Research Paper
qtvndrr1
SDLCResearchPaper.pdf
Rev. 2 06/14/2017 1
System Development Life Cycle Research Paper
Purpose of this Assignment
This assignment gives you the opportunity to apply your research skills, analysis, and
critical thinking skills to compare and contrast two different system development life cycle
(SDLC) models. This will provide you an opportunity to gain an in-depth understanding of
this important IT governance and management tool. This assignment specifically
addresses the following course outcome:
• Identify, define, and explain the concepts of information technology governance and
management.
Assignment
You will conduct some research to learn about the Waterfall Model of SDLC and another
model of your choosing. You will then describe both models and compare and contrast
them. Select one of the SDLC models listed below:
• Spiral Model
• Agile (Extreme Programming) Model
• Evolutionary Prototyping Model
• Iterative and Incremental Model
Research and write a paper that describes the Waterfall Model and your chosen model. Your
descriptions should include each model’s purpose and structure (or characteristics) along
with its strengths and weaknesses. It should describe the types of system development
efforts for which it is most appropriate. Then, compare and contrast your selected model
with the Waterfall Model, covering the criteria shown in Section IV below. Finally, you will
document the conclusions you reached from your research, which may include such things
as which model is "better," when each model should be used, whether one or the other
should not be used, or whether it makes any difference which one is used. The conclusions
are your own and will be assessed according to how well you defend them and how
convincing your arguments are.
Your paper should be structured as follows:
I. Introduction
II. Waterfall Model (description, purpose, structure/characteristics, strengths and
weaknesses)
III. Chosen Model (description, purpose, structure/characteristics, strengths and
weaknesses)
IV. Comparison of the Two Models. Using the table below, choose which model is
better for each of the criteria listed and explain why it is the better choice – enter
your answer in the table column under the appropriate model and leave the
corresponding cell for the other model blank.
Rev. 2 06/14/2017 2
Criterion Waterfall Model Other Model (insert name)
Ease of use
Applicability for complex
projects
Applicability to projects of
all sizes
Encourages/allows customer
involvement
Interfaces with other
systems or development
projects
V. Conclusion (conclusions you drew from your research and analysis, including the
table above on the two models).
Your paper will be graded on both the accuracy and completeness of your descriptions; it
needs to clearly and completely define each model and its strengths and weaknesses. The
comparisons will be graded based on the extent to which they are supported by facts and
are drawn from the descriptions. The conclusions should be well justified, and drawn from
the rest of the paper. Illustrations will enhance your paper if they contribute to an
understanding of the model.
Your paper should be 3-5 pages in length (not counting any cover sheet or reference
pages). The use of at least three external scholarly resources (other than class
materials) is required. You should use scholarly journals (rather than authorless website
postings). If you need assistance with determining what a scholarly journal is, the UMUC
library is a very good source of information, accessed via the following link:
http://www.umuc.edu/library/libhow/articles.cfm. Remember to correctly cite and reference
all sources using APA format.
Submit your paper in Word format via your Assignments Folder as an attached document
with your last name included in the filename.
Grading Rubric
Use the rubric below to be sure you have covered all aspects of this assignment.
Criteria
90-100%
Far Above Standards
80-89%
Above Standards
70-79% Meets Standards
60-69%
Below Standards
< 60%
Well Below Standards
Possible Points
Introduction
5 Points
A sophisticated introduction sets
the stage for the paper.
4 Points
A well-written introduction sets
the stage for the paper.
3.5 Points
The introduction adequately sets
the stage for the paper.
3 Points
The introduction does not
adequately set the stage for the
paper.
0-2 Points
No introduction
included.
5
Rev. 2 06/14/2017 3
Criteria
90-100%
Far Above Standards
80-89%
Above Standards
70-79% Meets Standards
60-69%
Below Standards
< 60%
Well Below Standards
Possible Points
Description of Waterfall
Model
18-20 Points
Description of waterfall model
is accurate and thorough;
includes description,
purpose,
characteristics, strengths and
weaknesses; and demonstrates
sophisticated
understanding of course concepts.
16-17 Points
Description of waterfall model
is correct and complete;
includes description,
purpose,
characteristics, strengths and
weaknesses; and
demonstrates
good understanding
of course concepts.
14-15 Points
Description of waterfall model
includes description,
purpose, characteristics,
strengths and
weaknesses; and demonstrates
adequate understanding of
course concepts.
