IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Volume 12, Issue 1, No 1, January 2015

ISSN (Print): 1694-0814 | ISSN (Online): 1694-0784

www.IJCSI.org

106

A Comparison Between Three SDLC Models Waterfall

Model, Spiral Model, and Incremental/Iterative Model
Adel Alshamrani1 and Abdullah Bahattab2
1

Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University

Tempe, AZ, 85281, USA
1 King Abdul Aziz University, Faculty of Computing and Information Technology-North Branch,
Jeddah, 22245, KSA
2

College of Telecommunications and Electronics (CTE),

Jeddah, 21533, KSA

Abstract
The computer has become indispensable in todays life, and it is
widely used in many fields of life such as commerce, education,
industryetc. The computer saves time in regarding to help
solving complex, long, repeated processes in a short time and
high speed. As the software programs need to handle these
features, many companies produce software programs to
facilitate the works for administrations, banks, offices, etc.
Moreover, software has been in used for analyzing information
or solving problems for more than four decades. Creating a
suitable work to develop programs of high quality is the main
goal of the software engineering. Usually, clients seek the
assistance from computer and software engineers to solve and
handle their problems. There are various models have been
widely in used to develop software products. Common models
will be described in this paper.
Keywords: SDLC Models, Software Engineering, Waterfall
model, Spiral model. Iterative model.

1. Introduction
Software development life cycle or SDLC for short is a
methodology for designing, building, and maintaining
information and industrial systems. So far, there exist
many SDLC models, such as the Waterfall model, which
comprises five phases to be completed sequentially in
order to develop a software solution; another model called
the Spiral model, which is visualized as a process passing
through some number of iterations. Finally, the
incremental model is any combination of both iterative
design or iterative method and incremental building model
for software development. It has seven phases, and they
are as follows: Planning, requirements, analysis,
implementation, deployment, testing, and evaluation [1,
3]. In effect, SDLC has been investigated by many
researchers and numerous models have been proposed
where their acknowledged strengths and weaknesses are
presented. The Waterfall, spiral, incremental, rational
unified process (RUP), rapid application development
(RAD), agile software development, and rapid prototyping
are few to mention as successful SDLC models.

Moreover, all SDLC models that have been suggested

share basic properties. They all consist of a sequence of
phases or steps that must be followed and completed by
system developers and designers in order to achieve
developed systems and deliver required products.
However, in this paper, strengths and weaknesses of The
Waterfall, Spiral, and Incremental/Iterative models will be
discussed and a brief comparison of other aspects will
conclude the rest of the paper.

2. Waterfall Model
The Waterfall Model is the oldest and the most wellknown SDLC model. This model is widely used in
government projects and in many major companies. The
special feature of this model is its sequential steps. It goes
downward through the phases of requirements analysis,
design, coding, testing, and maintenance. Moreover, it
ensures the design flaws before the development of a
product. This model works well for projects in which
quality control is a major concern because of its intensive
documentation and planning [5].Stages that construct this
model are not overlapping stages, which means that the
waterfall model begins and ends one stage before starting
the next one.
The following steps give a brief description about the
waterfall process:
1. Requirement: Is a description of a system behavior to
be developed. Usually, it is the information provided
by clients. Hence, it establishes the agreement
between the clients and the developers for the
software specifications and features. In short,
requirements are gathered, analyzed and then proper
documentation is prepared, which helps further in the
development process.
2. High Level design: The gathered information from
the previous phase is evaluated and a proper
implementation is formulated. It is the process of
planning and problem solving for a software solution.
It deals with choosing the appropriate algorithm
design, software architecture design, database

2015 International Journal of Computer Science Issues

IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Volume 12, Issue 1, No 1, January 2015
ISSN (Print): 1694-0814 | ISSN (Online): 1694-0784
www.IJCSI.org

3.
4.

5.

conceptual schema, logical diagram design, and data

structure definition [4, 5].
Coding: In this phase the whole requirements will be
converted to the production environment.
Testing: This phase deals with the real testing and
checking of the software solutions that have been
developed to meet the original requirements. Also, it
is the phase where the bugs and system glitches are
found, fixed up, and refined.
Maintenance: After the software is already released, it
may need some modifications, improvements, errors
correction, and refinement accordingly. Thus, this
phase is the process of taking care of such concerns.

4. Iterative and Incremental Model

This model combines elements of the waterfall model in
an iterative fashion. Moreover, each linear sequence
produces deliverable increments of the software. The basic
requirements are addressed in the first increment, and it is
the core product, however, many supplementary features
(some known, others unknown) remain undeliverable at
this increment. This model constructs a partial
implementation of a total system. Then, it slowly adds
increased functionality. Therefore, each subsequent
release will add a function to the previous one until all
designed functionalities are implemented [7, 8, 9, 10].

5.

