See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261846036

Selection of appropriate software development life cycle using fuzzy logic

Article  in  Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems · May 2013

DOI: 10.3233/IFS-120686

CITATIONS READS

5 4,828

1 author:

Veysi Ozturk

6 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TRENSIM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Veysi Ozturk on 30 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 25 (2013) 797–810 797
DOI:10.3233/IFS-120686
IOS Press

Selection of appropriate software

development life cycle using fuzzy logic
Veysi Öztürk∗
TÜBITAK BILGEM Institute of Information Technologies (BTE), Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey

Abstract. Selection of appropriate Software Development Life Cycle(s) can increase projects success. Depending on the selected
SDLC (Software Development Life Cycle), one can decrease development time/cost, minimize overhead and risk exposure,
manage uncertainty, improve quality, promote client relations, and provide better project tracking and control. Despite the benefits
of using suitable SDLC(s), it is generally difficult to select the most appropriate one. There is not enough information in the
literature about the criteria and how to take them into account to select appropriate SDLC(s). Frequently used SDLCs and their
comparative properties were elicited from literature, Internet and experts according to the criteria to select appropriate SDLC(s).
A Fuzzy Logic (FL) system was developed according to the elicited knowledge about the criteria and their affect on selecting
suitable SDLCs in various cases. Fuzzy input/output variables, membership functions and fuzzy rules were defined and generated
according to the elicited knowledge. The FL system was tested for various inputs and improved according to the test results.

Keywords: Software development life cycle, SDLC, fuzzy logic, software life cycle models, waterfall, spiral, iterative, incremental,
agile, prototyping

1. Introduction There is little literature to guide developers and

There are many factors affecting success of software
projects. These include the capability and leadership
of the project managers, the skill set of the software
developers, the availability of project management,
requirement management, the computing environment,
the complexity of the problem domain, the available
resources, and the Software Development Life Cycle
(SDLC) being employed [1].
Many SDLCs have been developed to define the
phases and activities in software development projects.
Comparison of SDLCs and selecting the most appropri-
ate one is generally difficult. “Selecting an appropriate
SDLC model is a complex and a challenging task, which
requires not only broad theoretical knowledge, but also
consultation with experienced expert managers” [2].
∗ Corresponding author.Veysi Öztürk, TÜBITAK BILGEM Insti-
tute of Information Technologies (BTE), Gebze, Kocaeli, 41470
Turkey. E-mail: veysi.ozturk@tubitak.gov.tr.
managers to make those choices. Software engineer-
ing books and the literature generally give information
about various SDLCs and discuss the alternatives, but
offer poor advice on direct comparison amongst each
other [3].
Selecting the appropriate SDLC can increase the
probability of project success. Thus, it is very important
to research on SDLCs prior to starting the development
process and making a decision for what SDLCs to select
[4].
A wide variety of SDLCs have evolved over the
years, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. One
SDLC is not necessarily suitable for all projects. Each
of the available SDLCs is best suited to specific kinds
of projects, based on various technical, organizational,
project and team considerations [5]. Depending on the
selected SDLC(s), one can decrease development time,
minimize overhead and risk exposure, improve qual-
ity, promote client relations, better project tracking and
control [6].

