Does this decision suite my project?

de Boer, J.W.[5930758]

Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, 3584CC, Utrecht, Netherlands

Abstract. Lorem Ipsum

Keywords: keyword1 · keyword2 · keyword3 · keyword4 · keyword5

1 Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
This research aims to improve the (business) decision making by developing and
validating a systematic trade-off analysis between low-code programming and
traditional programming, in order to effectively categorize projects and find the
most suitable development platform depending on the project’s needs.

1.2 Research Questions

Main Research Question What is a systematic approach to support a trade-
off analysis for improving the decision-making process within the context of
digital transformation using different development platforms?

Sub Research Questions

– What is decision making?
• What are different ways within decision making?
– What is digital transformation?
• Which current digital transformation options are present? (state-of-the-
art)
• How is digital transformation achieved?
• What criteria define a successful digital transformation?
– What are development platforms?
• Which development platforms exist?
• What criteria support the choice of a specific platform?
• How do different development platforms compare?
– What is the opinion of current users of different development platforms?

1.3 Research Method

Since this paper will be focused on designing an effective and efficient trade-
off analysis, the whole research can be considered a design-science project. This
means that the main research method that will be used, is highly likely to contain
elements of Wieringa’s Design Cycle [15]. This means that the thesis will follow
a format as described by Wieringa. Furthermore, the thesis will use different
aspects from a real setting. For this, the company “Ordina” is chosen, as it spe-
cializes in digital transformation. At Ordina, interviews will be held and various
projects will be investigated. These findings will contribute to understanding
the topic and improve the to-be-designed artifact. The thesis is structured as
follows: the topic will be introduced first, after which a literature study will be
performed. This literature study will be supported by semi-structured interviews
among project-leaders at Ordina. The findings from the study and the interviews
will be combined to design an artifact which will be tested, evaluated, and val-
idated at the end of the paper. The paper will close by highlighting the main
findings and discussing the validity threats and the recommendations for future
work.
2 Background
2.1 Literature Gap (Under Construction)
In recent years, the term “low-code development” has risen as a term for fast,
flexible, and light-weight application building that requires a less-technical back-
ground than that of traditional programmers. This development can also be
found in the rising number of low-code vendors [11]. While some research exists
on the Low-Code Development Platforms (LCDP) it is still an up-and-coming
topic, as can be seen from the date of publishing which ranges from 2017 to
the present. While existing research focuses on understanding and establishing
LCDPs [12,7], characteristics and challenges of LCDPs [8,3,1], and comparing
LCDPs with other techniques [5], there is little-to-no focus on the comparison
with traditional programming. While some research highlights some of the ben-
efits for choosing LCDP over traditional development, the comparison is kept
to a minimum. This gap in research offers a nice opportunity to investigate the
exact needs to choose low-code solutions over traditional solutions in application
development.
The decision-making aspect of the choice for a developer platform is increasingly
important, especially in the domain of digital transformation. Digital transfor-
mation is presented as applying new digital technologies to achieve business
improvement [2]. By choosing LCDP, a business can therefore start the digital
transformation process whenever they want. But how would the business know
to use LCDP over a traditional development platform? This question was re-
searched but did not provide any proper methods that can be applied. It is
therefore important that a method or trade-off analysis needs to be created to
provide this additional insight during the decision-making process. By creating
an effective trade-off analysis and method, the business’ decision-making will be
improved when followed closely.

2.2 Background
A great business idea usually comes from a firsthand experience of frustration,
irritation, or other problems which can spark an idea that turns into the busi-
ness solution [14]. So-called Blockbuster apps usually have more downloads, have
higher ratings, and show a higher satisfaction ratio among users [16]. These are
exactly the qualities that a business would want in their app, so that they can
profit greatly. The research by Zhong [16] also suggests that the future of the
software industry lies with the mobile app market, meaning that a business
should focus their efforts towards mobile app development when building their
solutions. Developers within mobile app development have used various different
tools over the years to create compelling content [6]. Some of these tools - such as
Java, JavaScript, C, Python, CSS, or Flash - are not specific to mobile develop-
ment and can also be used to develop web-applications. Besides these traditional
tools, newer development platforms are rising, especially those related to agile
development[13].
Development Platforms
A development platform is defined as ”The underlying infrastructure that pro-
vides system functionality” [9]. Within mobile development platforms, there ex-
ists an idea that a common code base is used for the different versions of the
multiple target platforms. This means that the same development platform is
used for both web-based applications as mobile applications. In his disserta-
tion, Rieger describes five approaches for different development systems, which
is presented in figure 1.

Fig. 1. Rieger’s Cross-Platform Approaches (p.11)[9]

– Web Application Development: This form of development concerns the

creation of web-based applications using web technologies such as CSS,
HTML, and JavaScript. Developers can create applications using these tra-
ditional development tools so that the result can be executed in a web-based
environment. The main goal is to create an application that can be executed
without native app elements, while utilizing the advantages of the web-based
environment.
– Hybrid Application Development: Application development using a hy-
brid approach combines elements from the web-based development with na-
tive mobile elements. Developers use the same traditional web-technologies
to develop their application, but apply them as if it were a native application.
This means that developers utilize existing mobile frameworks to package
their application so that it can be executed as if it was a native application.
It hides the usual controls - such as navigation buttons, home-buttons, and
search bars - so that it gives the impression that the application is not exe-
cuted in a web-environment, while it actually is. The goal of this approach
is to improve the user experience, while keeping the advantages of the web
environment.
– Self-contained Application Development: This development approach
is similar to the hybrid approach, in that it uses both traditional technologies
and native technologies to develop an application. However, as its name
 suggests, this approach uses features from its own programming language to
simulate the platform components from the native environment. This means
that developers must adjust the way their application executes to the target
environment. Developers can therefore use the same traditional technologies,
but have to critically evaluate how- and where their application is executed.
The main advantage of this approach is that all elements are contained in
the application itself, so that developers to not have to worry about outside
conflicts.