3. Spiral Model
The spiral model is a software development process
combines elements of both design and prototyping in
stages for the sake of combining the advantages of topdown and bottom up concepts. It is a meta-model, which
means that it can be used by other models [5, 6]. In
addition, it focuses on risk assessment and minimizing
project risk. This is can be achieved by breaking a project
into smaller segments, which then provide more ease-ofchange during the development process, as well as
providing the opportunity to evaluate risks and weigh
consideration of project continuation throughout the life
cycle. In this model, the development team starts with a
small set of requirements and then goes through each
development phase (except Installation and Maintenance)
for those set of requirements. Therefore, the development
team has a chance to learn new lessons from the initial
iteration (via a risk analysis process). Also, the team will
add functionality for additional requirements in everincreasing spirals until the application is ready for the
installation and maintenance phase. In this model, each
iteration prior to the production version is called a
prototype of the application [7, 8, 9, 10].
The following steps give a brief description about the
Spiral model phases:
1. Planning: This phase includes the understanding of the
system requirements by conducting continuous
communications between the customers and the
system analysts.
2. Risk Analysis: In this phase, a process is undertaken to
identify risk and alternate solutions. A prototype is
produced at the end of this phase.
3. Development/Engineering: In this phase the software is
produced along with the testing.
4. Evaluation Phase: This allows the customer to evaluate
the output of the project before the project continues to
the next spiral or next round.

107

Comparison of the three SDLC Models

(Waterfall, Spiral, and incremental)

As we have already mentioned above, there are many

SDLC models each of which has different level of risk,
budget, estimated completion timeline, and benefits to
cope with the project requirements. In addition, some
models are preferred over others in regard to the size of
the project either large or small while other models being
preferred due to their flexibility to allow rapid changes
throughout the whole life cycle of the software
development [1, 2, 5, 6]. Thus, developers have to
consider various aspects before choosing the SDLC model
to implement the required system. They must know the
strengths and weaknesses of each model, and when to use
the appropriate model. Therefore, the tables (1 and 2)
provide some helpful information, which shows the
comparison between the three SDLC models in regard to
their strengths, weaknesses, other aspects, and when to use
each.

6.

Conclusion

In this research, we concluded that there are many existing

models for developing systems based on clients
requirements and the size of projects. Some models are
preferred over the others due to their properties and how
they match the clients needs. The waterfall model, spiral
model, and incremental model may have same shared
properties, but they still have different advantages and
disadvantages for the development of systems, so each
model tries to eliminate the disadvantages of the previous
model. In the future work, we are planning to extend this
research to add other models and some models might be
simulated using some tools.

2015 International Journal of Computer Science Issues

IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Volume 12, Issue 1, No 1, January 2015
ISSN (Print): 1694-0814 | ISSN (Online): 1694-0784
www.IJCSI.org

108

Table 1: Strengths and Weaknesses Comparison of Waterfall, Spiral, Incremental SDLC Models.

Model/feature

Strengths

Weaknesses

When to Use

Waterfall

Easy to understand and implement.

Widely used and known.
Define before design, and design before
coding.
Being a linear model, it is very simple to
implement.
Works well on mature products and provides
structure to inexperienced teams.
Minimizes planning overhead.
Phases are processed and completed one at a
time.

Spiral

High amount of risk analysis.

Software is produced early in the software life
cycle.
Strong approval and documentation control.
Additional functionality can be added at a later
date.
Project monitoring is very easy and effective.
Concerned people of a project can early review
each phase and each loop as well because of

All requirements must be known upfront

Inflexible.
Backing up to solve mistakes is difficult,
once an application is in
the testing stage, it is very difficult to go
back and change something that was not
well-thought out in the concept stage.
A non-documentation deliverable only
produced at the final phase.
Client may not be clear about what they
want and what is needed.
Customers may have little opportunity to
preview the system until it may be too
late.
It is not a preferred model for complex
and object-oriented projects.
High amounts of risk and uncertainty,
thus, small changes or errors that arise in
the completed software may cause a lot
of problems.
Cost involved in this model is usually
high.
Risk assessment expertise is required.
Amount documentation required in
intermediate stages makes management
of a project very complex.
Time spent for evaluating risks for small
or low-risk projects may be too large.
Time spent for planning, resetting

2015 International Journal of Computer Science Issues

When quality is more

important than cost or
schedule.
When requirements
are very well known,
clear, and fixed.
New version of existing
product is needed.
Porting an existing
product to a new
platform

For medium to highrisk projects.

When risk evaluation

and costs
are important.

When significant
changes are expected.

IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Volume 12, Issue 1, No 1, January 2015
ISSN (Print): 1694-0814 | ISSN (Online): 1694-0784
www.IJCSI.org

Incremental/
Iterative.

rapid prototyping tools.

Early and frequent feedback from users
Suitable to develop a highly customized
product.
Provides early indication of insurmountable
risks.

Develop high-risk or major functions first.

