COMPARISON USAGE OF AGILE, WATERFALL AND OTHER APPROACHES FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT UNDER UNSTABLE SITUATIONS CAUSED BY RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE

Volodymyr Franiv, S. Vasylyuk, I. Franiv

Abstract


This article compares the usage of agile, waterfall and other software development approaches under unstable situations caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The study investigates how software development teams adapted to the crisis and the effectiveness of their methodologies in this context. The research is based on a survey of software development teams that were affected by the crisis, and it analyze the data collected from these surveys. The article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of mainly agile, waterfall for software development under unstable situations and provides recommendations for software development teams facing similar crises in the future. The findings of this study contribute to the understanding of software development methodologies and their effectiveness in unstable situations caused by geopolitical crises.

Keywords: agile, waterfall, software development, unstable situations, crisis, Russian invasion, Ukraine.


Full Text:

PDF

References


  1. Li, Min. (2019). Application on agile technology for provoding international joint scientific projects. Management of development of complex systems, 38, 103–110. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.9788555
  2. Bushuev S. D., Bushuev S. А., Bushueva N. S., Кozir B. J. (2018) Informatsiini tekhnolohii rozvytku kompetentsii menedzheriv zupravlinnia proektamy na osnovi hlobalnykh trendiv Informatsiini tekhnolohii i zasoby navchannia [Information technologies for the develop-ment of competencies of project management manag-ers based on global trends Information technologies and teaching aids]. Informatsiini tekhnolohii i zasoby navchannia, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 218–234.
  3. Martin R., Newquark J., Coss R. Rapid development of programs. Principles, examples, - Williams, 2004. - 752 pp.
  4. Barjtya S. A detailed study of Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Models / S. Barjtya, A. Sharma, U. Rani // International Journal of Engineering And Computer Science. – 2017. – Vol. 6, Issue. 7. – P. 22097.
  5. Vale, J. W. S. P., & Carvalho, M. M. D. (2017). Risk and uncertainty in projects management: literature review and conceptual framework. Revista GEPROS, 12(2), 93.
  6. Lalsing V., Kishnah S., Pudaruth S. People Factors In Agile Software Development And Project Manage-ment. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), vol. 3, no. 1, January, pp. 117-137.
  7. Hanif, T., Limbachiya, M. (2010). Selecting the right project management approach using 6P. 24th World Conference IPMA (International Project Management Association). Istanbul, Turkey, Pp. 183–189.
  8. Lijoi G. Can we combine Agile and Waterfall development strategies? [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: www.projectsmart.co.uk/can-we-combine-agile-and-waterfall-developmentstrategies.php
  9. The State of Agile study has been published – 2019. Available at: https://www.pmservices.ru/project-management-news/opublikovano-issledovanie-state-of-agile-2019/.
  10. Casteren V. The Waterfall Model and the Agile Methodologies: A comparison by project characteristics — short. 10.13140/RG.2.2.10021.50403, 2017. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313768860_The_Waterfall_Model_and_the_Agile_Methodologies_A_comparison_by_project_characteristics_-_short
  11. Christopher M. (2010). The Agile Supply Chain: Competing in Volatile Markets. Avail-able at: https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/2658/Agile%20supply%20chain-2000.pdf?%20sequence=1
  12. Whitaker S. (2014). How to Build Your Own Project Management Methodology [Electronic resource]. Available at: www/URL: http://seanwhitaker.com/ how-to-build- your-own -project- management-methodology/
  13. Agile methodology. Top 10 Mistakes When Using Agile // Official Website of the Gant BPM Consulting Company [Electronic Resource]. URL: https://gantbpm.ru/metodologiya-agile/
  14. Bhuvaneswar T. A Survey on Software Development Life Cycle Models / T. Bhuvaneswar, S. Prabaharan // International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing. – 2013. – Vol. 2, Issue. 5. – P. 262-267.
  15. Ernest M. About Software Engineering Frameworks and Methodologies / M. Ernest // IEEE AFRICON. – 2009. – P. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/afrcon.2009.5308117.
