Preliminary Research Proposal

Question: Discuss about thePreliminary Research Proposal. Answer: Introduction Program: Master of Project Management MC 210; Year : 1st Semester 2016 Course: Research Design and Methods BUSM4420 Student Name and Number: Rostand Bongwa s3517641 Research Area: Software Development Methodologies Research Topic: A case study on the waterfall methodology and its relevance The product procedure that is most likely going to be utilized amid the improvement of the undertaking is the Waterfall Model. Its solid focuses lie in the way that it is consecutive, so there would be no disarray on the strides and the procedures are straight down- - no compelling reason to stress over such a large number of conditions while taking a shot at a task. Also, this kind of model tends to pack up on so much documentation. Along these lines, such has a tendency to be helpful for future code modifications and reference. This model accept the prerequisites to stay static amid the life of the venture, so there is next to zero shot of joining new changes to the product once work starts. In the event that progressions are attempted to be fused it prompts more perplexity and further postpones. The waterfall model is a consecutive programming advancement process. Taking after are the periods of waterfall model. Software development methodology is the process of dividing the development of a software or a project into several distinct phases which contain activities with the intention of improved planning and management. It is usually thought to be a subset of the life cycle of system development. This method can include pre defining specific artifacts and deliverables which are developed and finished by a team for the maintenance or development of an application. Several types of frameworks have been developed and have evolved over the course of time, each of them having their own strengths and weaknesses. It is not possible for one type of development methodology framework to be suited for every project. Each of the available frameworks which have been developed over the years is suited to specific types of projects based on various considerations of technology, organization and man power. Some of the most common methods include waterfall, prototyping, iterative and incremental development,spiral development,rapid application development,extreme programmingand different types ofagile methodology. There are mainly two different methodologies which are utilized in these processes. One is the Traditional methodology or what is called the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) methodology. The other is the Agile approach of software development. The SDLC methodologies have distinct phases in their life cycle like the Waterfall methodology, while the Agile approaches have a method of iteration, wherein the processes of design, construction and deployment of different sub- sections can take place together. Throughout the years the waterfall model has dropped out of support by numerous product designing task supervisors in light of its absence of readiness and restrictions. More adaptable models have been created, for example, the spry system which is regular among PM's. The proposed examination is going explore whether the waterfall model is out of date and the reasons why it has dropped out of support because of its constraints and alternate choices that have to some degree "suppl anted" the model. This contextual investigation will have an organized procedure and methodology. Fig 1: The Onion Research Model Research philosophy: Our research philosophy is to determine whether the waterfall methodology which was traditionally used for developing software and handling projects is relevant today. Two main ontological frameworks can be utilised in the duration of the research process: The first one is positivism and the second one is constructionism (Monetteet al.2005). These frameworks can be described in different manners (for example empiricism, interpretivism) but essentially, the assumptions underlying the processes are basically similar (Bryman, 2012). Positivism works under the assumption that reality will exist independent of the object being studied. Practically speaking, in any case, this means say that the significance of wonders between subjects is to a great extent reliable (Newman, 1998). Interestingly, constructionism suggests that the fundamental idea of social wonders really in light of the fact that it is made by eyewitnesses (stlundet al. , 2011). This reasoning suggests that we can never assume that what we are watching can be translated similarly crosswise over different members and the most ideal methodology is to inspect contrasts in the respondents' understanding. Research Approaches: The following are the types of research approaches which can be followed. The Deductive Approach The deductive approach fundamentally build up the speculation upon a earlier hypothesis plus the discovery methodology is then planned so as to test it (Silverman, 2013). This methodology is most appropriate in circumstances wherein the exploration venture is based after analyzing whether the watched wonders will in the long run fit with the expectations which have been founded on past examination (Wiles et al., 2011). Because of this property, the deductive methodology can be chiefly apt to the positivist attitude, which takes into account the sketch of theory and the factual testing of projected that outcome would an accredited level of likelihood (SniederLarner, 2009). The Inductive Approach The inductive style is basically a shift from the