The Scenario Victoria Hospital Application Information Technology Essay

Victoria Hospital has 15 General Practitioners ( GPs ) and about 15,000 patients. It has 5 response staff, a figure of nursing staff, who carry out minor process at the surgery, and a squad of territory nurses, who visit patient in their places.

When patients join the surgery they are allocated to one of the GPs, nevertheless they may do an assignment to see any of the GPs. At an assignment a GP may order many interventions for the patient.

The surgery besides processes repetition prescriptions and runs a figure of clinics, such as Baby Care, Asthma and Diabetes.

At present the surgery does non utilize computing machines, but due to the high volume of paper work involved in scheduling assignments the surgery would wish to develop a computing machine system to cover this portion of its operation.

The undermentioned undertakings relate to the proposal to computerise the manual operations of Victoria Hospital.

Undertaking 01

Contentss Page No

What is Systems Analysis Life Cycle 03

The Phases/Stages of a System Life Cycle 03

Different Types of System Development Life Cycles ( SDLC )

And Their Evaluations

Waterfall Model 05

V-shaped Model 07

Prototyping 08

Spiral Model 11

Rapid Application Development ( RAD ) Methodology 12

Dynamic Systems Development Methodology ( DSDM ) 14

Joint Application Development ( JAD ) Methodology 16

An Appropriative SDLC Model for Victoria Hospital System 18

What is Systems Analysis Life Cycle

Systems analysis life rhythm is the sequence of events of making or changing computing machine or information systems, and the theoretical accounts and methodological analysiss that people use to develop these systems.

In the yesteryear, system development depended on a computing machine coder composing codifications to work out a job or automatize a process. These yearss, systems are so immense and complicated that group of designers, analysts, coders, examiners and users should work together to make the 1000000s of lines of custom-written codifications to do systems that drive our operations.

To manage this, a figure of system analysis life rhythm theoretical accounts and methodological analysiss have been developed for system development. The end of system development or package development is to bring forth high quality package. Hence these methodological analysiss make the construction for planning and commanding the creative activity of an information system.

Figure 1.1: System Analysis Life Cycle

The Phases/Stages of a System Life Cycle

Problem Definition:

Short of a elaborate description of the job, they are seeking to work out. Peoples are frequently dubious of what it is they are seeking to carry through.

Purposes and aims of the new system must be stated.

What does the company wish a new system is traveling to make?

Eg. cost declines, better service to clients ; greater volume of concern minutess, etc.

Feasibility Survey:

An initial probe is necessary to find whether a undertaking is technically and economically operable. Some undertakings may non be suited for the computing machine solution.

Is engineering presently ready for usage?

Is it socially operable – will at that place be a demand for redundancies, retraining?

Will it be cost efficient? Development disbursals and running disbursals need to be balanced against benefits such as decreased costs, better client service, etc.

A written study could be presented to direction for a determination on whether to go on.

Requirements Analysis:

Analysis of the current system, aggregation of information, etc.

Methods of probe may include:

Questionnaires to staff and direction ;

Interviewing of staff and direction ;

Observation of processs ( invoicing, accounting, etc. )

Analyzing of paperss and what happens to them ;

The demands ‘ specification of the new system must be clearly stated. The achievement of the new system will be judged by whether it meets all these demands.

The demands ‘ specification will be a study, accepted between direction and the systems analyst, including inside informations about:



User interface ( HCI )

What the new system has to be able to make.

Systems may be explained utilizing informations flow diagrams.


Detailed study of input, end product, files, database, trial program.

Data gaining control signifiers have to be designed. Clerical procedures laid down and all features of the design must be documented.


Plan inside informations are given to coders who write the plans, trial and debug them.


Installing and proving the overall system. Make staff preparation. Changing over to the new system is often done by parallel-running the new system with the old one until to the full operational.


All systems need to be maintained – doing certain the system continues to work right. Alterations made. Mistakes corrected. Documentation kept up-to-date.

