Analyzing Traditional vs Agile Approaches in Software Development

The purpose of this assignment is to delve into the distinctions between traditional and agile software development methodologies, focusing on their applicability in contemporary software projects. Traditional methods often emphasize structured stages and comprehensive documentation, whereas agile practices prioritize flexibility, iterative progress, and customer collaboration. Key considerations include requirement engineering, where agile methods facilitate continuous stakeholder engagement compared to the fixed requirements typical of traditional approaches. Additionally, cloud application management underlines the significance of interoperability and open-source ecosystems in agile environments, contrasting with more rigid architectures in traditional frameworks. Testing strategies also differ, with adaptive prioritization and innovative techniques like fuzzy cumulative voting being more prevalent in agile contexts. By examining these aspects through various studies and methodologies cited from recent literature, this assignment aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the benefits and challenges associated with each approach.

Running head: ASSIGNMENT 3: CASE STUDY OF HEADSPACE
Assignment 3: Case Study of Headspace
Name of the Student
Name of the University

1ASSIGNMENT 3: CASE STUDY OF HEADSPACE
Table of Contents
1. Non-Functional Requirements:....................................................................................................2
2. Review of Cloud Based:..............................................................................................................3
3. SDLC Approach:.........................................................................................................................6
3.1 Predictive Approach:.............................................................................................................6
3.2 Adaptive Approach:...............................................................................................................7
3.3 Selection of Approach:..........................................................................................................8
Bibliography:...................................................................................................................................9

2ASSIGNMENT 3: CASE STUDY OF HEADSPACE
1. Non-Functional Requirements:
Performance: System development is actually the leading worry that will the individuals
accept most. Typically, the coming of Head Space system must value reinforce the company
procedure. The system must need the ability so that you can retain a large way of measuring
information to get a while. The system will take care of number of assignments/asks to get with
parallel. The system must not take more than one few moments to allow details on the latest
demand. Typically, the computers about the system must often be utterly good together with the
plan the build might possibly reinforce internet business changes.
Reliability: A system with terrific good quality need the ability so that you can fulfill the
non-utilitarian requirement referred to dependability. Typically, the dependability is definitely
authentic condition need highlight to get the results systems. To your individuals about the
system, this unwavering good quality would be the enlargement method for possessing backing
about the system in internet business activity or perhaps marketplace demand because of the way
away conceivable. Whatever the case, while a long way as system investigator, this
dependability would be the enlargement method for interfacing the product or service essentials
having your machine prerequisites. Developing credibility generally is a a great deal more
difficult prefer to understand. An item definitely will bombard below individual environments,
having individual wellsprings of web data, as well as granted marketplace analysis details article
sources and types of conditions definitely will slip each and every time right up until the
evidence guiding this failing is actually reconsidered. Along all of these facial lines, this
credibility about products item might be more about the volatile revelation about issues arriving
at fruition owing to various promises having the system in numerous states.

3ASSIGNMENT 3: CASE STUDY OF HEADSPACE
Security: Security certainly important non-practical prerequisite about Headspace
system. Typically, the bureau need the ability to design the system of the system with this plan it
can certainly conveniently hold digital assaults. Typically, the bureau definitely will plan a
computer like that it'll fold each DDoS attack begins. Typically, the utilization of encrypted
shield can certainly help this bureau so that you can predict digital offenders to check out the
most important information. So they can improve the security, numerous computers work
extremely well numerous components. Ingested one example is, this repository as well as core
system can settle in 2 numerous computers making sure that in the matter of cyber-attack, this
risk could not get through to for the database.
Usability: The usability of the system alludes to the condition about capability of
applying this system. Typically, the individuals about the system must need the ability to know
the path about the system from the initial starting point about utilization. Typically, the UI ought
to support while a lesser amount of factors while likely so your individuals aren't getting labored
despite the fact that collaborating having the system through this Customer Interface. The system
must general in as much as executive associating area. But only if this executive message
shouldn't be fair at that time reducing the system can be rather the latest dangerous or perhaps on
a regular basis radical assignment.
2. Review of Cloud Based:
Strength of PaaS Cloud Based Solution:
1) Cost Saving: The best alternative for any type of small or medium measurement
firms that faces any barriers in the financial sector of the organization is the cloud
based service. Making of the most of the company down seriously to wish may be

