Headspace Framework: SDLC Approach, Cloud Solutions, and Requirements

This report analyzes the Headspace framework, starting with an examination of non-functional requirements, including performance, reliability, security, and usability. It then reviews cloud-based solutions, specifically Platform as a Service (PaaS), discussing its strengths (cost savings, flexibility, disaster recovery, increased collaboration, and remote access) and weaknesses (migration issues, downtime, less security, less control, and potential for irrational long-term costs). The report further explores different Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) approaches, contrasting predictive and adaptive methodologies, outlining their respective advantages and disadvantages. Finally, it recommends an Agile-Waterfall Hybrid approach, combining the structured documentation of waterfall with the flexibility of agile, as the most suitable SDLC strategy for the Headspace project, considering the need for adaptability to changing requirements and the ability to produce prototypes throughout the development phases.

Running head: ASSIGNMENT 3: HEADSPACE
Assignment 3: Headspace
Name of the Student
Name of the University

1ASSIGNMENT 3: HEADSPACE
Table of Contents
1. Non-Functional Requirements:....................................................................................................2
2. Review of Cloud Based:..............................................................................................................3
3. SDLC Approach:.........................................................................................................................5
3.1 Predictive Approach:.............................................................................................................5
3.2 Adaptive Approach:...............................................................................................................6
3.3 Selection of Approach:..........................................................................................................7
Reference List:.................................................................................................................................9

2ASSIGNMENT 3: HEADSPACE
1. Non-Functional Requirements:
Performance: Framework execution is the primary concern that the end clients
acknowledge most. The execution of Head Space framework must regard bolster the business
procedure. The framework must have the capacity to store a considerable measure of information
for quite a while. The framework will deal with hundred assignments/asks for in parallel. The
framework must not take over one moment to give data against a demand. The servers of the
framework must be totally strong with the goal that they can bolster business changes.
Reliability: A framework with great quality must have the capacity to meet the non-
utilitarian prerequisite called dependability. The dependability is an unquestionable requirement
have highlight for the data frameworks. For the clients of the framework, the unwavering quality
is the method for having backing of the framework in business process or demand through the
distance conceivable. In any case, as far as framework investigator, the dependability is the
method for interfacing the product necessities with the equipment prerequisites. Programming
constancy can be a more troublesome plan to understand. An item thing will bomb under
particular conditions, with particular wellsprings of data, and given comparative data sources and
conditions will tumble each time until the point that the explanation behind the failure is
reconsidered. Along these lines, the constancy of an item thing is more about the unpredictable
disclosure of defects coming to fruition due to various commitments with the system in various
states.
Security: Security is an extremely fundamental non-practical necessity of Headspace
framework. The association must have the capacity to design the system of the framework with
the goal that it can keep the digital assaults. The association will arrange its servers such that it

3ASSIGNMENT 3: HEADSPACE
will close down when a DDoS assault begins. The utilization of encryption will help the
association to anticipate digital culprits to see the first information. In order to enhance the
security, different servers can be used for different components. Taken as an example, the
database and core system can reside in two different servers so that in case of cyber-attack, the
threat cannot reach to the database.
Usability: The usability of the framework alludes to the level of ease of utilizing the
framework. The clients of the framework must have the capacity to comprehend the route of the
framework from the earliest starting point of utilization. The UI must hold as less things as
conceivable so the clients don't get strained while collaborating with the framework through the
User Interface. The framework must basic as far as administrator associating area. In the event
that the administrator segment is not reasonable at that point settling the framework can be a
precarious or frequently outlandish assignment.
2. Review of Cloud Based:
Strength of PaaS cloud Based Solution:
1) Cost Saving: The cloud based solution is a great solution for those SME or small
and medium size organization that are suffering from financial loss or barriers.
The organization can chose to use the service as per wish. Taken as an example,
headspace can chose to pay as the resource usage. This will allow the organization
to cut cost of IT maintenance and operations.
2) Flexibility: The PaaS cloud based arrangement can be an extraordinary answer
for Headspace, it requires a fluctuating data transfer capacity. The association can
scale up the framework effortlessly by reaching the seller. The same should be

4ASSIGNMENT 3: HEADSPACE
possible if there should be an occurrence of diminishing the size of the
framework. The deftness, PaaS cloud based arrangement can give the associations
are exceptionally successful regarding stretching out beyond contenders.
3) Disaster Recovery: The interest in strong debacle recuperation design can be an
incredible method for sparing information. Anything can happen to the PaaS
cloud reinforcement or database. For this situation of calamity, this recuperation
design enables the association to counteract information loss.
4) Increased Collaboration: The team working a shot at an undertaking of
Headspace, they can alter information, make new records from remote area. The
joint effort among the colleagues and workers will increment enormously.
5) Remote Location Access: The employees as well as other end users of Headspace
can utilize the cloud approach benefit, access to system from remote location, in
every possible way.
Strength of PaaS cloud Based Solution:
1) Migration: One of the biggest issue in cloud computing is the vendor lock in. The
vendor systems are completely different from one another. This creates issue in
migrating from one cloud platform to another. The biggest challenge in this
migration process is the configuration of the application for meeting the
requirements of new Host.
2) Downtime: The downtime can be considered as a standout amongst the most
wrecking inconvenience of PaaS distributed computing. No PaaS cloud supplier,
even the absolute best, would assert insusceptibility to benefit blackouts. PaaS
distributed computing frameworks are web based, which implies your entrance is