Phase out:

Phase out occurs when it is no longer executable to go on utilizing the system. The chief ground to phase out a system is when care cost of a system had risen to indicate and at that place more economical options.

Different Types of System Development Life Cycles ( SDLC )

And Their Evaluations

The followerss are some basic popular theoretical accounts that are utilizing by many package development companies.

Waterfall Model

V-shaped Model


Coiling Model

Rapid Application Development ( RAD ) Methodology

Dynamic Systems Development Methodology ( DSDM )

Joint Application Development ( JAD ) Methodology

A. Waterfall Model

This is the most common and criterion for life rhythm theoretical accounts, besides known as a linear-sequential life rhythm theoretical account. It is simple to understand and utilize. In a waterfall theoretical account, every stage must be finished in its entireness before the following stage can get down. At the terminal of every stage, a reappraisal takes topographic point to make up one’s mind if the undertaking is on the right way and whether or non to go on or abandon the undertaking. Therefore, you can non travel up a waterfall.

There have been many waterfall changes since the initial theoretical account was introduced by Winston Royce in 1970 ( “ pull offing the development of big package systems: constructs and techniques ” )

Barry Boehm, developer of the coiling theoretical account modified the waterfall theoretical account in his book “ Software Engineering Economics “ ( Prentice-Hall, 1987 ) .

The basic differences in the assorted theoretical accounts are in the naming and/or order of the stages.

Waterfall Model Assumptions

The demands are studied in progress.

The demands have no unsure high hazard deductions.

The nature of the demands will non alter well.

The demands are compatible with cardinal stakeholders.

There is sufficient clip to continue in a consecutive mode.

The basic waterfall attack looks like the illustration below.

Figure 1.2: Waterfall Model


Simple and easy to utilize.

Easy to pull off due to the stiffness of the theoretical account – every phase has specific deliverables and a reappraisal procedure.

Phases are processed and completed one at a clip.

It works good for smaller undertakings where demands are really good understood.


Adjusting the range during the life rhythm can kill a undertaking.

No running package system is produced until late during the life rhythm.

High volumes of hazard and uncertainness.

Poor life rhythm theoretical account for complicated and object-oriented undertakings.

Poor life rhythm theoretical account for long and on-going undertakings.

Poor life rhythm theoretical account where demands are at a moderate to high hazard of altering.

B. V-Shaped Model

Merely like the waterfall theoretical account, the V-Shaped life rhythm ( sometimes known as the “ U ” theoretical account ) is a consecutive manner of executing of procedures. Every phase must be completed before the following phase begins. Testing is really of import portion in this theoretical account more so than the waterfall theoretical account. The proving methods are developed early in the life rhythm before any cryptography is done, during every of the phases traveling before in execution.

It is the criterion for German federal authorities undertakings and is considered as a undertaking direction attack as a package development method.

The V Model ab initio defined by Paul Rook in 1980s. It was incorporated in the UK ‘s National Computing Centre publications in the 1990s with the intent of bettering the proficiency and effectivity of package development. It ‘s recognized in Europe and the UK as a superior option to the waterfall theoretical account.

Requirements commence the life rhythm theoretical account merely like the waterfall theoretical account. Before development is initiated, a system trial program is created. The trial program concentrates on run intoing the functionality specified in the demands assemblage.

The high-ranking design phase concentrates on system architecture and design. An integrating trial program is created in this phase every bit good in order to prove the pieces of the package systems capableness to work together.

ALSO READ  Assessing The Culture Of Computing Information Technology Essay

The low-level design phase is where the existent package constituents are designed, and faculty trials are created in this phase every bit good.

The execution phase is, once more, where all coding take topographic point. Once coding is complete, the way of executing returns up the right side of the V where the trial programs developed earlier are now put to utilize.

Figure 1.3: V-shaped Model


Simple and easy to utilize.

Every phase has specific deliverables.

Higher possibility of success over the waterfall theoretical account due to the development of trial programs early on during the life rhythm.

