Assumptions Underlying Software Development â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Assumptions Underlying Software Development? Answer: Introducation Usability: The usability of the system refers to the level of easiness of using the Headspace system. The users of the system must be able to understand the navigation of the system from the beginning of use. The user interface must be holding as less items as possible so that the users do not get tensed while interacting with the system through the user interface (Ameller et al., 2013). The system must simple in terms of admin interacting section. If the admin section of Headspace system is not understandable then fixing the system can be a tricky or often impossible task. Reliability: A system with good quality must be able to management the non-functional requirement called reliability. The reliability is a must have feature for the Headspace information systems (Li et al., 2014). For the users of the Headspace system, the reliability is the way of having support of the system in business process or request through all the way possible. However, in terms of system analyst, the reliability is the way of connecting the software requirements with the hardware requirements. Programming dependability can be a more troublesome idea to get a handle on. A product item will bomb under specific conditions, with specific sources of info, and given similar information sources and conditions will flop every time until the point that the reason for the disappointment is revised (Rahman, Ripon, 2014). In this way, the dependability of a Headspace system is more about the irregular revelation of flaws coming about because of different contributions with the Headspa ce system in different states. Performance: Headspace system performance is the main thing that the end users appreciate most. The performance of Head Space system has to be good to support the business process (Asadi et al., 2014). The Headspace system must be able to store a lot of data for a very long time. The system will be handling hundred tasks/requests in parallel. The system must not take more than one second to provide information against a request. The servers of the system has to be completely robust so that they can support business changes. Security: Security is a very essential non-functional requirement of Headspace system. The organization must be able to configure the network of the system so that it can prevent the cyber-attacks (Ameller et al., 2013). The organization will configure its servers in such a way that it will shut down as soon as a DDoS attack starts. The use of encryption will assist the Headspace system to prevent cyber criminals to see the original data. Flexibility: The PaaS cloud based solution can be a great solution for Headspace, it requires a fluctuating bandwidth. The organization can scale up the system easily by contacting the vendor (Dinh et al., 2013). The same can be done in case of reducing the scale of the system. The agility, PaaS cloud based solution can provide the Headspace system are very effective in terms of getting ahead of competitors. Disaster Recovery: The investment in robust disaster recovery plan can be a great way of saving data. Anything can happen to the Headspace system PaaS cloud backup or database (Hashem et al., 2015). In this case of disaster, this recovery plan allows the organization to prevent data loss. Increased Collaboration: The team working on a task of Headspace, they can edit data, create new files from remote location (Rittinghouse Ransome, 2016). The collaboration among the team members and employees will increase tremendously. Strength of PaaS cloud Based Solution: Downtime: The downtime can be considered as one of the most devastating disadvantage of Healthcare system PaaS cloud computing. No PaaS cloud provider, even the very best, would claim immunity to service outages. PaaS cloud computing systems are internet based, which means your access is fully dependent on your Internet connection (Dinh et al., 2013). And, like any hardware, PaaS cloud platforms themselves can fail for any one of a thousand reasons. Less Security: The security in the Headspace system PaaS cloud computing environment is very low. The flow of information from the user to the PaaS cloud application through the open internet connection. Less Control: Headspace will have minimal control over its data. The vendor will be controlling the configuration of the system as well as database system. Predictive Approach: Advantages: Predictive approaches are easy to understand and simple for using in a project management approach The predictive models are very easy for managing. It is because of the rigidity of the model (Kaur Sengupta, 2013). Individual phases of the approach has different deliverables and review procedure The pashas of a predictive model is completed one by one The predictive approach is best for small projects. The projects that has less complexity in terms of requirements and specification are very easy to use The stages of the predictive approach are clearly defined The millstone of the predictive approach can be understood easily by any team member (Jorgensen, 2016) The documentation of procedure and outcomes of the processes are done properly Disadvantages: The predictive approach does not produce any working application until the project is completed The presence of risks within the project is extremely high The productive approach is not proper for the complex and big projects (Stol Fitzgerald, 2014) If the stretch of the project is longer than 5 months then this approach is not appropriate Calculating the progress within the phases is difficult (Kaur Sengupta, 2013) In terms of scope adjustment, the predictive approach is not supportive This approach is not proper for the continuous changing requirements Adaptive Approach: Advantages: Adaptive approach is very realistic for the software development project The adaptive approach is capable of promoting cross training and team work The quick development of functionality as well as demonstration of those functionality is possible The required amount of resources are less than predictive approach (Turk, France Rumpe, 2014) This approach is suitable for changing requirements The approach allows the stakeholders of project to experience partial work solutions The rules of this approach are as low as possible The planning to carry out the approach is very low This approach is very easy to manage Disadvantage: Not appropriate for dealing with complex conditions More danger of manageability, practicality and extensibility An general arrangement, a nimble pioneer and coordinated PM hone is an absolute necessity without which it will not work Selection of Approach: From the above study it is clear that the advantages of the predictive approach will allow the Headspace to build an appropriate system than can provide quality to the process that organization conducts. The disadvantages of predictive approach will not affect the project much. Therefore, the proper approach for system implementation of Headspace is Predictive Approach. Reference List: 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 craftsmans approach. CRC press. Kaur, R., Sengupta, J. (2013). Software process models and analysis on failure of software project-management 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. 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). Accounting underlying agile software development processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.6610.