– Model-Driven Application Development: Within model-driven devel-

opment, developers start from a model representation of the desired applica-
tion. From this representation, they can derive the actual software artifact
at a later stage. This allows developers to focus on correctness and com-
pleteness of the application, prior to the development. It provides a higher
abstraction level, as developers are not bound to a domain-specific language
and can therefore be applied to different environments when compiling so
that the full potential of the targeted platform can be reached. The goal
of this approach is to have a clear understanding of the application and its
functionalities before development begins, so that developers do not have
to worry about differences between native- and web-based environments. A
main advantage for this arises through the use of visual elements to construct
the application before its release.

– Transpiling Development: Transpiling development approaches (also known

as compilation-based approaches), work by mapping features of an existing
application onto the target platform. These existing applications do not nec-
essarily have to be fully functional and can consist of a model-based structure
similar to model-driven application development. The goal of this approach
is to let developers quickly adapt to changes when compiling for different
developer platforms.

As can be seen in the abovementioned platforms, they can be divided between

visual approaches (model-based and compiler-based) and traditional approaches
(using traditional technologies). A visual approach is one where developers use
more than one dimension in order to create their solution, such as using visual
expressions, diagrams, icons, and more [4]. This approach can lead to faster and
more transparent creation of applications. There are various different developer
platforms that support this visual approach, of which Low-Code is one with
the most potential for the upcoming years according to research from Forrester
[10,11].

– Low-Code Development: Describe what low-code development is (LCDP)

Describe LC in context: where is it used
Describe some characteristics
Here is some text about low-code development
 – Traditional Development: Describe what traditional development is (TDP)
Describe in context: where/when is it used?
Describe some characteristics
Here is some text about traditional development

End this section with description on choice: when to choose for which platform?

Architectural Decision Making

Describe importance of decision making
Describe DM in context of software architecture
Describe its applicability for development platforms

Here some text about ADM...

Existing methods
Describe that some methods support decision making in SA
Highlight a couple methods that might improve DM
how characteristics of these methods apply to the different platforms

There are some existing methods that help to improve decision making... (to be
continued)
3 Literature Review
4 Method Design
5 Analysis and Results
6 Conclusion and Future Work
7 Acknowledgements
References
1. ALSAADI, H.A., RADAIN, D.T., ALZAHRANI, M.M., ALSHAMMARI, W.F.,
ALAHMADI, D., FAKIEH, B.: Factors that affect the utilization of low-code de-
velopment platforms: survey study. Romanian Journal of Information Technology
and Automatic Control 31(3), 123–140 (2021)
2. Alshurideh, M., Al Kurdi, B., Salloum, S.A., et al.: Digital transformation and orga-
nizational operational decision making: a systematic review. In: International Con-
ference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics. pp. 708–719. Springer
(2020)
3. Bock, A.C., Frank, U.: Low-code platform. Business & Information Systems Engi-
neering 63(6), 733–740 (2021)
4. Burnett, M.M., McIntyre, D.W.: Visual programming. COMPUTER-LOS
ALAMITOS- 28, 14–14 (1995)
5. Cabot, J.: Low-code vs model-driven: are they the same? Modeling Languages
(2020)
6. Gavalas, D., Economou, D.: Development platforms for mobile applications: Status
and trends. IEEE software 28(1), 77–86 (2010)
7. Lethbridge, T.C.: Low-code is often high-code, so we must design low-code plat-
forms to enable proper software engineering. In: International Symposium on
Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods. pp. 202–212. Springer (2021)
8. Luo, Y., Liang, P., Wang, C., Shahin, M., Zhan, J.: Characteristics and challenges
of low-code development: The practitioners’ perspective. In: Proceedings of the
15th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and
Measurement (ESEM). pp. 1–11 (2021)
9. Rieger, C.: Model-driven software development: cross-platform app development
and further applications of domain-specific languages. Ph.D. thesis, Univer-
sity of Münster, Germany (2019), https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hbz:
6-81179681898
10. Rymer, J., Appian, K.: The forrester wave™: Low-code development platforms for
ad&d pros, q4 2017. Cambridge, MA: Forrester Research (2017)
11. Rymer, J.R., Koplowitz, R., Leaders, S.A., Mendix, K., are Leaders, S., Servi-
ceNow, G., Performers, S., MatsSoft, W., are Contenders, T.: The forrester wave™:
Low-code development platforms for ad&d professionals, q1 2019. Forrester Report,
Forrester (2019)
12. Sahay, A., Indamutsa, A., Di Ruscio, D., Pierantonio, A.: Supporting the under-
standing and comparison of low-code development platforms. In: 2020 46th Eu-
romicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA).
pp. 171–178. IEEE (2020)
13. Stoica, M., Mircea, M., Ghilic-Micu, B.: Software development: Agile vs. tradi-
tional. Informatica Economica 17(4) (2013)
14. Tiwana, A.: Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy.
Newnes (2013)
15. Wieringa, R.J.: Design science methodology for information systems and software
engineering. Springer (2014)
16. Zhong, N., Michahelles, F.: Google play is not a long tail market: an empirical
analysis of app adoption on the google play app market. In: Proceedings of the
28th annual ACM symposium on applied computing. pp. 499–504 (2013)