Discussion Question 2

            Lightweight SDLCs such as Extreme and Adaptive Programming are viable alternatives to traditional SDLC models. The use of traditional SDLC methodologies is frequent and often regarded as the proper and disciplined approach to the analysis and design of software applications (Rothi & Yen, 1989). Examples of such models include the waterfall, code and fix, spiral, transformational, and iterative models. Traditional SDLCs have a common goal and are similar in the techniques they use to achieve it.

            However, traditional SDLC methodologies sometimes fall short in the new e-business software environment (Yourdon, 2000). They are often to “heavy” to keep pace with e-business projects. In response to this problem, so called “light” SDLC methodologies have been developed and used. They are considered light because of the reduced managerial effort and documentation required.

            A large number of software development efforts have no process and might best be described as chaotic “code and fix” activities (Fowler, 2000). Light SDLC techniques are a compromise between no process and too much process. Examples of lightweight SDLC methodologies are Adaptive Software Development (ASD), Agile Software Process (ASP), Crystal, Dynamic System Development Method (DSDM), and Extreme Programming (XP).

            A study by the Cutter Consortium determined that traditional SDLC methodologies “fall short in the new e-business environment. They are unable to keep up with fast-paced, ever-changing e-business projects” (Cutter, 2000). Perhaps the greatest strength of the new lightweight methodologies is that they provide an acceptable alternative to the code and fix mentality that permeates today’s environment (Fowler, 2000). Simpler lightweight processes are more likely to be followed than traditional ones when a software developer typically uses no process at all. In addition, lightweight methodologies do extremely well when requirements are volatile and uncertain . Traditional processes require firm requirements in order to have a stable design and follow a planned process. Another advantage of lightweight methodologies is that they compel software developers to think clearly about the products they are developing.

            In conclusion, lightweight methodologies are most suitable when there are volatile and uncertain requirements, small groups of motivated developers, and users who wish to become involved. Lightweight methodologies re-examine the traditional assumptions that have historically been made about the dedication of resources to requirements analysis and process improvement (Yourdon, 2000). Traditional SDLCs operate on the assumption that it is important to invest resources to identify a flaw in a process because the process will be used over and over again. On the other hand, lightweight SDLCs acknowledge that when everything is changing and there is no guarantee that processes will be reused that it makes little sense to apply the effort.

References

Cutter. (2000). Light Methodologies Best for E-business Projects. Cutter Consortium.  Retrieved March 11, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://cutter.com/consortium/research/2000/crb001003.html.

Fowler, M. (2000). Put Your Process on a Diet. Software Development Online.  Retrieved March 11, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.sdmagazine.com/articles/2000/0012/0012a/0012a.htm.

Rothi, J., & Yen, D. (1989). System Analysis and Design in End User Developed Applications. Journal of Information Systems Education.  Retrieved April 7, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.gise.org/JISE/Vol1-5/SYSTEMAN.htm.

Yourdon, E. (2000). The Emergence of "Light" Development Methodologies. Software Productivity Center.  Retrieved March 11, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.spc.ca/resources/essentials/oct1800.htm#3.