1064-1246/13/$27.50 © 2013 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
798 V. Öztürk / Selection of appropriate software development life cycle
Standish Group identified that a formal methodol-
ogy was used in 46% of successful projects compared
to 30% of challenged and failed projects. According
to that research, the use of formal methodology in a
project can increase the chance of success by about
16% (46%–30%) [7].
There are a lot of difficulties that hinder the selection
of an appropriate SDLC. Some of them are as follows;
– There are a lot of SDLCs in literature and
in industry which have their own advan-
tages/disadvantages and strengths/weakness.
– There is no best SDLC for all situations. SDLCs
have been designed to meet the needs of certain
conditions, certain type of software and certain
type of organizations [8].
– Some SDLCs are marketed as products and ser-
vices, and therefore come with glaring marketing
material that may be hiding their true applicability
to one’s situation [8].
– Selection of a software development methodol-
ogy is highly driven by many factors (e.g. human
factors, technological factors, application domain,
etc.) [9].
– There are uncertainties in the early phases of
projects.
– Information about SDLCs is scattered around in
different sources.
Fuzzy Logic (FL) can provide the following benefits
for selection of appropriate SDLCs;
– FL converts complex problems into simpler ones
using approximate reasoning. Thus, one can effec-
tively use his/her knowledge to describe a system’s
behaviour [10].
– A FL system can effectively model the uncertainty
and nonlinearity [10].
– “Rules can be used independent of the projects
because membership functions may be tuned
according to project parameters without violating
the rules” [11].
– FL system can work with incomplete information,
especially at the early phases of projects.
– Decision making or human communication
requires and involves during software develop-
ment process and FL can be used to improve
software development processes and products
[12].
– Since FL control user defined rules which govern
the system, it may be modified easily to improve
performance [13].
– Any reasonable number of inputs can be processed
with the rule base operations, therefore numerous
outputs can be generated [13].
– The same FL model (the membership functions
and rules) can be used throughout the SDLC pro-
cess by changing the levels of precision as required
[14].
– FL system can be updated easily as new informa-
tion or knowledge is elicited.
In this study, it is aimed to compare important
properties of frequently used SDLCs and develop a
Fuzzy Logic System to help project managers and
software/system engineers for selecting appropriate
SDLC(s). This study focuses on the following main
areas;
– Frequently used SDLCs and their comparative
properties,
– The criteria to select appropriate SDLC(s),
– The FL system developed to help project managers
and software developers for selecting appropriate
SDLC(s),
– Examples of SDLC selections for various inputs.
Note that, how to use SDLCs in projects is not the
focus of this study. The formalism and usage of differ-
ent SDLCs are given in many papers, books and some
references of this study.
2. Software development life cycles
2.1. Software development life cycle definitions
Software Development Life Cycle is a model that
defines the sequence of phases and activities that
will/should take place during the software development.
In the literature, many definitions of “Software Devel-
opment Life Cycle” were proposed and some of which
are given below. The following definitions also include
information about properties of SDLCs;
– “The sequence of different activities that take place
during software development” [15],
– “A model that describes all of the activities that go
into creating a software product”[16],
– “A series of stages in the development of an appli-
cation” [17],
– “A descriptive or prescriptive characterization of
how software is or should be developed”[18],
 V. Öztürk / Selection of appropriate software development life cycle
– “High-level definition of the phases that occur dur-
ing development” [19],
– “A simplified representation of a software process,
presented from a specific perspective” [20],
– “Conceptual model used in project management
that describes the stages involved in an information
system development project, from an initial feasi-
bility study through maintenance of the completed
application” [21],
– “Formalized development process that is used
when building software which starts when the soft-
ware is conceived until the software is in use” [9].
‘Software Process Model’, ‘Software Development
Process’, ‘Software Life Cycle Models’, ‘Software Life
Cycle’, etc. are some synonyms of Software Develop-
ment Life Cycle used in the literature.
Some people consider SDLC as a more general term,
whereas a software development process as a more
specific term. For example, there are many specific soft-
ware development processes that ‘fit’ the spiral SDLC
[22].
2.2. Frequently used software development life
cycles
The project management and/or development team
must identify an appropriate SDLC for their project and
then adhere to it. Without using SDLCs, development of
software products would not be in a systematic manner
[23].
SDLCs are used in projects for the following benefits
and reasons;
– Understanding for ourselves and explaining to oth-
ers the various steps that we must go through before
completing a project [24],
– Providing a common language that allows the
project team, project sponsor(s), and others within
the organization to communicate more effectively
[25],
– Providing management with a set of points (mile-
stones), that can be examined to determine the rate
of progress of the project [24],
– Focusing on the tasks at the hand, instead of wor-
rying about what to do next [25],
– Highlighting key activities and their interdepen-
dencies [19],
– Defining and focusing on roles and responsibilities
[26],
– Managing uncertainty [3],
799
– Encouraging systematic evaluation of options and
opportunities [3],
– Reducing development and maintenance costs due
to the reasons given above [27].
Some software development life cycles are more
frequently used than the others. In this study, water-
fall, prototyping, agile, IID (Iterative and Incremental
Development) and spiral SDLCs were taken into
account for SDLC selection. Some of above SDLC
(e.g. waterfall, iterative and IDD) is ancentor of many
SLDCs. The above selection and classification was
done according to the information in many studies.
Some of these references are [4, 5, 28–31].
Information about selected SDLCs and ad-hoc devel-
opment are in the next sections.
2.3. Waterfall
In waterfall, development cycle progresses in succes-
sive steps, one after the other. The cycle is composed
of phases such as requirement specification, software
design, integration, testing. Waterfall is generally pre-
ferred in large scale projects and in big companies.
According to Gartner reports, the waterfall approach
is used 56% of the time when a formal development
approach is required [32].
Strengths and weakness of waterfall can be found in
[5, 32].
There are modified waterfall life cycles models
which try to correct the weaknesses of waterfall such
as [6];
– Sashimi model: suggesting stronger degree of over-
lap of phases.
– Waterfall with subprojects: suggesting to perform
some of waterfall phases in parallel.
– Waterfall with risk reduction: putting a risk reduc-
tion spiral at the top of waterfall.
2.4. Iterative and Incremental Development (IID)
The concept of growing a system via iterations is
called Iterative and Incremental Development [31].
The basic idea is to develop a system through
repeated cycles (iterative) and in smaller portions at
a time (incremental), allowing developer to take advan-
tage of what was learned during the development of
earlier portions, or versions, of the system [28].
In IID, the project is divided into small phases (iter-
ations) in order to provide earlier feedback about the
software being developed. Each iteration gives valuable
800 V. Öztürk / Selection of appropriate software development life cycle
information to the customers and the project team for
the next iteration. IID provides reducing project risks.
A lot of SDLCs are evolved from IID approach.
In incremental development, each increment can
have its own SDLC (for example, waterfall, itera-
tive, etc.) [33]. IID includes both iterative development
and incremental development. IID includes Rational
Unified Process, evolutionary development, Microsoft
Solutions Framework, Open, Winwin spiral model,
MBASE Spiral Model, etc.
2.5. Prototyping
Prototyping promotes customer involvement in the
development of a project. In this SDLC, a part of the
system is developed as a prototype and demonstrated
to the customer. Generally, two types of prototyping
is used; evolutionary and throwaway. In evolutionary
prototyping, a new prototype of the other parts or the
same part is developed according to the feedback from
the customer. This process is continued until the cus-
tomer is satisfied with it. Throwaway prototyping is
generally continued until the customers’ requirements
are understood.
Strengths and weakness of prototyping can be found
in [5, 29].
2.6. Spiral
Spiral development includes elements of both design
and prototyping, in an effort to combine advantages of
top-down and bottom-up concepts [34]. In this model,
activities are planned especially in order to reduce the
important risks.
Firstly, a prototype or an initial system is developed.
According the customers feedback, the system is devel-
oped repetitively as iterations. In each iteration analysis,
requirements, design, and testing phases are repeated as
steps similar to waterfall.
Each iteration of spiral contains four basic quadrants
[35]:
1. Determine objectives, alternatives, and con-
straints of the iteration
2. Evaluate alternatives, identify and resolve risks
3. Develop and verify deliverables from the iteration
4. Plan the next iteration.
More information can be found in [35].
2.7. Agile SDLCs
In agile development, the project is divided into
several small tasks with short periods. In each itera-
tion, a full development life cycle including planning,