fastidious to the common (Bryman Bell, 2011). In this methodology, perceptions are the premise for analysts wherein the information is moved through to search for examples (Beiske, 2007). There exists no system that advises the information assembly and the examination hub can in this manner be frame after the information has been collected in this procedure (Flick, 2011). Despite the fact that this may seem, by all accounts, to be the point where new speculations are conceived, it is likewise stands genuine that as the information is dissected can be comprehended to fit into another current hypothesis (Bryman Bell, 2011). This methodology is valuably used in subjective examination, where the nonattendance of hypothesis might be helpful in decreasing the potential for scientist predisposition in the underlying phases of information accumulation (Bryman Bell, 2011). This methodology, in any case, is likewise a solid match which can be utilized as a part of positivist approachs, where the information is broke down first and important examples shape the premise of results. The Quantitative Approach This methodology bargains basically with quantitative information (Flick, 2011). It comprises of a few acknowledged factual norms to demonstrate the legitimacy of the methodology, similar to the quantity of respondents required for the foundation of a measurably huge consequence(Goddard and Melville, 2004). In spite of the reality that this methodology is skilled by a positivist rationality, it can be used to examine a few different angles. The quantitative methodology is most productive where there are an expansive number of answerers available. Hence the information can be adequately measured by using quantitative systems, and factual strategies for examination. The Qualitative Approach The subjective methodology is essentially gotten from the constructivist worldview (Bryman Allen, 2011). This methodology basically require that the scientist ought to withhold from forcing their own recognition upon the respondent (Banister et al., 2011). The inevitable position is to examine how the respondents decipher their own existence (Bryman Allen, 2011). This displays the test of making a system that is cramped by the respondent instead of by the scientist. A powerful technique to accomplish this is by taking meetings, where the reaction can be open (Feilzer, 2010). Subjective exploration is normally utilized for inspecting the significance of social marvels, as opposed to looking for a causative relationship since there are no characterized variables (Feilzer, 2010). Research Strategy The exploration procedure basically manages how the analyst means to do the work (Saunders et al., 2007). The exploration technique may incorporate a few changing methodologies like test examination, activity research, contextual investigation research, interviews, studies, or an orderly writing audit. Test exploration is the methodology of assembly an examination procedure that look at the cost of a test beside the ordinary results (Saunders et al., 2007). It stands valid in every aspect of examination, and for the most part include the attention of a usually set number of elements (Saunders et al., 2007). The affiliation among the variables are examined, and contrasted with the what the normal results of the assessment were Activity exploration is fundamentally a useful means to pact with taking care of scrupulous examination issues within a group of observe (Bryman, 2012). It involves inspecting practice to set up that the finest advance is correspondingly comparable. It generally includes intelligent practice, which as a rule is a precise procedure using which the expert practice and familiarity of the specialists can be surveyed. This type of examination is normal in callings like instructing or nursing, where the specialist can evaluate the distinctive approaches to improve their specialist advance and understanding (Wiles et al., 2011). Contextual investigation is the appraisal of a private unit with the expectation of setting up the key components and drawing speculation (Bryman, 2012). It offers an considerate into the meticulous way of any illustration, and therefore build up the implication of civilization and setting in contrast between cases (Silverman, 2013). This investigation technique is compelling in budgetary inspection. Decisions The decisions which are accessible in the exploration onion integrate the mono strategy, the blended practice, and the multi-technique (Saunders et al., 2007). Mono strategy: It includes utilizing one exploration approach for the study, which is apparent from the name itself. Blended strategy: It require the utilization of two or more strategies for exploration, which generally suggests that subjective and quantitative philosophies must be utilized. Multi-strategy: In multi technique, a more extensive choice of strategies must be utilized (Bryman, 2012). The fundamental variety in the blended and the multi-strategy is that the blended technique is the aftereffect of a joined approach which results in the production of a solitary dataset (Flick, 2011). In the multi-strategy approach the exploration is isolated into dissimilar sections, where every fragment produces a particular dataset; wherein each dataset is broke down utilizing procedures got from either qualitativeor quantitative strategies (Feilzer, 2010). Time Horizons The Time Horizon is the evaluated time within which the chore is required to achieve culmination (Saunders et al., 2007). Two sorts of time skylines are permitted to be utilized within the assessment onion: the cross sectional