It works good for little undertakings where demands are easy known in progress.


Very stiff, like the waterfall theoretical account.

Small adjustability and modifying range is hard and dearly-won.

Software system is developed during the execution phase, so no early paradigms of the package system are produced.

V Model does n’t give a clear way for jobs found during proving phases.

C. Prototyping

A reasonably common job with system development that there may be a really long hold from when the thought of a new system is foremost suggested to when development begins. This is particularly the instance with big complex systems. In add-on, some users may happen it hard to visualise the system from a proposed paper design. They would much favor to see something existent in office forepart of them one practical manner of get the better ofing these jobs is the construct of ‘prototyping ‘ .

A paradigm denotes some facet of the full system – for case, a forgery of the graphical user interface.

See a paradigm GUI, where users click on bid buttons and see its result. That button is non truly connected to an existent system but is programmed by the developer to move as if it was. The bid action is assumed with dummy informations.

Now the user is get downing to see, how the existent system will work before the developer spends even more clip on it.

So a paradigm is NOT an wholly working system, but it does supply a opportunity for the user to give feedback and thoughts for betterments. This may go on repeatedly until the full inside informations are agreed between developer and user. Hence, prototyping is an ‘iterative ‘ procedure.

Any changes required are fed back to the developer, and the demands Document is besides updated each clip a alteration is needed. It is much cheaper to make a paradigm and implement out of the jobs instead than travel direct to the development of the chief system and so happen out there are jobs.

Prototype construct is in contrast with the sixtiess and 1970s massive development rhythm of constructing the whole plan foremost and so working out any incompatibilities between design and execution, which led to higher package costs and hapless estimations of clip and cost.

The pattern of prototyping is one of the chief substances Fred Brooks makes in his book, “ Fabulous Man-Month ” in 1975 and his 10-year anniversary article “ No Silver Bullet ” in 1986.

There are three chief attacks to prototyping, viz. :

Evolutionary Prototyping

Figure 1.4: Evolutionary Prototyping ModelThe thought behind this is that a basic paradigm is demonstrated to the user. They provide feedback and thoughts for betterments. These are done by the developer who so presents a more refined paradigm. The user one time more provides feedback. The procedure is repeated. So at each phase the paradigm ‘evolves ‘ towards the concluding system, therefore the term ‘evolutionary prototyping ‘ .

Throw-away Prototyping

A paradigm which is usually a practical execution of the system is produced to assist recognize demands jobs and so discarded. The system is so developed utilizing some other development process.

Figure 1.5: Throw-away Prototyping Model

Incremental development Prototyping

System is developed and delivered in increases after puting up an overall architecture. Requirements and specifications for every increase could be developed. Users could experiment with delivered increases while others are being developed. Therefore, these serve as a signifier of the paradigm system.

Figure 1.6: Incremental development Prototyping Model

Prototyping is an iterative, experimental, evolutionary attack of organizing a system or a theoretical account of a system. It depends on effectual converse between the developer and the terminal user. Feedback from the terminal user results in farther development of the theoretical account until it eventually meets the user ‘s demands and outlooks.


It reduces development clip.

It reduces development costs.

It requires user engagement.

Developers get quantifiable user feedback.

It facilitates system execution since users know what to anticipate.

It out comes in higher user satisfaction.

Reveal developers to possible hereafter system development.


It can steer to inadequate analysis.

Users anticipate the public presentation of the concluding system to be the same as the paradigm.

Developers can go excessively enclosed to their paradigms.

It can do systems to be left unfinished and/or implemented before they are ready.

It sometimes leads to incomplete certification.

If sophisticated package paradigms ( 4th GL or CASE Tools ) are occupied, the clip salvaging advantage of prototyping can be lost.