12-13 Points
Description of waterfall model
may be incomplete,
and/or may not demonstrate
adequate
understanding of course
concepts.
0-11 Points
Description of waterfall
model is not included or
little is presented.
20
Description
of Chosen Model
18-20 Points
Description of
chosen model is accurate and
thorough; includes
description,
purpose, characteristics,
strengths and weaknesses; and
demonstrates
sophisticated understanding of
course concepts.
16-17 Points
Description of
chosen model is correct and
complete; includes
description,
purpose, characteristics,
strengths and weaknesses;
and
demonstrates good
understanding of course
concepts.
14-15 Points
Description of
chosen model includes
description, purpose,
characteristics,
strengths and weaknesses; and
demonstrates adequate
understanding of
course concepts.
12-13 Points
Description of
chosen model may be
incomplete, and/or may not
demonstrate
adequate understanding
of course concepts.
0-11 Points
Description of
chosen model is not included
or little is presented.
20
Comparison
of the Two
Models
23-25 Points
The comparison of the two
models is clear, compelling, and
directly related
to the models, demonstrating a
sophisticated understanding of
course concepts, analysis, critical
20-22 Points
The comparison of the two
models is clear, and is directly
related to the
models, demonstrating a
good understanding
of course concepts,
17-19 Points
The comparison of the two models is
related to the models;
demonstrates
adequate understanding of
course concepts, analysis, and
critical thinking.
15-16 Points
The comparison of the two
models may not be clear, may
not be directly
related to the models; and/or
may not demonstrate
adequate understanding
0-14 Points
Few or no comparisons
are provided.
25
Rev. 2 06/14/2017 4
Criteria
90-100%
Far Above Standards
80-89%
Above Standards
70-79% Meets Standards
60-69%
Below Standards
< 60%
Well Below Standards
Possible Points
thinking, and synthesis.
analysis, critical thinking, and
synthesis.
of course concepts,
analysis, and critical thinking.
Conclusion
9-10 Points
Conclusion is
convincing, effective and
drawn from the paper.
Demonstrates
sophisticated analysis and critical thinking.
8 Points
Conclusion is
effective and relevant.
Demonstrates
analysis and critical thinking.
7 Points
Conclusion is provided and is
relevant.
6 Points
Conclusion is
somewhat effective and/or relevant.
0-5 Points
No conclusion
provided, or minimal effort demonstrated.
10
External Research
9-10 Points
Three scholarly
sources other than the class
resources are
incorporated and used effectively,
contextualized, appropriately
researched and
supported, and synthesized with
original arguments.
Sources used are credible,
relevant, and
timely. Proper APA style is used
for citations and references.
8 Points
Three scholarly
sources other than the class
resources are
incorporated and used
effectively, appropriately
researched and
supported, and support original
arguments. Sources used
are credible, relevant, and
timely. Proper
APA style is used for
citations and references.
7 Points
Three scholarly
sources other than the class resources
are properly
incorporated and used. Uses APA
format for references and
citations.
6 Points
Three or fewer
sources other than the class
resources may
be used; may not be scholarly
sources; may not be properly
incorporated or
used to support arguments; may
rely too heavily on the reporting
of external sources, and/or
are not effective
or appropriate; and/or are not
credible, relevant, or
timely. May not
use APA format.
0-5 Points
No external
research is incorporated
or reference
listed is not cited within
text.
10
Format
9-10 Points
Paper reflects
effective organization and
sophisticated writing; follows
instructions provided; is
8 Points
Paper reflects
effective
organization; follows instructions provided; is written in third person; has few
7 Points
Paper has some
organization; may
have some errors in sentence structure, grammar and spelling. Is double spaced and
6 Points
Paper is not well
organized,
and/or contains several grammar and/or spelling errors; and/or is not double-
0-5 Points
Paper is extremely
poorly written, has many grammar
and/or spelling
10
Rev. 2 06/14/2017 5
Criteria
90-100%
Far Above Standards
80-89%
Above Standards
70-79% Meets Standards
60-69%
Below Standards
< 60%
Well Below Standards
Possible Points
written in third person; uses
correct structure,
grammar, and
spelling; double- spaced and
presented in a professional
format using Word.
errors in sentence structure, grammar, and
spelling; double-spaced, and presented in a professional format.
written in third person.
spaced and written in third person.
errors, or does not convey the information.
TOTAL
Points
Possible
100
