denotes the final product desired The final system is assembled, based on the refined prototype, thoroughly assessed and verified, and routine maintenance is agreed on a ongoing basis to avert Large Scale disasters and to lessen interruption. Spiral model is the preferred model for high-level and complex projects. Its ability of producing prototypes before constructing the intended software makes its suitable because customers are able to evaluate the software basics, and make an informed decision as they await the final software to be complete for implementation. Advantages Development of this model comprises high volume of risk analysis; hence, anticipation of risk is heightened. Strong authorization and certification essential during its development makes it exceptional for large scale and operation critical projects. Extra functionality can be added later, making it flexible (Petrice, 2002). Disadvantages It is a very expensive model to develop. Risk analysis necessitates vastly specific expertise, and project attainment is reliant on on the risk analysis stage. A slight fault can have dire consequences. This model does not work well with small projects (Petrice, 2002). V-Shaped model V-shaped model comprises authentication and validation of processes. It is comparable to waterfall model in that each stage must be finalized before the subsequent phase begins. They only differ in the test planning in v-shaped model. This model is applicable where software requirements are clearly defined and acknowledged, and, software development technologies and tools acknowledged as well. Thus, it is not applicable for complex and high-level projects because requirements keeps on changing as customers’ needs arises. It is suitable for small projects (Petrice, 2002). Diagram of a v-shaped model Advantages There are greater probabilities of attainment over the waterfall model, due to the improvement of testing plans early on during the life cycle. Testing activities ensues well before coding. This saves time. With specific deliverables in each phase, it works well where requirements are easily understood. Disadvantages This model is very rigid and intransigent, and in case any variations happen in the midway, then the test documents along with requirement documents has to be restructured. No software is manufactured until the application stage, unlike spiral model. References Petrie, C. J. (2002). Enterprise integration modeling: Proceedings of the first international conference. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Read More