Deficiency of SDLC Models In The Development of Mobile

Applications: A Survey

Abstract
In the recent years, development of mobile applications is at the forefront of software
engineering due to the enhancement of various smartphones platforms. This makes traditional
software development life cycle models not suitable for modern mobile application development.
At present, design and development of perfect model for mobile app development has become a
great challenge. Different developers choose different approaches to make their applications
which makes them to compromise on different factors such as cost, time, platform used,
resources, change management, and success rate etc. The study in this review paper is an attempt
to highlight the issues and challenges identified in the process of application development along
with the methodologies used for their development.

Keywords:
SDLC- Software Development Life Cycle
MAD-Mobile App Development
SLR Systematic Literature Review
SE- Software Engineering

Introduction
Mobile apps started gaining fame in 2007, after the launch of first iPhone and that was a never
ending journey. Now a days, there are hundreds of millions of mobile application users. Mobile
apps facilitate users to do all kind of activities with just a click on their mobiles. However,
traditional software development life cycle models are not suitable to fulfill the demand of
increases masses. There is a need to increase customer acquisition as well as to bring innovation
in conventional development tools and models.
All the available SDLC frameworks have their own ups and downs. Whereas, mobile application
development differs with them in context of various characteristics such as user interface,
security, native or web based applications, and screen size [1]. In MAD, developers also faces
challenges that how these applications efficiently deal with heterogeneous environment using
narrow range of resources. Along with that, this development process needs to be completed in
short span of time and with less cost to compete with the market place [2].
On google play store the number of mobile applications have crossed 3.5 million till 2023. Detail
Statistics of mobile applications is given below in Table 1 which shows increase demand of
mobile applications as well as innovation in them also.
 Table 1: Statistics of Mobile Apps
S. No. Mobile Apps Related Value
Description
1 Number of Android Apps in 3.553 million
Google Play Store.

2 Free Apps in the market 96.9%

3 Paid Apps in the market 3.1%

MAD have been divided into three categories:

1. Native
2. Web based applications
3. Hybrid
Some app store like apple store or google play store is required to install the first category of
mobile applications. They require mobile operating systems to complete their functionalities [3].
The second category complete their execution on web based servers and requires web browsers
for acquiring them. This increases their portability among different hardware devices. Whereas
the hybrid mobile apps are the combination of both infrastructures of native and web based
applications (JavaScript, HTML, and CSS) [4].
Conventional software engineering frameworks have been eliminated gradually somehow for
MAD because they lack in portability, scalability, user experience, input technology and
security. In term of user interface and experience, mobile apps have brought a whole new
concept of study of human computer interaction which involve more input techniques. Thus, in
order to compete with market and technology for ages and to produce high quality applications,
MAD companies need to accept changes in their umbrella activities of development life cycle
such as selection of different frameworks, tools, and testing techniques. This study attempts to
bring out the main problems and challenges identified in the process of MAD along with the
methodologies and frameworks used for their development. It will help development industry to
pick and tailor the processes that help in development of user-friendly applications.

