Total views : 359

Coordination in Different Software Development Lifecycles: A Systematic Review


  • Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
  • Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Malaysia
  • Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA


Coordination plays a significant role in Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) models. However, coordination varies between SDLC models. Relatively, little research has been conducted to analyze coordination in different SDLC models. This paper presents a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of coordination in different SDLC models. Among the range of SDLC models, the most important and popular ones are the waterfall, spiral, agile, RAD, V and incremental models, which have been investigated on how coordination works in these models.


Coordination, Software Development, Software Engineering Project, Software Project.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 505)


  • Malone TW. What is coordination theory? Technology. 1988; 1–32.
  • Ruparelia NB. Software development lifecycle models. ACM Sigsoft Softw Eng Notes. 2010; 35(3):8.
  • Mujumdar A, Masiwal G, Chawan P. Analysis of various software process models. Int J Eng Res Appl. 2012; 2(3):2015–21.
  • Moløkken-Ostvold K. A comparison of software project overruns-flexible versus sequential development models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 2005; 31(9):754–66.
  • Balaji S. Wateerfall vs v-model vs agile: A comparative study on SDLC. International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management. 2012; 2(1):26–30.
  • Papadopoulos G. Moving from traditional to agile software development methodologies also on large, distributed projects. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. Elsevier BV. 2015; 175:455–63.
  • Knauss E, El Boustani C, Flohr T. Investigating the impact of software requirements specification quality on project success. Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. 2009. p. 28–42.
  • Qumer A. Henderson-Sellers B. An evaluation of the degree of agility in six agile methods and its applicability for method engineering. Inf Softw Technol. 2008; 50(4):280–95.
  • Sakthivel S. Virtual workgroups in offshore systems development. Inf Softw Technol. 2005; 47(5):305–18.
  • Trammell CJ, Pleszkoch MG, Linger RC, Hevner AR. The incremental development process in cleanroom software engineering. Decis Support Syst. 1996; 17:55–71.
  • Ashraf M, Shamail S, Rana Z. Agile model adaptation for e-learning students’ final-year project. Proc IEEE Int Conf on Teaching, Assess Learn Eng (TALE); Hong Kong. 2012 Aug 20-23. p. 18–21.
  • Turk D, France R, Rumpe B. Assumptions under lying agile softwar e development pr ocesses abstract 2. Overview of eXtreme programming- A representative agile process. J Database Manag. 2005; 16(4):62–87.
  • Ramesh B, Cao P, Mohan L, Xu K. Can distributed software development be agile? Commun ACM. 2006; 49:41–6.
  • Moe NB, Aurum A, Dyba T. Challenges of shared decision-making: A multiple case study of agile software development. Inf Softw Technol. 2012; 54(8):853–65.
  • Strode DE, Huff SL, Hope B, Link S. Coordination in co-located agile software development projects. J Syst Softw. 2012; 85(6):1222–38.
  • Paasivaara M, Lassenius C. Could global software development benefit from agile methods? IEEE Int Conf Glob Softw Eng (ICGSE ’06); 2006. p. 109–13.
  • Dyba T, Dingsoyr T. Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Inf Softw Technol. 2008; 50(9-10):833–59.
  • Hansson C, Dittrich Y, Gustafsson B, Zarnak S. How agile are industrial software development practices? J Syst Softw. 2006; 79(9):1295–311.
  • Chau T, Maurer F, Melnik G. Knowledge sharing: Agile methods vs tayloristic methods. Proc 12th IEEE Int Work Enabling Technol Infrastruct Collab Enterp WET ICE 2003; Linz, Austria. 2003 Jun 9-11. p. 302–7.
  • Turk D, France R, Rumpe B. Limitations of agile software processes. 3rd Int Conf Extrem Program Agil Process Softw Eng (XP 2002); 2002.
  • Begel A, Nagappan N. Usage and perceptions of agile software development in an industrial context: An exploratory study. Proc - 1st Int Symp Empir Softw Eng Meas ESEM 2007; 2007. p. 255–64.
  • Sohaib O, Khan K. Integrating usability engineering and agile software development: A literature review. 2010 Int Conf Comput Des Appl ICCDA 2010; (Iccda). 2010.
  • Beynon-Davies P, Carne C, Mackay H, Tudhope D. Rapid Application Development (RAD): An empirical review. Eur J Inf Syst. 1999; 8(3):211–23.
  • Berger H, Beynon-Davies P. The utility of rapid application development in large-scale, complex projects. Inf Syst J. 2009; 19(6):549–70.
  • Howard A. A new RAD-based approach to commercial information systems development: the dynamic system development method. Ind Manag Data Syst. 1997; 97(5):175–7.
  • Beynon-Davies P, Mackay H, Tudhope D. It's lots of bits of paper and ticks and post-it notes and things...: A case study of a rapid application development project. Inf Syst J. 2000; 10(3):195–216.
  • Beynon-Davies P, Holmes S. Design breakdowns, scenarios and rapid application development. Inf Softw Technol. 2002; 44(10):579–92.
  • Sudershana S, Villca-Roque A, Baldanza J. Successful collaborative software projects for medical devices in an FDA regulated environment: Myth or reality? Proc - Int Conf Glob Softw Eng ICGSE 2007; 2007. p. 217–24.
  • Pyhajarvi M, Rautiainen K, Itkonen J. Increasing understanding of the modern testing perspective in software development projects. 36th Annu Hawaii Int Conf Syst Sci 2003 Proc; 2003. p. 10.
  • Chiang IR, Mookerjee VS. Improving software team productivity. Commun ACM. 2004; 47:89–93.
  • Robey D, Welke R, Turk D. Traditional, iterative, and component-based development: A social analysis of software development paradigms. Inf Technol Manag. 2001; 2:53–70.
  • Franken S, Kolvenbach S, Prinz W. CloudTeams: Bridging the gap between developers and customers during software development processes. Procedia - Procedia Comput Sci. Elsevier Masson SAS. 2015; 68:188–95.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.