requirements analysis, design, coding, unit testing, and
acceptance testing is performed for completing each
task.
Agile development adheres to the following mani-
festo [36];
– Individuals and interactions over processes and
tools
– Working software over comprehensive documen-
tation
– Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
– Responding to change over following a plan.
Extreme Programming (XP), Scrum, Crystal
Method, Agile Model Driven Development, Agile
Unified Process (AUP), Agile Data, Dynamic Systems
Development Method (DSDM), Essential Unified
Process (EssUP), Feature-Driven Development (FDD)
are a number of known agile SDLCs. See [37–39] for
more information about agile SDLCs.
2.8. Ad-hoc development
Still many companies use ad-hoc development.
There is no standard solution or plan in ad-hoc devel-
opment. During the use of Ad-hoc Process Models,
“software process capability is unpredictable because
the software process is constantly changed or modified
as the work progresses. Schedules, budgets, function-
ality, and product quality are generally unpredictable.
Performance depends on the capabilities of individu-
als and varies with their innate skills, knowledge, and
motivations.” [40]. Although ad-hoc development is not
advised as a formal method in projects, ad-hoc devel-
opment was not taken into account for comparative
purposes of SDLC selection in this study.
3. SDLC selection
It is very important to select appropriate SDLC(s) for
software development with respect to the project needs.
If we select an inappropriate SDLC(s) and deduce that
our selection is wrong, then we must switch to another
one in consonance with our project needs.
Selecting an inappropriate SDLC can result in
 V. Öztürk / Selection of appropriate software development life cycle
– Longer development time and increased costs [1],
– Missing tasks and inappropriate task ordering,
which undercuts project planning and efficiency
[16],
– Dissatisfaction of project’s stakeholders (i.e., cus-
tomers, upper managers, and project members),
– Risk exposure [41].
3.1. SDLC selection methods
The following methods/techniques are used for
SDLC selection:
a. Using ruled based techniques such as expert sys-
tems [9].
b. Dillman suggests a decision cube including three
criteria (Functionality (Dynamic or Static), Bud-
get (low or high), Time Horizon (short or long))
with two conditions for each and the resultant
quadrant is the recommended SDLC [42].
c. Using comparison tables of SDLCs such as given
in [6, 43].
d. Using heuristic ranking algorithm(s) (The output
may be a list of models together with the ascribed
score) [2].
e. Using experts guidance for selection; experts from
the outside of the projects/company decide for
the appropriate SDLC. Experts generally decide
according to the previous success/fails.
f. The procedures defined by company or founda-
tion force you to select SDLC according to the
defined processes. For example, some compa-
nies/foundations define the development process
as progresses in steps in only one cycle such as
requirement specification, design, code, integra-
tion and testing and define to generate a number
of documents in each phase. In that condition,
you feel yourself to use waterfall or waterfall type
SDLCs.
g. The company decided to use a (or more) known
SDLC and all projects obey this decision.
h. Investigate literature/web to decide one or more
SDLC(s).
i. Ad hoc selection: There is no standard/formal
solution/technique for SDLC selection. Project
management decide one of SDLC heuristicly.
Project/company management generally use the
same SDLC every time.
j. Using Fuzzy Logic which was developed in this
study.
801
3.2. SDLC selection criteria
The following criteria can be taken into consideration
for selecting an appropriate SDLC for a project;
– Functionality (the functional requirements of
projects will be dynamic (changing) or static (non-
changing) throughout the life cycle), budget, time
horizon (short term versus long term) [42],
– Clarity of requirements [2],
– Product and team size (number of developers),
– Complexity of software or system,
– Developers and user’s experience (including expe-
rience in application domain), users’ ability to
express requirements, developers’ experience in
application domain and developers’ software engi-
neering experience [1],
– The knowledge and skill sets of the project team,
the IT and the organizational infrastructure to sup-
port the development effort and the application,
and the nature of the project itself—that is, the
project’s size, degree of structure, development
time, and role within the organization [25],
– Number of (critical) risks,
– Cost estimation, early functionality needs,
– Degree of customer involvement in the project
[44],
– Project (development) environment such as orga-
nization characteristics, the degree of familiarity
with the technology to be used, and the competitive
demands for initiating the project [44, 45],
– Product related criteria include [2]: the type of
information system, the size and complexity of
the software, system architecture, modularity and
level of module integrity, the variability and clarity
of user requirements,
– Project related criteria include basic project dimen-
sions such as: planned timetable and cumulative
costs of the project, resource characteristics,
project risks, types of users according to computer
skills and fluency with computer systems [2].
In this study, ‘known (understandability, definabil-
ity, clarity) and change (stability) of requirements’,
‘development time’ ‘size (of the product/project)’,
‘complexity (of the problem, system, domain)’ ‘expe-
rience’ and ‘risks’ was selected criteria to be used for
SDLC comparison and FL input.
The following was taken into account in criteria
selection;
802 V. Öztürk / Selection of appropriate software development life cycle
– Whether commonly used in projects and SDLC
comparison surveys
– Effectiveness and importance of criteria in SDLC
selection
– Availability of comparative information for differ-
ent SDLC according to the selected criterion.
There is a weakness of rule based Artificial Intelli-
gence techniques such as Fuzzy Logic, Expert System.
The system inferences according to the rules in the
knowledge base or rulebase. In Fuzzy Logic, the valid-
ity of results depends on quality of knowledge used in
rules and membership functions. For this reason, it was
taken great care for each SDLC criterion and related
information used in FL rules. Comparative information
about selected SDLCs (Waterfall, IDD, Prototyping,
Agile and Spiral) and appropriate situations of using
them according to the selected criteria is given in
Table 1. This information is especially necessary for
development of FL rules and FL membership functions.
Note that, some criterion can be divided into sub-
criterions. For example, experience can be divided as
experience of application domain, experience of the
development technology, etc. But there is not enough
comparative information for such sub-criterions in the
literature. For this reason, we consider these criteria as
general including these sub-criterions.
4. Selection of SDLC using fuzzy logic
4.1. Fuzzy logic
Fuzzy Logic (FL) is basically developed to han-
dle uncertainties in computer-based problem solving
or decision-making. It can be used to solve highly com-
plex problems where a mathematical model would be
too difficult or impossible to be formulated due to the
uncertainties.
“Fuzzy Logic is a logical system, which aims at a for-
malization of approximate reasoning in a narrow sense.
In a wide sense, it is coextensive with fuzzy set the-
ory. Today, the term Fuzzy Logic is used predominantly
in its wide sense.” [55]. “Fuzzy sets are sets in which
members are presented as ordered pairs that include
information on degree of membership.” [56].
“Fuzzy Logic uses membership functions to incorpo-
rate linguistic variables and quantifiers” [12]. FL deals
with a certainty degree (somewhere from 0 to 1) of
propositions [57]. In classic logic, we define a limit
about the certainty. For example, if the limit for the
tallness is 180 cm, then a person which is 179 cm is
short and 181 cm is tall in classic logic. In FL, we can
define a person both as tall and short with according
membership value of a membership function between
0 and 1. Membership function is a function of a geomet-
ric curve which can take different shapes (e.g. triangle,
gaussian) that defines how each point in the input is
mapped to a degree of membership between 0 and 1.
The general benefits of using the FL are as follows:
– FL is conceptually easy to understand and flexible
[58].
– Ability to use expert knowledge [14].
– Expert rules that are already available can be
directly included [11].
– FL system can be updated easily.
– Ability to use linguistic variables as inputs, and
producing linguistic as output(s).
– “Ability to represent differing levels of uncertainty
for inputs and outputs whilst still basing inference
on the same model” [14].
– FL is inherently robust and don’t require to be
precise [13].
Fuzzy Logic System consists of three main compo-
nents as shown in Fig. 1 [59];
– Fuzzifier maps crisp numbers to fuzzy sets. It is
needed in order to activate fuzzy rules, which are in
linguistic variables and have fuzzy sets associated
with them.
– Inference engine generates fuzzy outputs corre-
sponding to fuzzified inputs, with respect to the
fuzzy rules. Fuzzy Rules are “IF...THEN...” form
and combines inputs to outputs.
– Defuzzifier maps output sets into crisp numbers.
4.2. Selection of SDLC using fuzzy logic
It is difficult to measure the output of selecting the
correct SDLC with respect to another one because of
the need to use different SDLCs for the same project
under the same conditions and see the output.
Since many of the independent variables in software
models are either difficult to quantify (for instance com-
plexity), or are only known to a rough degree (such as
system size), the use of fuzzy variables seems appealing
[60].
Various linguistic variables can be taken into account
in the selection of SDLC in FL.
A linguistic variable is a variable whose values,
called linguistic values, have the form of phrases
 V. Öztürk / Selection of appropriate software development life cycle 803