Literature Review
Although, there are millions of users of mobile applications, still there is a lot of scope for the
researchers to work in the field of MAD [5]. Most regular challenges that were studied are
testing techniques, fragmentation, usability, deficiency of supporting tools and expertise, and
change acceptance and management.[6] By conducting interviews with Mobile application
developers and by performing SLR, above mentioned issues were identified along with other
issues such as absence of training, and management of knowledge, and deficiency of other
communication mediums. This study was also mapped with the SE Body of Knowledge which
confirms that that these problems are linked with the professional practices of SE such as
software requirement planning and design, and implementation, and maintenance.
From the aspect of industry and Mobile application developers, there is much emphasis of cross-
platform MAD which also bring technical issues on the surface [7]. An online survey was
conducted which highlights the problems related to experience of consumers, performance level,
and enhancement of other technical frameworks. On comparison of MAD, with the traditional
software development methodologies, both may seems to be alike but there exist a huge
difference between them in all developmental aspects [4]. These differential characteristics have
been classified as software and hardware tools as well as communication channels. Other
identified issues related to non-functional aspects include technological tools for input, usability,
portability, management of information, and security. All these highlighted features of mobile
applications make them unfit for traditional SDLC models such as waterfall, agile or spiral
methodologies [11].
All the past related studies are summarized in the table given below:
Table 2: Summary of Previous Works for MAD
Sr. Ref Year Published In Proposed Methodology Issues/Challenges Identified
# No.
1 [4] 2015 Springer Reviews analysis of Usability, Functional Issues,
Multi-labeled data Average time for response,
Recycling of code.
2 [8] 2016 IRJET Review Study MAD differs from traditional
methodologies in term of
software and hardware
aspects as well as
communication techniques,
technology for input
mechanism, information
management and portability.
3 [10] 2016 IEEE Analysis of upcoming There is no genuine tool for
trends in SE for MAD app development
4 [11] 2016 Springer Classification algorithm Problems related to ratings of
for reviews of texts, requests for
applications and functionalities, error reports
Interviews from and experience of consumers.
professionals.
5 [12] 2016 IJCSCT Investigation of reviews Requirement analysis and
collection, modeling and
design, testing techniques,
battery consumption and
trust.
6 [13] 2017 EASE Categorization of Non- Application developers
functional such as should have detailed
 performance, utility, and knowledge of Non-functional
reliability. requirements such as
evolution
7 [3] 2017 IEEE Performance Web based are more reliable
measurement of Web than native in terms of
based and native average time for response,
applications requests handling, retrieval of
data and power drainage.
8 [14] 2017 Springer 126,000 responses were More frequent
collected for top 2,328 communication with users is
free more liked required.
applications.

9 [15] 2017 Research Study Collection of Identified problems were

suggestions from related to storage of
consumers on the basis information, errors finding
of Reviews of Mobile and debugging, energy and
Applications. cost estimation.
10 [16] 2017 IJCSCCT New SDLC model Already existing models are
which combines both not best fit for MAD, thus a
feature-driven new model based on agile is
development and proposed.
components of extreme
programming for MAD
11 [17] 2018 IEEE Conduction of SLR to Challenges identified in
evaluate techniques of requirement elicitation
requirement elicitation. process.
12 [18] 2018 JKSU SLR as well as MAD is different in all
comparison study of factors.
testing tools for
Conventional and MAD
models.
13 [19] 2018 IJSE & KE Classification of issues Compatibility and
by using Modeling of connectivity problems,
Interpretive structure Invisible cost factor as well
modeling as operating system.
14 [20] 2018 Elsievier Intelligent mining for Deficiency of techniques that
Extraction of MAD support feedback of
related information consumers

15 [21] 2018 IEEE SLR Major faced problems include

Fragmentation, code
recycling, software quality
assurance techniques and
security and safety.
16 [22] 2019 IJTES Qualitative Comparison Inconsistent requirements,
 of different MAD platform stability,
processes. fragmentation, cost and time
related issues, user feedback
17 [7] 2019 Wiley Online Survey of Cross Different tools for MAD such
Platform MAD using as the Ionic Framework and
Industry view PhoneGap are popular but
difficult to use.
18 [23] 2019 IEEE Comparison study of Agile can be suitable to meet
Agile Techniques for different aspects for MAD
MAD but not all at same time.
19 [24] 2019 IEEE Survey of Industry tools Challenges identified in terms
such Appium, of security, integration as
MonkeyRunner, well as regression testing
Robotium for MAD processes.

20 [25] 2020 IEEE New development Development of new

framework with basics framework is a challenging
of agile task

21 [26] 2020 IEEE Discussion of Selection Framework Selection is a

criteria for different critical process
frameworks of MAD
22 [27] 2020 IEEE Use of third party library Third party library is itself
challenging to fit best.
23 [28] 2021 IJCS Cross Platform MAD Access of hardware
resources, manual testing and
less support from such
communities.
24 [29] 2022 KeAi Use of Deep Learning Few computational resources,
Communication applications for MAD limitation of information and
s security concerns
25 [30] 2022 MDPI Waterfall Less flexibility and customer
involvement
26 [31] 2022 IJST McCall’s Quality Model Quantitative matrices were
compromised, security and
subjectivity
27 [32] 2022 JKSU SLR and comparison of MAD is different from
software test estimation traditional SE in all factors.
techniques between
traditional and mobile
application models
28 [33] 2023 Review Study Survey Analysis of SE Platform portability and
for MAD change management

Research Methodology
 1. Data Gathering and Analysis Technique
A systematic literature review is performed to investigate the deficiency of SDLC Models
in the development of Mobile Applications. 28 relevant research studies from 2015 to
2023 have been selected for this purpose on the basis of following criteria:
 The proposed methodology is understandable and suitable
 Any problems or difficulties relating to the MAD were discussed in this study
 Results and findings are made explicit.
 Does this study paper have enough related and cited literature?