Risk is spread across smaller increments instead
of concentrating in one large development.
Lessons learned at the end of each incremental
delivery can result in positive revisions for the
next increment.
Customers get important functionality early, and
have an opportunity to respond to each build.
Each release delivers an operational product.
Initial product delivery is faster.
Reduces the risk of failure and changing the
requirements.

109

objectives, doing risk analysis, and

prototyping may be excessive.
Projects success is highly dependent on
the risk analysis phase.

Requires good planning and design.

Requires early definition of a complete
and fully functional system to allow for
the definition of increments.
The model does not allow for iterations
within each increment.

When users are not

exactly sure what
their needs.

On low to medium-risk
projects.
A need to get basic
functionality to the
market early
On projects which have
lengthy development
schedules.
On a project with new
technology, allowing
the user to adjust to the
system in smaller
incremental steps rather
than leaping to a major
new product.
When it is high risky to
develop the whole
system at once.

2015 International Journal of Computer Science Issues

IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Volume 12, Issue 1, No 1, January 2015
ISSN (Print): 1694-0814 | ISSN (Online): 1694-0784
www.IJCSI.org

110

Table 2: Comparison of SDLC models (Waterfall, Spiral, and Iterative model)

Model/Feature

Waterfall

Spiral

Incremental/Iterative

Specification of All
the Requirements in the beginning

Yes

Not all and Frequently Changed

Not all and Frequently

Changed

Long term project

Inappropriate

Appropriate

Appropriate

Complex Project

Inappropriate

Appropriate

Appropriate

Frequently Changed Requirements

Inappropriate

Appropriate

Appropriate

Cost

Not costly

Costly

Costly

Cost estimation

Easy to estimate

Difficult

Difficult

flexibility

Not

Less flexible

Flexible

Simplicity

Simple

Intermediate

Intermediate

Supporting high risk projects

Inappropriate

Appropriate

Appropriate

Guarantee of Success

Less

High

High

Customer Involvement

Low

Low, After Each Iteration

High, After Each Iteration

Testing

Late

At the end of each phase

After every Iteration

Maintenance

Least maintainable

Yes

Maintainable

Ease of Implementation

Easy

Complex

Easy

2015 International Journal of Computer Science Issues

IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Volume 12, Issue 1, No 1, January 2015
ISSN (Print): 1694-0814 | ISSN (Online): 1694-0784
www.IJCSI.org

References
[1] www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_development_lifecycle
[2] http://www.craiglarman.com/wiki/downloads/misc/historyof-iterative-larman-and-basili-ieee-computer.pdf
[3] Craig Larman and Victor Basili, Iterative and Incremental
Development: A Brief History, IEEE Computer, 2003.
[4] Y. Bassil A simulation model for the waterfall software
development life cycle. International Journal of Engineering &
Technology, 2(5): 1-7, 2012.
[5] Nabil Mohammed Ali Munassar and A. Govardhan, A
Comparison Between Five Models Of Software Engineering,
IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Vol. 7,
Issue 5, , pp. 94 101, September 2010.
[6] Ashwini Majumdar, Gayatri Masiwal, P.M.Chawan,
Analysis of Various Software Process Models International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, Vol. 2, No.
3, 2012, pp. 2015-2021.
[7] N. Munassar and A. Govardhan, A Comparison Between
Five Models Of Software Engineering, IJCSI International
Journal of Computer Science Issues, vol. 7, no. 5, 2010.
[8] Ian Sommerville, Software Engineering, Addison Wesley,
9th ed., 2010.
[9] Jim Hurst, Comparing Software Development Life Cycles,
SANNS Software Security, 2014.
[10] Sanjana Taya and Shaveta Gupta, Comparative Analysis
of Software Development Life Cycle Models, IJCST Vol. 2, Iss
ue 4, Oct . - Dec. 2011

Adel Alshamrani has obtained his Bachelor in Computer Science

from Umm Al-Qura University, Saudi Arabia in 2007, and has obtained
his Master degree in Computer Science from La Trobe University,
Australia in 2010. Adel is a lecturer in the Department of Computer
Science and Information Technology at King Abdul Aziz University.
Now, he is pursuing his Ph.D in Computer science (Information
Assurance) at Arizona State University, USA.

Abdullah Bahattab has obtained his B.S., Masters, and Ph.D. in

Computer Science from King Abdulaziz University, KSA in 1989,
Western Michigan University, USA in 1995, and Illinois Institute of
Technology, USA in 2000, respectively. He worked as the Dean of
College of Telecommunications and Electronics (CTE), Jeddah, KSA.
He is an arbitration committee member of International Chamber of
Commerce (ICC). His research interests are in Computer networks,
routing, switching, wireless networks, and E-learning researches. He got
two patents from the USA patent office. Because of the first patent, he
got an honor letter from King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz. He is the author
of two books and co-author of a book.

2015 International Journal of Computer Science Issues

111