Table 1
Comparison of SDLCs
Waterfall Iterative and Prototyping Agile Spiral
Incremental
Development
(IID)
Known and change Requirements are Requirements are Requirements are Requirements are Users are unsure of
of requirements stable or not easily not well unknown, their own needs
unchanging [5, understandable understood and/or changing and and requirements
30], very well and/or defined clearly defined largely emergent are complex [46],
known [46] and [43] and are [43, 47] [39, 32] requirements are
understandable expected to Functional not easily
[43] evolve over time requirements may understandable
in incremental change frequently and defined [43]
manner [46] and significantly
[5]
Development time – Between medium – Between medium – Project schedule is – Between short and – Short or medium
and long (9 and long (10 tight [43] medium (6 (in the survey of
projects in survey projects in survey projects in survey [30] development
of [30] is between of [30] is between of [30] is between time for 3 projects
6–36 months) 4–96 months) 6–36 months) is between 4–18
months
– Not tight [43] – Not very short – Decreases respect – Between 1–6 – Project schedule is
duration [5] to the waterfall months [48] tight [43]
[27]
Project size Large [5, 48]) or not very small [5] – Large with many – Small and medium – Medium or large
medium [48, 49]) and high for users, [48] [48]
iterative models interrelationships
[49] and functions [5]
– Not large [50] – Large-scale
systems and
software [9]
– Smaller teams and
projects [39]
Experience Project team doesn’t Domain knowledge Team members are Having skilled and “Project manager is
have enough is adequate [51] experienced [5] experienced highly skilled and
experience in the people in the team experienced” [5].
application [52] Project team’s
domain [5] experience is high
[30]
Risks projects that are not In the development project risks Unknown risks and For medium to
subject to many of high-risk or regarding the risks have major high-risk projects
risks [23] major functions requirements impact [39], [53]
[53] definition is not Including
low and needs to significant
be reduced [5] amount of
uncertainties and
risks [54]
Complexity Complicated [5] Development of the project is large non-complex Complex system to
complex systems with many users, software [50], build [43, 51]
[51, 43] interrelationships Complexity is
and functions [5] small and medium
[48]

