The impact of incremental delivery on maintenance effort: An analytical study

  • Pei Hsia
  • Chih-Tung Hsu
  • David Chenho Kung
  • Alan T. Yaung
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 989)


Incremental delivery (ID) is a relatively new software development paradigm which advocates that systems be delivered to end-users in usable, useful, and semi-independent chunks (increments). ID differs from the traditional development paradigm, which we call monolithic development (MD), where a software system is considered as a monolithic, inseparable whole delivered as one unit. The purpose of this study is to compare the ID and MD approaches in terms of their maintenance costs through an analytical parametric study. The results of the study provide insight into how incremental delivery can be employed to reduce software maintenance effort and costs.


COCOMO incremental delivery software maintenance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alavi, M., “An Assessment of the Prototyping Approach to Information Systems Development,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 27, No. 6, June 1984, pp. 556–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basili, V.R. and Reiter R.W., Jr., “A Controlled Experiment Quantitatively Comparing Software Development Approaches,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-7, No. 3, May 1981, pp. 299–320.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boehm, B.W., “Software Engineering Economics,” Prentice-Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boehm, B.W., “An Experiment in Small-Scale Application Software Engineering,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-7, No. 5, September 1981, pp. 482–493.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boehm, B.W., Gray, T.E., and Seewaldt, T., “Prototyping versus Specifying: A Multiproject Experiment,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-10, No. 3, May 1984, pp. 290–302.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boehm, B.W., “A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement,” Computer, Vol. 21, No. 5, May 1988, pp. 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brooks, F.P., Jr., “No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering,” Computer, April 1987, pp. 10–19.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buck, R.D. and Robbins, J.H., “Application of Software Inspection Methodology in Design and Code,” in Software Validation, Elsevier Science, 1984, pp. 41–56.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eckhard, D.E., et al. “An Experimental Evaluation of Software Redundancy as a Strategy For Improving Reliability,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-17, No. 7, July 1991, pp. 692–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gilb, T., “Evolutionary Delivery versus the Waterfall Model,” Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1985, pp. 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hekmatpour, S., “Experience with Evolutionary Prototyping in a Large Software Project,” Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1987, pp. 38–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hough, D., “Rapid Delivery: An Evolutionary Approach for Application Development,” IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, March 1993, pp. 397–419.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hsia, P., Yaung, A.T., and Jiam, S.H., “Requirements Clustering for Incremental Construction 1 of Software Systems,” Proc. COMPSAC '86, October 1986, pp. 204–211.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hsia, P. and Yaung, A.T., “Another Approach to System Decomposition: Requirements Clustering,” Proc. COMPSAC '88, October 1988, pp. 75–82.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hsia, P. and Gupta, A., “Incremental Delivery Using Abstract Data Types and Requirements Clustering,” ICSI '92, pp. 137–150.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang, D., et al., “Impact Studies of Multigirder Concrete Bridges,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 8, August 1993, pp. 2387–2402.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hwang, E.S. and Nowak, A.S., “Simulation of Dynamic Load for Bridges,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 5, 1991, pp. 1413–1434.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jiam, S.H., “Operational Approach vs Conventional Approach-A Case Study in Software Engineering,” Masters Project, CSE Department, The University of Texas at Arlington, Fall 1985.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leung, H.K.N. and White, L., “A Study of Integration Testing and Software Regression at the Integration Level,” Proc. Conf. Software Maintenance, San Diego, November 1990, pp. 290–301.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mabson, G.E., et al., “On the Compressive Strength of Graphite Composite Laminates Containing Interlaminar Flaws,” Polymer Plastics Technology in Engineering, Vol. 22, 1984, pp. 99–113.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miyano, Y.M., et al., “Role of Matrix Resin on Fracture Strengths of unidirectional CFRP,” Journal of Composite Materials, Vol. 20, pp. 520–538.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pittman, M., “Lessons Learned in Managing Object-Oriented Development,” IEEE Software, January 1993, pp. 43–53.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schneidewind, N.F., “Software Maintenance: The Need for Standardization,” Proc. of the IEEE, Vol. 77, No. 4, April 1989, pp. 618–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pei Hsia
    • 1
  • Chih-Tung Hsu
    • 1
  • David Chenho Kung
    • 1
  • Alan T. Yaung
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science and Engineering DepartmentThe University of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA
  2. 2.IBM CorporationRoanokeUSA

Personalised recommendations