4ASSIGNMENT 3: CASE STUDY OF HEADSPACE
determined by the organization. Taken for example, headspace may choose to
spend for the reason that resource usage. This allows the company to lower the
cost that is required for the maintenance and operating of the IT.
2) Flexibility: The layout that is based upon the “PaaS” is generally a fantastic
solution for “Headspace”, it entails a changing the capacity for information
transfer. Ranging up of the system by the association for the purpose of attaining
the sellers without any effort. Similarly, the same thing is done if there is an ought
for the purpose of diminishing the systems size. The layout of the PaaS based
cloud provides the association are effective in an exceptional matter for the
purpose of stretching out that are beyond the contenders in case of “deftness”.
3) Disaster Recovery: the incredible treatment for the sparing information is the
curiosity about solid ordeal recuperation style. Such a thing may happen in the
reinforcement or database of the PaaS cloud. For the purpose of counteracting the
information loss the recuperation style is allowed by the association in this state
of calamity.
4) Increased Collaboration: The members of the team who builds the shot for the
purpose of undertaking the “Headspace”, might change the information, for the
purpose of making documents that are and are obtained from the rural area.
Increment can occur enormously when the mutual work is done on the list of
colleagues and workers.
5) Remote Location Access: The workers along different customers of “Headspace”
may employ the approach the approach towards clod for the purpose of gaining
accessibility to system from rural site, by every probable way.

5ASSIGNMENT 3: CASE STUDY OF HEADSPACE
Strength of PaaS Cloud Based Solution:
1) Migration: The most important difficulty in “cloud computing” is definitely
proprietor fastener in. the difference between the vendor units is totally different
from one another that is the difference between them is 100%. This valuable
brings about difficulty found in migrating through one cloud platform to assist
you to another. The actual biggest nightmare with this migration method will be
settings of this affirmation intended for appointment the prerequisites completely
new Host.
2) Downtime: That recovery time can be viewed for a standout between a lot of
wrecking hassle regarding PaaS given out computing. Hardly any PaaS cloud
supplier, also the right, might are saying insusceptibility to learn blackouts. PaaS
given out processing units are actually online, what implies an individual's
appearance is really controlled because of your Online association. As well, just
like any gear, PaaS cloud stages by themselves can easily fall flat for any a
particular one 1,000 reasons.
3) Less Security: The actual “PaaS” given out processing illness has a definitely low
security. That brook of strategy in your buyer with the PaaS cloud application as a
result of exterior web association.
4) Less Control: Headspace can have negligible treatment method ready for its
information. The seller will probably restrain the actual deal regarding the system
and moreover customer base system.
5) Irrational Cost for Long Term Plan: Should the cloud computing is definitely
taken care of, then that all inclusive vacation expenditures regarding the system

6ASSIGNMENT 3: CASE STUDY OF HEADSPACE
will you've got to be compared with in-house application. However much less
expensive a strong college application its system, a few initial cash ought to be
used.
3. SDLC Approach:
3.1 Predictive Approach:
Advantages:
1) Methodologies that are predictive are straightforward and the use is simple for
any task administration strategy.
2) Strategy documentations along with the outcomes of the techniques are
completed legally
3) Prescient strategies grinder is really obvious and effective by any coworker
4) Prescient models pashas are completed one following one other
5) Prescient strategies phases are unquestionably known
6) Predictive strategy is perfect for little projects. The projects that's less
complication as much as requirements and determination are any such thing
but hard to make use of
7) The predictive models are easy for overseeing. This could be a strong
consequence of the character that are unbending of the model. Singular times
of the strategy has different beliefs and study system
Disadvantages:
1) Foreseeing the advances the steps inside can be worrisome

7ASSIGNMENT 3: CASE STUDY OF HEADSPACE
2) In the event that maybe the stretch from the challenge can be more than 5 a
few months then this approach is just not correct
3) Pertaining to level alteration, your prescient approach is just not robust
4) Your nearness associated with potential risks inside job would be to a fantastic
level excessive
5) Your predictive approach isn't going to develop almost any doing the job use
until finally the truth that the job is completed
6) Your successful approach is just not genuine for your difficult and big jobs
7) This approach is just not befitting your ceaseless adjusting stipulations
3.2 Adaptive Approach:
Advantages:
1) A planning to carry out this strategy will be cheap
2) A strategy allows for this spouse about executing to encounter fractional do
the job necessary arrangements
3) A tenets of this strategy are just can potentially be likely according to
conditions
4) An adaptive strategy will be outfitted for the purpose of developing greatly
educating plus collaborationism
5) Functional strategy is rather reasonable for the purpose of the items
improvement challenge
6) Hidden measure of assets commonly are not nearly prescient strategy
7) The short improvement about advantages and also displaying of these
advantages will be imaginable