or sentences in a natural language [12]. For devel-
oping a FL model the verbal expert knowledge,
based on the correlation(s) between pairs of their
variables, is translated into if-then rules. Parame-
ters, such as membership functions and weights of
rules, can be tuned by using input and output data
[61]. For example, consider the statement “if (your
project size is large) and (project complexity is
medium), then you can use waterfall”. Here “Project
size” and “Project complexity” are linguistic vari-
ables.
Project managers can define linguistic variables of
criteria related to SDLC selection in the early phases of
a project (even before project starts).
804 V. Öztürk / Selection of appropriate software development life cycle
Fig. 1. Main components of a Fuzzy Logic System.
The steps used in this study for development of Fuzzy
Logic System for SDLC selection are as follows;
1. Obtain related information from literature, Inter-
net and experts
2. Put related information into a structured format
3. Define input FL variables (define criteria to be
used in SDLC comparison)
4. Define output FL variables (define SDLCs taken
into account)
5. Define and generate membership functions for
input variables (define FL behaviour for each cri-
teria in each SDLC)
6. Define and generate membership functions for
output variable
7. Define Fuzzy rules according to the related knowl-
edge elicited from literature and experts
8. Control fuzzy rules for different inputs and output
9. Combine information from the rules.
10. Interpret and deffuzify the results.
Matlab was used for Fuzzy Logic System develop-
ment of SDLC selection.
Sharma and Verma identified that Gaussian mem-
bership functions proved superior to the triangular
membership functions used in most of the previous
Membership function plots
unstable&unknown
1
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
input variable “Requirements(UK, Known,wKn.)”
Fig. 2. SDLC selection input variable “Requirements”.
Table 2
FL input variables and terms in membership functions
FL input variable Terms in FL membership functions
Requirements ‘unstable & unknown’, ‘known’,
‘stable & well-known’
Complexity ‘simple’, ‘medium’, ‘complex’
Project size ‘small’, ‘medium’, ‘large’
Development time ‘short’, ‘medium’, ‘long’
Experience ‘less experienced’, ‘adequate’, ‘experienced’
Risk ‘low’, ‘medium’, ‘high’
researches for fuzzifying the sizes of projects, to address
the vagueness in the project sizes [62]. Gaussion mem-
bership functions are inherently adaptable, due to their
nonlinearity and also allow a smoother transition in
the intervals representing requirements, complexity and
SDLC as a linguistic variable as shown in Fig. 2 and
3. For this reason, Gaussian membership functions
are used for fuzzing inputs and defuzzing output. The
“Gaussian” membership function for ‘Requirements’ is
shown in Fig. 2.
The input variables and the terms that defined accord-
ing to these variables in FL membership functions are
given in Table 2.
Membership functions for “Development Time”,
“Project Size”, “Experience”, “Risk” and “Complex-
ity” are Gaussian and similar to Fig. 2.
The “Gaussian” membership function for SDLC
selection is shown in Fig. 3. The terms ‘agile’, ‘pro-
totyping’, ‘IID’, ‘spiral’ and ‘waterfall’ are defined for
the output variable ‘SDLC’.
The fuzzy rules defined for SDLC selection are given
below with “Requirements”, “Development Time”,
known stable&well-known
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
 V. Öztürk / Selection of appropriate software development life cycle 805