and the longitudinal (Bryman, 2012). The cross sectional time skyline is a skyline which has been as of now settled, and just the information must be fetched. This is called as "preview" time accumulation, wherein information is collected at one point in time(Flick, 2011). It is basically used in examinations which are worried with the examination of a explicit spectacle in a state of time. The longitudinal time skyline for information accretion implies that the assembly of information must be performed more than once over a developed timeframe, and is utilized where a critical part of the exploration is to see the varieties in an undertaking over a timeframe (Goddard and Melville, 2004). This permits the investigation of progress and advancement. The time skyline which is chosen for a venture does not rely on upon a particular examination methodology or approach (Saunders et al., 2007). Information Collection and Analysis Information gathering and investigation relies on the methodological methodology utilized (Bryman, 2012). The procedure chose at this phase pses a huge commitment to the general unwavering quality and legitimacy of the study(Saunders et al., 2007). Regardless of the used advance, the kind of information collected can be isolated into two sorts: essential information and optional information. The Primary Data Essential information is what is gotten from straight source. This can be express sources got from verifiable archives, or the information which is gotten from the respondents in overview or meeting information (Bryman, 2012). Information got from the analysis or study is not as a matter of course essential information the information got from a measurable collection like statistics constitutes essential information. In like manner, information which has been sourced from different assets likewise can be termed as vital information (Flick, 2011). Vital information is finest comprehend as the information that is being bust down, regardless of the source from where it was obtained. Optional Data Optional information is what is gotten from the work or conclusions of different scientists (Newman, 1998). The decision of an exploration object can comprise voluntary information since it is fundamentally data that was handled by another person. So also, investigations of measurable reviews or other information can be termed auxiliary information (Kothari, 2004). The quantity to which information is characterized is restricted by its employment, as divergent to the intrinsic way of the information itself(Flick, 2011). Research Design Research design is basically a explanation of how the examine method is expected to be performed. It is basically a skeleton which explains the reasons and the requirements that caused the adoption of a specific methodology, how the selection of respondents was performed, and how the analysis of data will be done (Flick, 2011). Several different research designs exist. They are called descriptive, explanatory, and the exploratory. The descriptive design basically reflects the experiences of respondents who participated in the study. It is closely related to ethnographic studies, but is also appropriate for use in a quantitative framework. The explanatory design essentially focuses on the effective explanation of population characteristics or social phenomenon observed at a point in time. It appears to be effective in a quantitative framework wherein the influences of variables on each other can be properly recognized (Kothari, 2004). The exploratory study is basically the exploration of an issue which occurs before there is sufficient knowledge to perform a formulaic research project. It is typically used in order to further research in a subject area (Neuman, 2003). Samples An example is a fragment which is illustrative of a bigger populace (Bryman, 2012). At the point when quantitative exploration is done, the specimen size and how it is chosen is utilized to build up the unwavering quality of the consequences of the study. With regards to subjective examination, in any case, the specimen attributes are still imperative, however littler examples are utilized. Test Size The term test size shows the quantity of respondents who are chosen from the populace that are utilize as a part of the examination (Newman, 1998). With regards to quantitative exploration, the span of the example is a fundamental necessity in settling on the dependability of the outcomes got in a study. Much of the time, bigger example sizesgreatly enhance the unwavering quality of the outcomes (Flick, 2011). On account of subjective examination, size of the example is less essential, and idea of representativeness is not an extremely solid rule to legitimize legitimacy of the exploration. Testing Techniques Testing strategies are the techniques in which proper specimen size is acquired or settled on for the study (Bryman, 2012). There are a few acknowledged systems that can be utilized. An arbitrary specimen demonstrates people inside a bigger populace picked haphazardly. Be that as it may, this outcomes in irregular dispersion, which can suggest critical skewing because of the arbitrary way of test choice (Neuman, 2003). For instance, in a specific study, an arbitrary specimen may bring about the derivation that more guys are spoken to in an example where the dispersion ought to hypothetically be equivalent, or it might bring about unequal dissemination crosswise over different ages. In such cases, test may grew such that it is guaranteed that the delegates of the populace in the example mirror the huge demographics of the more extensive