2. Challenges Identified in Literature Review

The main goal of this study is to find out real problems faced during the process of MAD.
The identified problems are divided into two categories and are listed below in table 3.
Table 3: Functional and Non Functional Requirement Issues
Sr. # Functional Issues Non-Functional Issues

1 Deficiency of Models Deficiency of tools and Framework

2 Fragmentation Security

3 User Interface and Design Testing

4 Platform Selection Compatibility

5 Code Reusability Cost Estimation

Conclusion and Future Work

In recent decade, the popularity of mobile applications has emerged tremendously which is
causing heavy workload for development industry. Research approach of systematic literature
review is adopted in this review study and it will help to identify potential challenges.
Fragmentation, testing mechanisms, interface issues, Deficiency of frameworks are some of the
important challenges identified where mobile applications should be consistent in all factors. But
in present, the developing applications either compromise on consistency in different factors or
design language. To handle these problems, there is a need to develop new framework of
software development life cycle according to the domain of MAD or already existing models
should be tailored.
One of these modifications can be adopted by using Mobile-specific phases in SDLC
frameworks. These phases may include tasks such as platform selection, screen size
optimization, cross-platform compatibility testing, mobile performance testing, and security
considerations specific to mobile platforms.
Reference
[1] Wasserman, A. I. (2010, November). Software engineering issues for mobile application
development. In Proceedings of the FSE/SDP workshop on Future of software engineering
research (pp. 397-400).
[2] Corral, L., Sillitti, A., & Succi, G. (2015). Software assurance practices for mobile applications: A
survey of the state of the art. Computing, 97, 1001-1022.
[3] Ma, Y., Liu, X., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., & Huang, G. (2017). A tale of two fashions: An empirical study on
the performance of native apps and web apps on android. IEEE Transactions on Mobile
Computing, 17(5), 990-1003.
[4] Malavolta, I., Ruberto, S., Soru, T., & Terragni, V. (2015, May). Hybrid mobile apps in the google
play store: An exploratory investigation. In 2015 2nd ACM international conference on mobile
software engineering and systems (pp. 56-59). IEEE.
[5] Nagappan, M., & Shihab, E. (2016, March). Future trends in software engineering research for
mobile apps. In 2016 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and
Reengineering (SANER) (Vol. 5, pp. 21-32). IEEE.
[6] Ahmad, A., Li, K., Feng, C., Asim, S. M., Yousif, A., & Ge, S. (2018). An empirical study of
investigating mobile applications development challenges. IEEE Access, 6, 17711-17728.
[7] Biørn-Hansen, A., Grønli, T. M., Ghinea, G., & Alouneh, S. (2019). An empirical study of cross-
platform mobile development in industry. Wireless Communications and Mobile
Computing, 2019.
[8] Mushtaq, Ziema & Kirmani, Mudasir & Andrabi, Syed Mohsin & Wahid, Abdul. (2018). Mobile
Application Development: Issues and Challenges.
[9] Pandey, M., Litoriya, R., & Pandey, P. (2019). Novel approach for mobile based app
development incorporating MAAF. Wireless Personal Communications, 107(4), 1687-1708.
[10]McIlroy, S., Ali, N., Khalid, H., & E. Hassan, A. (2016). Analyzing and automatically labelling the
types of user issues that are raised in mobile app reviews. Empirical Software Engineering, 21,
1067-1106.
[11]Maalej, W., Kurtanović, Z., Nabil, H., & Stanik, C. (2016). On the automatic classification of app
reviews. Requirements Engineering, 21, 311-331.
[12]Pandey, M., Litoriya, R., & Pandey, P. (2016). Impact of various critical factors on Mobile App
development based on reviews: An Investigative Study. Technia, 9(1), 1097-1105.
[13]Lu, M., & Liang, P. (2017, June). Automatic classification of non-functional requirements from
augmented app user reviews. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation
and Assessment in Software Engineering (pp. 344-353).
[14]Hassan, S., Tantithamthavorn, C., Bezemer, C. P., & Hassan, A. E. (2018). Studying the
dialogue between users and developers of free apps in the google play store. Empirical Software
Engineering, 23, 1275-1312.
[15]Lian, H. (2017). Identifying User Suggestions from Mobile App Reviews.
[16]Pandey, M., Litoriya, R., & Pandey, P. (2017). Novel Approach for Mobile Based App
Development Incorporating MAAF. Technia, 9(2), 1114-1128.
[17]Dar, H., Lali, M. I., Ashraf, H., Ramzan, M., Amjad, T., & Shahzad, B. (2018). A systematic study
on software requirements elicitation techniques and its challenges in mobile application
development. IEEE Access, 6, 63859-63867.
[18]Kaur, A., & Kaur, K. (2022). Systematic literature review of mobile application development and
testing effort estimation. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information
Sciences, 34(2), 1-15.
[19]Pandey, M., Litoriya, R., & Pandey, P. (2018). An ISM approach for modeling the issues and
factors of mobile app development. International Journal of Software Engineering and
Knowledge Engineering, 28(07), 937-953.
[20]Tavakoli, M., Zhao, L., Heydari, A., & Nenadić, G. (2018). Extracting useful software
development information from mobile application reviews: A survey of intelligent mining
techniques and tools. Expert Systems with Applications, 113, 186-199.
[21]Dar, H., Lali, M. I., Ashraf, H., Ramzan, M., Amjad, T., & Shahzad, B. (2018). A systematic study
on software requirements elicitation techniques and its challenges in mobile application
development. IEEE Access, 6, 63859-63867.
[22]Asfour, A., Zain, S., Salleh, N., & Grundy, J. (2019). Exploring agile mobile app development in
industrial contexts: A qualitative study. International Journal of Technology in Education and
Science, 3(1), 29-46.
[23]Mathur, B., & Satapathy, S. M. (2019, April). An analytical comparison of mobile application
development using agile methodologies. In 2019 3rd International Conference on Trends in
Electronics and Informatics (ICOEI) (pp. 1147-1152). IEEE.
[24]Arif, K. S., & Ali, U. (2019, January). Mobile Application testing tools and their challenges: A
comparative study. In 2019 2nd International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and
Engineering Technologies (iCoMET) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
[25]Martinez, D., Ferre, X., Guerrero, G., & Juristo, N. (2020). An agile-based integrated framework
for mobile application development considering ilities. IEEE Access, 8, 72461-72470.
[26]Khachouch, M. K., Korchi, A., Lakhrissi, Y., & Moumen, A. (2020, June). Framework Choice
Criteria for Mobile Application Development. In 2020 International Conference on Electrical,
Communication, and Computer Engineering (ICECCE) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
[27]Chen, J., Li, B., Wang, J., Zhao, Y., Yao, L., & Xiong, Y. (2020). Knowledge graph enhanced
third-party library recommendation for mobile application development. IEEE Access, 8, 42436-
42446.
[28]Zohud, T., & Zein, S. (2021). Cross-platform mobile app development in industry: A multiple
case-study. International Journal of Computing, 20(1), 46-54.
[29]Wang, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, W., Zhan, Y., Guo, S., Zheng, Q., & Wang, X. (2022). A survey on
deploying mobile deep learning applications: A systemic and technical perspective. Digital
Communications and Networks, 8(1), 1-17.
[30]Ryu, H., Piao, M., Kim, H., Yang, W., & Kim, K. H. (2022). Development of a Mobile Application
for Smart Clinical Trial Subject Data Collection and Management. Applied Sciences, 12(7), 3343.
[31]Banes, A. (2022). Development of App-Based E-Board Announcement System with SMS
Support. Indian J. Sci. Technol, 15, 640-648.
[32]Kaur, A., & Kaur, K. (2022). Systematic literature review of mobile application development and
testing effort estimation. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information
Sciences, 34(2), 1-15.
[33]Eldeen Ayman Mounir, S. (2023). Software engineering for mobile applications, a survey on
challenges and solutions. arXiv e-prints, arXiv-2301.