Membership function plots

agile prototype Iterative-Incremental spiral waterfall

1

0.5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
output variable “SDLC(Agile. Ptype. IID. Spiral.Wfall)”

Fig. 3. SDLC selection output variable “SDLC”.

“Project Size”, “Experience”, “Complexity”, “Risk” As the project progresses and a greater degree of cer-
linguistic variable as inputs and “SDLC” selection as tainty is established in relation to the scope of the project
output; (and also as data starts to become available), then more
precise inputs of SDLC selection can be elicited [60].
1. If (requirements are not unstable and well known)
Examples of FL inference process for SDLC selec-
and (development time is not short) and (project
tion are shown in Fig. 4 and Table 3. All parts of the
size is not small) and (experience level is not expe-
fuzzy inference process from input to output are shown
rienced) and (risk is not high) then SDLC selection
simultaneously in Fig. 4. There are five rows and each
is waterfall.
row shows the fuzzy inference process of a rule for
2. If (requirements are unstable and not well known)
inputs and output.
and (development time is short) and (project size
The vertical lines show the input value of Fuzzier.
is not large) and (experience level is experienced)
The input values are shown in the 6th Fuzzy Inference
and (complexity is complex) and (risk is not low)
(underlined) of Table 3 (the output is waterfall).
then SDLC selection is prototyping.
The right bottom rectangle under the row 5 in the
3. If (requirements are unstable and not well known)
Fig. 4 shows the output of these instances, which
and (development time is not long) and (project
is the combination of output of rules. The centroid
size is not large) and (experience level is not less-
calculation, which is one of the most popular defuzzi-
experienced) and (complexity is not complex) and
fication method, was used for generating the crisp
(risk is not low) then SDLC selection is agile.
output. This method returns the centre of area under
4. If (requirements are unstable and not well known)
the output curve. In this study, the output curve was
and (development time is not long) and (project
interpreted for decision of SDLC selection. For exam-
size is not large) and (complexity is not simple)
ple, FL advises to use waterfall in the conditions given
then SDLC selection is IID.
above as shown in Fig. 4. Figure 4 shows only one
5. If (requirements are unstable and not well known)
instance of the process. Each fuzzy linguistic vari-
and (development time is not long) and (project
able input of SDLC Selection can take 100 various
size is not small) and (experience level is not less-
values. An expert or project manager or someone
experienced) and (complexity is not simple) and
should take 100*100*100*100*100*100 (there are six
(risk is not low) then SDLC selection is spiral.
inputs and each can take 100 various values) conditions
It was tried to keep the number of rules as small (1006 = 1.000 billion) into account without using FL,
as possible. The capability to relate the rules typically which seems impossible or very difficult. If the expert
diminishes when the number of rules exceeds approxi- or project manager considers only the main conditions
mately fifteen [10]. like classical logic, which is explained in Section 4.1
806 V. Öztürk / Selection of appropriate software development life cycle

Fig. 4. FL inference process of SDLC selection (output is waterfall).