8ASSIGNMENT 3: CASE STUDY OF HEADSPACE
8) This process is suitable for the purpose of adjusting requisites
9) This process will be certainly not hard to manage
Disadvantage:
1) Not suitable for managing complex conditions
2) More risk of sensibility, sound judgment and extensibility
3) Holistic plan, a deft pioneer and composed PM sharpen is known as a bluntly
need without which it is work
3.3 Selection of Approach:
The aforementioned examine helps to determine that a single portion of the strategy is not
sufficient. For the project the features that are on the top is essential for the strategy. The
business wants an effective strategy that will support modify of requirements. The strategy of
system development will be variable enough to make prototypes through the phases.
Nevertheless, conversely, the corporation wants correct documentation dried up phases.
Toughest segment for start still a different undertaking for almost different checks
fundamental along with checking the cause for a start-up, personal tasks and for undertaking is
the reality for the tasks to be created. Assurance by the traditionalist in the waterfall idea as an
exercise that is settled which in term relies upon documentation that is complete and unbending
administration. Anyhow, a wide range of in-streets in the groups of current day for the purpose
of making it more flexible for the progression has been made by the “dexterous”. A solitary
technique cannot be the main hammer for the purpose of nailing every arrangement. The “Agile-
Waterfall Hybrid” is often seen as an experienced strategy in adopting of the 2 methods without
trading off exceptionally, fundamentally by the use of most readily useful for those two

9ASSIGNMENT 3: CASE STUDY OF HEADSPACE
universes. Concept place of the half and half strategy would be for the purpose of enabling
groups so as to describe the requirements along with confirming for adjustments of the
prerequisites through ceaseless “criticism and conveyance”. “Crossover technique” supports the
lucidness and subsequent layout of “waterfall method”, holding the flexibility along with
flexibility of coordinated.

10ASSIGNMENT 3: CASE STUDY OF HEADSPACE
Bibliography:
Abbas, J. (2016). Quintessence of Traditional and Agile Requirement Engineering. Journal of
Software Engineering and Applications, 9(03), 63.
Bajwa, J. K., & Kaur, R. (2017). An Adaptive Approach For Test Case Prioritization In
Regression Testing Using Improved Genetic Algorithm.
Breitenbücher, U., Binz, T., Képes, K., Kopp, O., Leymann, F., & Wettinger, J. (2014, March).
Combining declarative and imperative cloud application provisioning based on TOSCA.
In Cloud Engineering (IC2E), 2014 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 87-96). IEEE.
Haoues, M., Sellami, A., & Ben-Abdallah, H. (2016). Predicting the functional change status in
UML activity diagram from the use case diagram. AICCSA, IEEE.
Inzinger, C., Nastic, S., Sehic, S., Vogler, M., Li, F., & Dustdar, S. (2014, April). MADCAT: A
methodology for architecture and deployment of cloud application topologies. In Service
Oriented System Engineering (SOSE), 2014 IEEE 8th International Symposium on (pp.
13-22). IEEE.
Jawale, B., & Bhole, A. T. (2015). Adaptive fuzzy hierarchical cumulative voting: a novel
approach toward requirement prioritization. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol, 4(5), 365-370.
Jawale, B., & Bhole, A. T. (2015). Adaptive fuzzy hierarchical cumulative voting: a novel
approach toward requirement prioritization. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol, 4(5), 365-370.
Katsaros, G., Menzel, M., Lenk, A., Revelant, J. R., Skipp, R., & Eberhardt, J. (2014, March).
Cloud application portability with tosca, chef and openstack. In Cloud Engineering
(IC2E), 2014 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 295-302). IEEE.

11ASSIGNMENT 3: CASE STUDY OF HEADSPACE
Khan, F., Jan, S. R., Tahir, M., Khan, S., & Ullah, F. (2016). Survey: Dealing Non-Functional
Requirements at Architecture Level. VFAST Transactions on Software Engineering, 9(2),
7-13.
Khan, S., Babar, M., Khan, F., Arif, F., & Tahir, M. (2016). Collaboration Methodology for
Integrating Non-Functional Requirements in Architecture. the Journal of Applied
Environmental and Biological Sciences (JAEBS), 6, 63-67.
Loulloudes, N., Sofokleous, C., Trihinas, D., Dikaiakos, M. D., & Pallis, G. (2015). Enabling
interoperable cloud application management through an open source ecosystem. IEEE
internet Computing, 19(3), 54-59.
SIDDIQUI, M. A., AKHTER, M. S., & MIAN, N. A. (2014). A comparative analysis of
conventional software development approaches vs. formal methods in call distribution
systems. VAWKUM Transactions on Computer Sciences, 3(2), 7-14.
Stoica, M., Mircea, M., & Ghilic-Micu, B. (2013). Software development: Agile vs. traditional.
Informatica Economica, 17(4), 64.