populace, perhaps to ensure that the demographic qualities of age and sexual orientation are reflected appropriately in the chose test (Newman, 1998). A comfort test implies where the example is gotten from inside a current system, for example, a school, school or college, when the courses in which respondents can be enlisted is nearly clear. This strategy is esteemed fitting if there is a study that is worried with the perspectives of understudies or offspring of a specific age bunch. The above points with regards to research methods will be kept in mind while working on this research to ensure that the standards of quality research are met and that there is no bias involved in reaching the conclusion of this study. These guidelines ensure that the research is properly conducted, analyzed and presented to increase the value it provides to the scientific world at large. Proposed Research title Project title: A case study on the waterfall methodology and its relevance Working title: Is the waterfall process still important to software development life cycle model. Key Information search words: 1. Understating software development life cycles Problems with the waterfall model The pros and cons of waterfall methodology The alternatives to the waterfall model Review of Literature Industry Problem: The waterfall model is an ordered programming improvement process, in which advance is seen as streaming downwards like a waterfall, the model was initially presented by Herbert D. Bennington in June 1952. However, the first formal description of this model was cited to an article published by Winston Royce in 1970, though he did not explicitly use the name. The basic skeletal structure was defined thus by Royce: The project is divided sequentially into phases with some degree of overlap and splash back Emphasis was placed on planning, timing of schedules, targets, budget and implementation of the whole system in one go. Maintenance of control via extensive documentation, reviews, approvals by in- charge authorities etc. Iteration is done by first creating the prototype and then the actual system. The modern waterfall method follows almost all the above steps except for iteration because it results in waste of resources and is not conducive to win projects. The modern waterfall method in Software Engineering essentially contains the following phases: Engineering essentially contains the following phases: Fig 2: The Waterfall Methodology Requirement Analysis : All the desired requirements of the system are captured in the products requirement document and results in schema and models Software Design: The requirement specifications are studied and the design of the system is developed. This helps in specifying and deciding upon hardware and system requirements and defines the system architecture on the whole. Implementation: Taking inputs from the system design process, the system is initially developed in small bits of programs called units, which are then integrated in later phases. Testing: Every developed unit is tested extensively to determine any faults or failures. Integration: Once the testing has been performed satisfactorily, the units are integrated into the system and tested again as a whole. Deployment: Once the testing has been performed satisfactorily, the product is deployed Maintenance: To sort out the issues which arise later, patches or better versions are periodically released which again follow the above process. Applications of the Waterfall Model: Every software is differently managed and a suitable SDLC method is defined based on several internal and external factors. Similarly, there are some situations for which the Waterfall model is highly appropriate- Situations where the requirements are very well documented, clearly defined and are fixed from the initial stages with no possibility of changing. Situations where the product definition is fixed and stable. Situations where the technology to be used has been extensively studied, used and is extremely well understood, while at the same time is not at all dynamic. Situations where there is no ambiguity at all in the requirements. Situations where the resources are not a limiting factor and the technical expertise is available to provide support for the product. Situations wherein the project is short and is not going to require exhaustive features. However, from the above conditions, it is easy to see why the waterfall model is a failure most of the times. Nowadays, almost every project is large, is dynamic and the requirements are usually not frozen before- hand. Also, people try to get the job done with minima possible resources and the waterfall method requires that resources be set aside for a long period of time. Any complex projected, therefore cannot be performed or completed using the waterfall methodology. Also, this methodology is inherently time and labour intensive which is evident from the flow of the methodology. We shall still attempt to study the pros and cons of this methodology. Advantages: The waterfall methodology is very simple to understand and easy to use. It is pretty easy to manage, given the rigidity of the model. Where there is no scope for flexibility, unforseen issues do not usually arise. Every phase has specific deliverables which reduces mistakes to a small limit, thereby improving scalability. It allows for efficient compartmentalisation and control due to reduced overlaps of responsibilities. Hence it is easy to assign responsibilities and improve answerability. The phases of development are fixed and can be assigned a fixed timeframe without any fear