 V. Öztürk / Selection of appropriate software development life cycle 807

Table 3
Fuzzy inference process outputs for different input values
Criteria
# of FL example Input Requirements Development Project- Expertise Complexity Risk Output
time size
1.Fuzzy inference Input FL value unstable and not well known short small experienced medium high Agile
Input FL number 0.03/1 0.05/1 0.05/1 0.9/1 0.5/1 0.95/1
2.Fuzzy inference Input FL value unstable and not well known medium medium experienced high high Spiral
Input FL number 0.05/1 0.57/1 0.53/1 0.978/1 0.97/1 0.97/1
3.Fuzzy inference Input FL value unstable and not well known short large inexperienced high high IDD
Input FL number 0.02/1 0.03/1 0.98/1 0.04/1 0.97/1 0.97/1
4.Fuzzy inference Input FL value unstable and not well known short small experienced high high Prototyping
Input FL number 0.02/1 0.03/1 0.056/1 0.97/1 0.97/1 0.97/1
5.Fuzzy inference Input FL value unstable and not well known medium large experienced high high IDD-Spiral
Input FL number 0.05/1 0.57/1 0.978/1 0.978/1 0.97/1 0.97/1
6.Fuzzy inference Input FL value stable and well known long large adequate high medium Waterfall
Input FL number 0.9/1 0.9/1 0.95/1 0.5/1 0.9/1 0.5/1

(e.g. development time of 6 months or less is short, [29]. In such situations, Fuzzy Logic System can be
between 6–18 months is medium and above 18 months used to decide for another SDLC. In some organiza-
is long), the expert or project manager will take 36 (729) tions or projects, some work packages (especially big
conditions into account, which seems also very difficult. work packages) can be done by different groups. In this
According to the experiences and observations, it case, different life cycles can be used in work packages
may be difficult to be able to successfully apply any of the project. Fuzzy Logic System can also be used to
one type of SDLC exclusively to a project [63]. Most decide SDLCs in work packages.
SDLCs were designed to provide a model for achiev- The change of SDLC selection according to ‘Devel-
ing success only under a certain set of circumstances. opment Time’ and ‘Requirements Known & Change’
When the circumstances change beyond the limits of is shown in Fig. 5, where project size is small (0.1/1),
the SDLC, the results from using it are no longer experience is adequate (0.5/1), complexity is medium
predictable; therefore continuing of its use can cause (0.5/1), risk is medium (0.5/1). Fig. 5 shows the out-
unexpected results. In these situations, it is sometimes put of SDLC selection for many instances, where some
necessary to alter the existing SDLC to accommodate input parameters were made fixed.
the change in circumstances, or adopt/ combine dif- Table 3 shows fuzzy inference process outputs of
ferent SDLCs to accommodate the new circumstances fuzzy rules for different fuzzy input values.
SDLC(Agile.Ptpye.IID Spiral.Wfall)

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
Develo 0.4 0.4 wKn.)
pmen own,
t-Time
(Short 0.2 0.2 ts(UK, Kn
, M, L 0 ir emen
ong) 0 Requ