5ASSIGNMENT 3: HEADSPACE
completely subject to your Internet association. Also, similar to any equipment,
PaaS cloud stages themselves can fall flat for any of a thousand reasons.
3) Less Security: The security in the PaaS distributed computing condition is low.
The stream of data from the client to the PaaS cloud application through the open
web association.
4) Less Control: Headspace will have negligible control over its information. The
seller will control the arrangement of the framework and also database
framework.
5) Irrational Cost for Long Term Plan: If the cloud computing is maintained, then
the total cost of the system will be more than in-house application. No matter how
much less an organization uses its system, a certain amount of capital has to be
used.
3. SDLC Approach:
3.1 Predictive Approach:
Advantages:
1) Prescient methodologies are straightforward and basic for utilizing as a part of a
venture administration approach
2) The documentation of technique and results of the procedures are done
legitimately
3) The grinder of the prescient approach can be seen effectively by any colleague
4) The pashas of a prescient model is finished one by one
5) The phases of the prescient approach are unmistakably characterized

6ASSIGNMENT 3: HEADSPACE
6) The prescient approach is best for little ventures. The tasks that has less intricacy
as far as necessities and determination are anything but difficult to utilize
7) The prescient models are simple for overseeing. It is a direct result of the
unbending nature of the model. Singular periods of the approach has diverse
expectations and survey system
Disadvantages:
1) Figuring the advance inside the stages is troublesome
2) In the event that the extend of the undertaking is longer than 5 months then this
approach is not proper
3) Regarding degree modification, the prescient approach is not strong
4) The nearness of dangers inside the task is to a great degree high
5) The prescient approach does not create any working application until the point
that the task is finished
6) The profitable approach is not legitimate for the perplexing and huge ventures
7) This approach is not appropriate for the ceaseless changing prerequisites
3.2 Adaptive Approach:
Advantages:
1) The approach enables the partners of undertaking to encounter fractional work
arrangements
2) The fast advancement of usefulness and also showing of those usefulness is
conceivable
3) The intending to complete the approach is low

7ASSIGNMENT 3: HEADSPACE
4) The required measure of assets are not as much as prescient approach
5) The tenets of this approach are as low as could be expected under the
circumstances
6) The versatile approach is equipped for advancing broadly educating and
collaboration
7) This approach is anything but difficult to oversee
8) This approach is appropriate for changing necessities
9) Versatile approach is extremely sensible for the product advancement venture
Disadvantage:
1) Not suitable for managing complex conditions
2) More risk of sensibility, common sense and extensibility
3) A general course of action, a deft pioneer and composed PM sharpen is a flat out
need without which it will not work
3.3 Selection of Approach:
From the above study it is clear that none of the approach alone can be sufficient. The
features of both of the approach is essential for the project. The organization needs a robust
approach that can support change of requirements. The approach of system development has to
be flexible enough to produce prototypes in the middle of the phases. However, on the other
hand, the organization needs proper documentation of all the stages.
The most difficult piece of beginning another undertaking for any test chief or test lead in
a start-up, private ventures or an endeavor is in reality to design the task. Traditionalists have
confidence in waterfall philosophy as a settled practice that relies upon thorough documentation

8ASSIGNMENT 3: HEADSPACE
and unbending administration. Notwithstanding, dexterous has made a great deal of in-streets in
present day groups as it is more versatile to the progressions which frequently make expectations
very capricious. A solitary strategy can't be the main mallet to nail every one of the
arrangements. The Agile-Waterfall Hybrid is regularly viewed as a savvy approach for
embracing the two techniques without trading off excessively, basically using the best of the two
universes. The principle point of the half and half approach is to empower groups to characterize
necessities and adjust to changing prerequisites through ceaseless criticism and conveyance. The
crossover strategy holds the lucidity and following arrangement of waterfall technique, while
grasping the versatility and adaptability of coordinated.

9ASSIGNMENT 3: HEADSPACE
Bibliography:
Ameller, D., Ayala, C., Cabot, J., & Franch, X. (2013). Non-functional requirements in
architectural decision making. IEEE software, 30(2), 61-67.
Asadi, M., Soltani, S., Gasevic, D., Hatala, M., & Bagheri, E. (2014). Toward automated feature
model configuration with optimizing non-functional requirements. Information and
Software Technology, 56(9), 1144-1165.
Dinh, H. T., Lee, C., Niyato, D., & Wang, P. (2013). A survey of mobile cloud computing:
architecture, applications, and approaches. Wireless communications and mobile
computing, 13(18), 1587-1611.
Hashem, I. A. T., Yaqoob, I., Anuar, N. B., Mokhtar, S., Gani, A., & Khan, S. U. (2015). The
rise of “big data” on cloud computing: Review and open research issues. Information
Systems, 47, 98-115.
Jorgensen, P. C. (2016). Software testing: a craftsman’s approach. CRC press.
Kaur, R., & Sengupta, J. (2013). Software process models and analysis on failure of software
development projects. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.1068.
Li, F. L., Horkoff, J., Mylopoulos, J., Guizzardi, R. S., Guizzardi, G., Borgida, A., & Liu, L.
(2014). Non-functional requirements as qualities, with a spice of ontology. In
Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 2014 IEEE 22nd International (pp. 293-
302). IEEE.
Rahman, M., & Ripon, S. (2014). Elicitation and modeling non-functional requirements-a POS
case study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1403.1936.

10ASSIGNMENT 3: HEADSPACE
Rittinghouse, J. W., & Ransome, J. F. (2016). Cloud computing: implementation, management,
and security. CRC press.
Stol, K. J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2014). Two's company, three's a crowd: a case study of
crowdsourcing software development. In Proceedings of the 36th International
Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 187-198). ACM.
Turk, D., France, R., & Rumpe, B. (2014). Assumptions underlying agile software development
processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.6610.