INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF

MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

FACULTY OF COMPUTING

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

This form is to be completed by students submitting assignments of level 4 and level 5.
Students are required to complete all sections and attach to your assignment.

STUDENT DETAILS

STUDENT NAME Buddha kumar Basnet

STUDENT ID

UNIT AND ASSIGNMENT DETAILS

UNIT TITLE Unit 7: Software Development Lifecycles

UNIT NUMBER K/618/7408

ASSIGNMENT Implementing Software Development Lifecycles in a web-

TITLE based product of an organization

ISSUE DATE June 12, 2024 DUE DATE August 16, 2024

ASSESSOR Shubham Dhungana

NAME

ESTIMATED
WORD LENGTH

SUBMISSION

HAND IN DATE
DECLERATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
When submitting assignments, each student must sign a declaration confirming that the
work is their own.

Plagiarism and Collusion

Plagiarism: to use or pass off as one’s own, the writings or ideas of another
without acknowledging or crediting the source from which the ideas are taken.

Collusion: submitting an assignment, project or report completed by another

person and passing it off as one’s.

In accordance with the Academic Integrity and Plagiarism Policy:

1. I declare that:
a) this assignment is entirely my own work, except where I have included fully-
documented references to the work of others,
b) the material contained in this assignment has not previously been submitted for
any other subject at the University or any other educational institution, except as
otherwise permitted,
c) no part of this assignment or product has been submitted by me in another
(previous or current) assessment, except where appropriately referenced, and with
prior permission from the Lecturer / Tutor / Unit Coordinator for this unit.

2. I acknowledge that:
a) if required to do so, I will provide an electronic copy of this assignment to the
assessor;
b) the assessor of this assignment may, for the purpose of assessing this assignment:
I. reproduce this assignment and provide a copy to another member of
academic staff;
II. communicate a copy of this assignment to a plagiarism checking service
such as Plagiarism Check (which may then retain a copy of this
assignment on its database for the purpose of future plagiarism checking).

I am aware of and understand that any breaches to the Academic Code of Conduct will be
investigated and sanctioned in accordance with the College Policy.

SIGNATURE DATE
Tittle: Investigating Program Advancement Life-cycle Models for Helix
Prime Digital(HPD)

Abstract:

Helix Prime Advanced (HPD), an autonomous computer program improvement company,

is confronting the challenge of planning and actualizing a modern computer framework for
their client, Back Manufacture, in the money related segment. This paper dives into the
different computer program improvement life-cycle models that HPD can consider to handle
this venture effectively. The survey covers both iterative and consecutive approaches,
highlighting their individual qualities, shortcomings, and appropriateness for the given
situation. The objective is to give HPD with a comprehensive understanding of the distinctive
models, enabling them to make an educated choice on the most suitable approach for the
Back Manufacture project.

Introduction

Software improvement life-cycle models are fundamental devices that direct the effective
conveyance of program ventures. These models offer a organized approach to computer
program improvement, making a difference organizations oversee complexity, move forward
communication, and upgrade the generally quality of the last item. As HPD sets out on the
Back Manufacture venture, it is pivotal for them to carefully assess the diverse life-cycle
models and decide the most appropriate one for their needs.

Fig 1: Software development life-cycle.

Iterative Models

 Agile Model

The Spry demonstrate is an iterative and

incremental approach that emphasizes
adaptability and fast conveyance. It includes
partitioning the item into little, reasonable
chunks and conveying them in emphases. This
approach is well-suited for ventures with
changing prerequisites and a require for quick
cycle and criticism. Key focal points of Spry
incorporate its capacity to handle complex
conditions, give adaptability, and advance
superior communication between clients and
item proprietors. Be that as it may, it can be
challenging to anticipate the last item, and
there may be high-risk probabilities when
clients are uncertain approximately requirements. Fig 2: Agile model

 Incremental Model

The Incremental show is another iterative

approach that includes breaking down the computer
program improvement prepare into littler, sensible
assignments. Each errand is completed some time
recently moving on to the following one, permitting
for ceaseless enhancement and refinement. This show
is appropriate for ventures with well-defined
necessities and a require for incremental conveyance.
Key preferences incorporate its capacity to handle
complex conditions, give adaptability, and advance
way better communication between clients and item
owners.
 Fig 3: Incremental model

Sequential Models

 Waterfall Model

The Waterfall demonstrate is a straight and consecutive approach that includes breaking
down the program advancement handle into unmistakable stages. Each stage is completed
some time recently moving on to the another one, with no cover between stages. This
demonstrate is appropriate
for ventures with well-
defined
prerequisites and a require
for a organized approach.
Key preferences incorporate
its capacity to handle
complex conditions, give a
clear understanding of the
improvement handle, and
advance way better
communication between
clients and item proprietors.
In any case, it can be
challenging to handle
changes in prerequisites,
and there may be high-risk
probabilities when clients
are uncertain approximately requirements. Fig 4 : Waterfall model

 V-Model

The V-Model is an expansion of the

Waterfall show that consolidates testing
at each stage. This demonstrate is
reasonable for ventures with well-defined
prerequisites and a require for a
organized approach. Key focal points
incorporate its capacity to handle
complex conditions, give a clear
understanding of the advancement prepare, and advance way better communication between
clients and item proprietors. Be that as it may, it Fig 5: V-Model

can be challenging to handle changes in necessities, and there may be high-risk probabilities
when clients are uncertain around requirements.

Conclusion

In the setting of the Back Manufacture extend, HPD has the opportunity to carefully
assess the different computer program improvement life-cycle models and select the one that
best adjusts with the project's prerequisites, limitations, and the company's in-house ability.
The Spry and Incremental models offer adaptability and fast conveyance, which may be
useful for a extend with possibly changing prerequisites. Alternately, the Waterfall and V-
Models give a more organized approach, which might be reasonable if the necessities are
well-defined.

By completely understanding the qualities, shortcomings, and reasonableness of each show,

HPD can make an educated choice that will guarantee the effective conveyance of the unused
computer framework for Back Manufacture. This comprehensive audit of the computer
program improvement life-cycle models serves as a important asset for HPD as they explore
this extend and future program advancement endeavours.