Fig. 5. The change of SDLC selection according to “Development Time” and “Requirements”.
808 V. Öztürk / Selection of appropriate software development life cycle
5. Conclusions
There is not enough information in the literature
about the criteria and their impact on selection of
appropriate Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC).
Some information seems opposite or different for some
criteria. It is difficult to decide for some of SDLC cri-
teria. For example, it is obvious from the literature that
Iterative and Incremental Development (IID) is appro-
priate when complexity of system is high. What about
when complexity of system is medium? According to
some other information, it seems that IDD is appro-
priate, but it is hard to find obvious evidence in the
literature in such cases.
Aside from a lot of SDLCs in literature, some SDLCs
are more frequently used than others. Frequently used
SDLCs (waterfall, prototyping, agile, IDD and spiral)
were taken into account in the SDLC selection of this
study. All types of SDLCs are nearly covered with these
selected SDLCs in a general or similar manner.
A Fuzzy Logic (FL) system was developed accord-
ing to the elicited information about the criteria and
their affect on selecting suitable SDLCs in various
cases. The FL system is aimed to help project man-
agers and software developers for selecting appropriate
SDLC(s).
We should take 1006 (1.000 billion) conditions into
account for SDLC selection at the same accuracy of
FL, which is impossible or very difficult. If the main
conditions are in consideration of SDLC selection as
classical logic, then we must take 36 (729) conditions
into account, which is also very difficult.
The developed FL system was tested for various
inputs which some them is shown in Fig. 4 and Table 3
and improved according to the test results (e.g. rules
were enhanced).
It was seen that the fuzzy membership functions and
parameters could be improved according to the new
information and empirical case studies. In other words,
if we have more information about previous and cur-
rent projects such as selected life cycle, complexity,
success, etc. then we can improve FL system for better
estimation.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Burak Selçuk Soyer,
Abdulkerim Öncü and Ahmet Parlak from TÜBİTAK
BİLGEM for their valuable support.
References
[1] L.C. Alexander and A.M. Davis, Computer Software and
Applications Conference, COMPSAC ’91 Proceedings of the
15th Annual International Conference 1991.
[2] G. Holodnik-Janczura and I. Golińska, Decision Sup-
port System For Choosing A Model For A Software
Development Life Cycle. Wroclaw University of Technol-
ogy. [Online] 2010. [Cited: 2 12, 2012.] http://www.ioz.
pwr.wroc.pl/boid/artykuly/1-2010/art-4-holodnik.pdf
[3] O. Benediktsson, D. Dalcher and H. Thorbergsson, Com-
parison of software development life cycles: A multiproject
experiment, IEE Proc.-Software 153(3) (2006), 87–88.
[4] A. Farrell, Selecting a Software Development Methodology
based on Organizational Characteristics. Athabasca, Alberta:
s.n., MSc Thesis, 2007.
[5] Selecting a development approach. Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services. [Online] CMS. [Cited: 02 12, 2012.]
https://www.cms.gov/SystemLifecycleFramework/Downloads
/SelectingDevelopmentApproach.pdf
[6] S. McConnell, Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software
Schedules, Microsoft Press, Washington, 1996.
[7] Extreme Chaos. Small Footprint Inc. Web Site. [Online]
2001. [Cited: 01 12, 2011.] http://www.smallfootprint.
com/Portals/0/StandishGroupExtremeChaos2001.pdf
[8] Choosing an SDLC. GEM-UP Consulting Inc. [Online]
2008. [Cited: 02 12, 2012.] http://www.gem-up.com/PDF/
SK903V0-WP-ChoosingSDLC.pdf
[9] M.H. Kasirun and M. Zarinah, Using Rule-Based Technique In
Developing The Tool For Finding Suitable Software Methodol-
ogy, 2, s.l., Malaysian Journal of Computer Science 20 (2007),
209–224.
[10] C.J. Lakhmi and N.M. Martin, Fusion of Neural Networks,
Fuzzy Systems and Genetic Algorithms: Industrial Applica-
tions s.l., CRC Press LLC, 1998.
[11] C. Ebert, Classification techniques for metric-based software
development. 5, Software Quality Journal, Springer, Antwerp,
Belgium (1996), 255–272.
[12] S. Nand, A. Kaur and S. Jain, Use of Fuzzy Logic in Soft-
ware Development. 2, Issues in Information Systems, 8 (2007),
238–244.
[13] K. KoteswaraRao, et al., Optimization of Decision Paths by
Using Fuzzy Logic. 27, International Journal of Computer
Applications Foundation of Computer Science, USA, 1,
(2010), 79.
[14] A. Gray, and S. MacDonell, Fuzzy Logic for Software
Metric Models throughout the Development Life-Cycle. Uni-
versity of Otago. [Online] 1999. [Cited: 02 12, 2012.]
Discussion Paper 99/20, Dunedin, New Zealand. http://
eprints.otago.ac.nz/1004/. ISSN 1172–6024
[15] D.A. Gustafson, Theory and Problems of Software Engineer-
ing, Computing and Information Sciences Department Kansas
State University, Schaum’s Outline Series, s.l., McGRAW-
HILL, 2002.
[16] Lifecycle Model Selection. Construx Software Builders, Inc.
Web Site. [Online] 2002. [Cited: 2 12, 2012.] http://www.
construx.com/File.ashx?cid=817
[17] D. Bolton, Software Lifecycle. http://cplus.about.com
Online2011. [Cited: 02 12, 2012.] http://cplus.about.com/
od/glossary/g/gloslifecycle.htm
[18] W. Scacchi, Process Models in Software Engineering
Institute for Software Research, Encyclopedia of Software
Engineering, 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, NewYork,
 V. Öztürk / Selection of appropriate software development life cycle
2001. http://www.ics.uci.edu/∼wscacchi/Papers/SE-Encyc/
Process-Models-SE-Encyc.pdf
[19] A. Abran et al., Guide to the Software Engineering Body of
Knowledge SWEBOK, IEEE Computer Society, California,
(2004).
[20] I. Sommerville, Software Engineering, 6th edition, Addison-
Wesley, USA, 2000.
[21] What is systems development life cycle (SDLC)? http://
www.techtarget.com. [Online] 2001. [Cited: 02 12, 2012.]
http://searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com/definition/systems
-development-life-cycle
[22] Software development process. www.wikipedia.org.
[Online] [Cited: 2 12, 2012.] http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/
Software development life cycle
[23] Software Engineering Issues. NPTEL National Programme
on Technology Enchanced Learning. [Cited: 2 12, 2012.]
http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/Webcourse-contents/IIT%20
Kharagpur/Embedded%20systems/Pdf/Lesson-33.pdf
[24] L.C. Liu and E. Horowitz, A Formal Model For Software
Project Management, IEEE Transactions On Software Engi-
neering, 15(10) (1989), 1280.
[25] J.T. Marchewka, Information Technology Project Manage-
ment, s.l., Wiley, 2002.
[26] Application Development Standard: Standards for SDLC.
http://www.mgs.gov.on.ca [Online] [Cited: 02 12, 2012.]
http://www.mgs.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/content/@
mgs/@goits/documents/resourcelist/241105.pdf
[27] A.M. Davis, E.H.B. Bersoff and E. Comer, A Strategy for Com-
paring Alternative Software Development Life Cycle Models,
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
14(10) (1988) 10.
[28] Iterative and incremental development. Wikipedia. [Online]
[Cited: 2 12, 2012.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Iterative
and incremental development
[29] A Survey of System Development. Center for Technology
in Government. [Online] [Cited: 02 12, 2012.] http://
www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/survey of sysdev/
survey of sysdev.pdf
[30] A. Deeb, Software Development Methodologies in Industry,
Master degree in Software Engineering [Thesis]. Australian
National University, 6 (2010).
[31] C. Larman, Agile & Iterative Development A Manager’s
Guide, Addison-Wesley, Westford, Massachusetts, 2004,
ISBN 0131111558.
[32] M.L. Todd, Selecting A Development Approach For
Competitive Advantage. [Online] [Cited: 2 12, 2012.]
http://www.slideshare.net/mtoddne/selecting-a-development-
approach-for-competitive-advantage
[33] L. Westfall, The Certified Software Quality Engineer Hand-
book, Quality Press, Milwaukee: American Society for
Quality, (2010), p. 140.
[34] Spiral model. http://en.wikipedia.org. [Online] [Cited: 2 12,
2012.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral model
[35] B.W. Boehm, A Spiral Model of Software Development and
Enhancement. 5, s.l. : IEEE, IEEE Computer 21 (1988), 61–72.
[36] A. Cockburn, Agile Software Development. s.l.: Addison-
Wesley Professional, (2001), p. 175.
[37] A Practical Guide to Seven Agile Methodologies. http://
www.devx.com. [Online] 02 12, 2012. http://www.devx.
com/architect/Article/32836-1954
[38] D.E. Strode, The agile methods: An analytical comparison of
five agile methods and an investigation of their target envi-
ronment. [MSc. Thesis]. Palmerston North, New Zeland : s.n.,
2005.
809
[39] B. Boehm, Get Ready for Agile Methods with Care. 1,
s.l.: IEEE, Computer, 35(1) (2002), 64–69. http://citeseerx.
ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.87.5651&rep=rep1
&type=pdf. ISSN: 0018-9162
[40] M.C. Paulk, et al., Capability Maturity Model for Soft-
ware, Version 1.1. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania : Software
Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University, 1993.
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/93tr024.pdf
[41] K. Meinke Software Lifecycle Models, Organization
KTH Computer Science and Communication. [Online]
2005. [Cited: 2 12, 2012.] http://www.nada.kth.se/∼karlm/
prutt05/lectures/prutt05 lec6.pdf
[42] A.E. Dillman, Selecting a Software Development Life
Cycle. SMCI International, [Online] 2003. [Cited: 2 12,
2012.] White Paper. http://www.smc-i.com/downloads/sdlc
methodology.pdf
[43] K.K. Aggarwal and Y. Singh, Software Engineering. [Online]
2007. [Cited: 2 12, 2012.] http://www.scribd.com/doc/2139
0992/Chapter-2-Software-Development-Life-Cycle-Models
[44] R.D. Archibald, Life Cycle Models For High-Technology
Projects – Applying Systems Thinking To Managing
Projects. russarchibald.com/ [Online] 2003. [Cited: 7 28,
2010.] Presented to the PMI-Central Iowa Chapter,
Professional Development Day. http://www.russarchibald.
com/files/LIFECYCLEMODELSFORHI-TECHPROJECTS.
pdf
[45] D.H. Desaulniers, R.J. Anderson and TN. Nashville, Matching
Software Development Life Cycles to the Project Environ-
ment. Newtown Square: s.n., 2001. Proceedings of the Project
Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Project
Management Institute.
[46] S. Bhattacharjee, Software Development Life Cycle
(SDLC). College of Agricultural Banking. [Online]
[Cited: 04 24, 2011.] Maharashtra, India. http://cab.org.in
/Lists/Knowledge%20Bank/Attachments/83/SDLC.pdf
[47] A.K. Verma, R. Anil and O.P. Jain, Fuzzy Logic Based
Revised Defect Rating for Software Lifecycle Performance
Prediction Using GMR. BVICAM’S International Jour-
nal Of Information Technology, New Delhi, s.n., 2008.
http://www.bvicam.ac.in/BVICAM%20IJIT/Downloads/pdf/
issue1/01-J08.pdf
[48] R.M. Wideman, Project Management Methodologies By Jason
Charvat, published by Wiley, NJ, 2003 (A book review by R.
Max Wideman). www.maxwideman.com. [Online] 8 7, 2005.
[Cited: 2 12, 2012.] http://www.maxwideman.com/papers/pm-
methodologies/pm methodologies.pdf
[49] O. Eljabir and F.P. Deek, Tailoring the Software Pro-
cess Model to Project requirements, Citeseer Scientific
Literature Digital Library and Search Engine. [Online]
[Cited: 2 12, 2012.] http://eljabiri1.tripod.com /sitebuildercon-
tent/sitebuilderfiles/paper5.pdf
[50] R.F.D. Turk and B. Rumpe, Limitations of Agile Software
Processes, Proceedings of the Third International Con-
ference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes
in Software Engineering, XP, 2002. retrieved at 24th
April of 2011 from http://cf.agilealliance.org/articles/
system/article/file/1096/file.pdf
[51] Introduction to Software Engineering. New Age Inter-
national. [Online] [Cited: 4 24, 2011.] http://www.
newagepublishers.com/samplechapter/001629.pdf. Software
Engineering Sample Chapter
[52] M.A. Awad, A Comparison between Agile and Traditional
Software Development Methodologies. [MSc. Thesis]. The
Univers of Western Australia, Western Australia , 2005.
810 V. Öztürk / Selection of appropriate software development life cycle
[53] Y. Berra, Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC).
DePaul University. [Online] [Cited: 2 12, 2012.] http://
condor.depaul.edu/jpetlick/extra/394/Session2.ppt
[54] A. Marchenko, Risk Agile Software Development, Agile
Software Development. [Online] [Cited: 5 1, 2011.] http://
agilesoftwaredevelopment.com/tags/risk
[55] L.A. Zadeh, Computers and mathematics with applications,
fuzzy logic and the calculi of fuzzy rules, Fuzzy Graphs, and
Fuzzy Probabilities, s.l., Elsevier Science Ltd, 37 1999.
[56] V.B. Rao, C++ Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic, s.l., M&T
Books, IDG Books Worldwide Inc, 1995.
[57] A. Konar, Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing Behav-
ioral and Cognitive Modeling of the Human Brain, s.l., CRC
Press, 2000.
[58] What Is Fuzzy Logic? The MathWorks, Inc. Web Site.
[Online] [Cited: 2 12, 2012.] http://www.mathworks.com/
help/toolbox/fuzzy/fp72.html
[59] M.J. Mende, Fuzzy Logic Systems for Engineering: A Tutorial,
Proceedings of the IEEE 83(3) (1995), 347.
[60] A. Gray and S. MacDonell, Applications of Fuzzy Logic
to Software Metric Models for Development Effort Esti-
mation. CiteSeer Scientific Literature Digital Library and
Search Engine. 7 1997. [Cited: 2 12, 2012.] http://citeseerx.
ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=71B513DE5037B
F8C3FAEB433542D372D?doi=10.1.1.10.6929&rep=rep1&
type=pdf. ISSN 1172-6024
[61] V. Marza and M.A. Seyyedi, Fuzzy Multiple Regression
Model for Estimating Software Development Time. 2, Vienna,
Austria: s.n., International Journal of Engineering Business
Management, 1(9) 2009, 79–82.
[62] V. Sharma and H.K. Verma, Optimized Fuzzy Logic Based
Framework for Effort Estimation in Software Development,
IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 7 2,
3 (2010) ISSN (Online): 1694-0784 ISSN (Print): 1694-0814.
[63] M. Al-Maharmeh, Applying a Composite Process Framework
(CPF) in Real Life Software Development Project, IEEE Sixth
International Conference on Information Technology: New
Generation, 2009.
 Copyright of Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems is the property of IOS Press and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

View publication stats