of over shooting the deadline. Each phase progresses in a fixed order from the beginning to the end. There are no distractions. It works comparatively well for smaller projects where the requirements are easy to understand. The process and expected results are properly understood. Disadvantages: The waterfall model does not allow for the very important process of revision or reflection. If something is not well documented, it becomes very difficult to go back from the testing stage and change a particular thing. If a particular feature is not well thought out or understood, there is a very high possibility of error and that cannot be remedied until an iteration is made resulting in considerable wastage of resources. A working software cannot be obtained until very late in the project life cycle. There is an undue amount of uncertainty and risk involved in the project It is not a good model when it comes to object oriented or complex and complicated projects Long projects or ongoing projects suffer a lot in this methodology. If the requirements of a project are at a moderate or high risk of changing during th project development phase, then this model is definitely unsuitable since one major change can jeopardise the whole project. The measure of the progress of the project is difficult to anticipate within stages. It cannot accommodate for changing or variable requirements Changing or even minutely adjusting the scope of the project during its life cycle can result in the project ending. It is extremely difficult to identify business or technological bottlenecks in the early stages since the implementation is all done in one go. Conclusion: From the above data, it is quite comprehensively understood that the waterfall model is only suitable in extremely rigid conditions which are mostly theoretical, since in todays world of rapidly changing technology, such conditions are hard to manufacture of find. Added to that, the difficulty in implementing large, ongoing or difficult projects along with the resource intensive nature of this methodology, it is quite obvious that this methodology is not regarded favourably by most developers. Even for the clients, this process is not favourable since if the project requirement changes even minutely, the cost escalates along with the time period involved in the project completion and causes severe losses. When the lack of preparation time with regards to business bottlenecks is introduced to the mix, it becomes very difficult to advocate the usage of this methodology for any project of even modest importance. Hence it can be concluded for most realistic and real world projects, the waterfall methodology is irrelevant, except in very rare cases. REFERENCES: Banister, P., Bunn, G., Burman, E., Daniels, J. (2011).Qualitative Methods In Psychology: A Research Guide. London: McGraw-Hill International. Beiske, B. (2007).Research Methods: Uses and limitations of questionnaires, interviews and case studies, Munich: GRIN Verlag. Bryman, A. (2012).Social research methods(5thed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bryman, A., Allen, T. (2011).Education Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bryman, A., Bell, E. (2011).Business Research Methods(3rded.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm.Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), pp.6-16. Flick, U. (2011).Introducing research methodology: A beginner's guide to doing a research project. London: Sage. Goddard, W. Melville, S. (2004).Research Methodology: An Introduction, (2nded.) Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. GraigLarman (2004) Agile and iterative development A mangers guide, pp 550560 Gulati, P. M. (2009).Research Management: Fundamental and Applied Research, New Delhi: Global India Productions. InstitutNumerique, (2012). Research Methodology,https://www.institut-numerique.org/chapter-3-research-methodology-4ffbd6e5e3391[retrieved 3rd October, 2014]. Kothari, C. R. (2004).Research methodology: methods and techniques. New Delhi: New Age International. May, T. (2011).Social research: Issues, methods and research. London: McGraw-Hill International. Mehdi Khosrcowpour (2000) Challenges on information technology management in the 21st century information resource management association international conference, pp1-10 Monette, D.R., Sullivan, T. J., DeJong, C. R. (2005).Applied Social Research: A Tool for the Human Services, (6thed.), London: Brooks Publishing. Neuman, W. L. (2003).Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, London: Allyn Bacon. Newman, I. (1998).Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. stlund, U., Kidd, L., Wengstrm, Y., Rowa-Dewar, N. (2011).Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: a methodological review.International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(3), pp. 369-383. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P. (2012).Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it.Annual Review of Psychology, 63, pp.539-569. Rowley, J. (2012). Conducting research interviews.Management Research Review, 35(3), pp.260-271. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. (2007).Research Methods for Business Students, (6thed.) London: Pearson. Silverman, D. (2013).Doing Qualitative Research: A practical handbook. London: Sage. Snieder R. Larner, K. (2009).The Art of Being a Scientist: A Guide for Graduate Students and their Mentors, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiles, R., Crow, G., Pain, H. (2011). Innovation in qualitative research methods: a narrative review.Qualitative Research, 11(5), pp.587-604.