  16. Royce W. Managing the development of large software systems, 1970 [Electronic resource]: - Access mode: www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Process/waterfall.pdf
  17. Agile methodology. Examples, when to use it, advantages and disadvantages. Available at: https://twproject.com/ blog/agile-methodology-advantages-disadvantages-inno-vative-method/
  18. Ryabokon N. P., Ryabokon А. А., Ryabokon B. А. (2019) Vprovadzhennia metodolohii agile: tsinnisno orii-entovanyi pidkhid [Implementation of agile methodolo gy: value-oriented approach]. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats ChDTU. Seriia «Ekonomichni nauky», no. 49, pp. 34–42.
  19. Miller R., & Lessard D. (2001). Understanding and managing risks in large engineering projects. International Journal of Project Management, 19(8), 437–443.
  20. Hass K. B. The blending of traditional and agile project management. PM World Today, IX (V), 1-8 [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: https://www.mx1.chelsoftusa.com/uploads/2/8/3/8/2838312/agile_well_explained. pdf
  21. Smolich D. V. (2019) Innovatsiini metody upravlinnia proektamy [Innovative methods of project management]. Ekonomichnyi forum, no. 4, pp. 50–53.
  22. Hybrid project management manifesto // Official site of the manifest of hybrid software development [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.binfire.com/hybrid-project-management-manifesto/
  23. Silkina Y. О. Agile-menedzhment – efektyvna praktyka systemy upravlinnia pidpryiemstvom [Agile management is an effective practice of the enterprise management system]. DOI: http://doi.org/10.31617/k.knute.2019-04-12.19
  24. Pich M. T., Loch C. H., & De Meyer A. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Management Science, 48(8), 1008–1023.
  25. Manifesto for Agile Software Development // Official website of the flexible software development manifesto [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.agilemanifesto.org/
  26. Atkinson R., Crawford L., & Ward S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 687-698.
  27. Principles behind the Agile Manifesto. Available at: http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html.
  28. Meredith J. R. & Mantel S. J. Jr. (2005). Project Management A Managerial Approach (6th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  29. Alshamrani Adel. (2021). A Comparison Between Three SDLC Models Waterfall Model, Spiral Model, and Incremental/Iterative Model. http://www.academia.edu/ 10793943/A_Comparison_Between_Three_SDLC_Models_Waterfall_Model_Spiral_Model_and_Incremental_ Iterative_Model.
  30. Bassil Y. A Simulation Model for the Waterfall Software Development Life Cycle / Y. Bassil // International Journal of Engineering & Technology (iJET). – 2012. –Vol. 2, No. 5. – P. 16.
  31. Ward S., & Chapman C. (2003). Transforming project risk management into project uncertainty management. International Journal of Project Management, 21(2), 97-105.
  32. Silva V. B. S., Schramm F., & Damasceno A. C. (2016). A multicriteria approach for selection of agile methodologies in software development projects. 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Budapest, Hungary, 2056-2060. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2016.7844542
  33. Pammer V. Bratic M. Surprise, surprise: activity log based time analytics for time management. In CHI ‘13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ‘13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2013. P. 211–216. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468395
  34. Cohen S. A Software System Development Life Cycle Model for Improved Stakeholders’ Communication and Collaboration / S. Cohen, D. Dori, U. de Haan // International Journal of Computers, Communications & Control. – 2010. – Vol. V, No. 1. – P. 20-41. https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2010.1.2462.
  35. Agile software development: Impact on productivity and quality / A. Ahmed, S. Ahmad, N. Ehsan, E. Mirza and S.Z. Sarwar // Management of Innovation and Technology (ICMIT), IEEE International Conference. – 2010. – P. 287-291. https://doi.org/10.1109/icmit.2010.5492703.
  36. Ruparelia N. B. Software Development Lifecycle Models / N.B. Ruparelia // ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. – 2010. – Vol. 35, No. 3. – P. 8-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/1764810.1764814.
  37. Rastogi V. Software Development Life Cycle Models Comparison, Consequences / V. Rastogi // International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies. – 2015. – Vol. 6, No. 1. – P. 168.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30970/eli.23.7

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.