D. Spiral Model

The coiling theoretical account is similar to the incremental theoretical account, with more accents placed on hazard analysis. The coiling theoretical account has four stages: Planning, Risk Analysis, Engineering and Evaluation. A package undertaking repeatedly passes through these stages in loops ( called Spirals in this theoretical account ) . The baseline spiral, get downing in the planning stage, demands is gathered and hazard is assessed. Each subsequent spiral physiques on the baseline spiral.

Requirements are gathered during the planning stage. In the hazard analysis stage, a procedure is undertaken to place hazard and alternate solutions. A paradigm is produced at the terminal of the hazard analysis stage.

Software is produced in the technology stage, along with proving at the terminal of the stage. The rating stage allows the client to measure the end product of the undertaking to day of the month before the undertaking continues to the following spiral.

In the coiling theoretical account, the angular constituent represents advancement, and the radius of the coiling represents cost.

This theoretical account of development combines the characteristics of the prototyping theoretical account and the waterfall theoretical account. The coiling theoretical account is intended for big, expensive and complicated undertakings.

The coiling theoretical account was defined by Barry Boehm in his 1986 article “ A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement ”

Figure 1.7: Coiling Model ( Boehm, 1988. )


High sum of hazard analysis.

Good for big and mission-critical undertakings.

Software is produced early in the package life rhythm.


Can be a dearly-won theoretical account to utilize.

Hazard analysis requires extremely specific expertness.

Undertaking ‘s success is extremely dependent on the hazard analysis stage.

Does n’t work good for smaller undertakings.

E. Rapid Application Development ( RAD ) Methodology

Rapid Application Development ( RAD ) is a package development methodological analysis that focuses on edifice applications in a really short sum of clip ; traditionally with via medias in serviceability, features and/or executing velocity. The term has late become a selling cant ( popular word ) that generically describes applications that can be designed and developed within 60-90 yearss, but it was originally intended to depict a procedure of development that involves application prototyping and iterative development.

Application Development refers to the development of programming applications and differs from programming itself in that it has a higher degree of duty, including for demand capturing and testing.

The term Rapid Application Development ( RAD ) was introduced in the literature by James Martin in his book “ Rapid Application Development ” in 1991.

In Rapid Application Development, structured techniques and prototyping are particularly used to specify users ‘ demands and to plan the concluding system. The development procedure starts with the development of preliminary informations theoretical accounts and concern procedure theoretical accounts utilizing structured techniques. In the following phase, demands are verified utilizing prototyping, finally to polish the informations and procedure theoretical accounts. These phases are repeated iteratively ; further development consequences in “ a combined concern demands and proficient design statement to be used for building new systems ” .

The mission of RAD is the simple but powerful one of increasing development velocity at a decreased cost without giving quality.

RAD ( rapid application development ) proposes that merchandises can be developed faster and of higher quality by:

Using workshops or concentrate groups to garner demands.

ALSO READ  Coronary Artery Disease Essay

Prototyping and user testing of designs.

Re-using package constituents.

Following a agenda that defers design betterments to the following merchandise version.

Keeping review meetings and other squad communicating informal.

Figure 1.8: Rapid Application Development ( RAD ) Methodology


Flexible and adaptable to alterations.

Prototyping applications give users a touchable description from which to judge whether critical system demands are being met by the system. Report end product can be compared with bing studies. Datas entry signifiers can be reviewed for completeness of all Fieldss, pilotage, informations entree ( drop down lists, checkboxes, wireless buttons, etc. ) .

RAD by and large incorporates short development rhythms – users see the RAD merchandise rapidly.

RAD involves user engagement thereby increasing opportunities of early user community credence.

RAD realizes an overall decrease in undertaking hazard.

Pareto ‘s 80 – 20 Rule normally consequences in cut downing the costs to make a usage system.


Unknown cost of merchandise. As mentioned above, this job can be alleviated by the client holding to a limited sum of rework in the RAD procedure.

It may be hard for many of import users to perpetrate the clip required for success of the RAD procedure.

F: Dynamic Systems Development Methodology ( DSDM )

Dynamic Systems Development Method ( DSDM ) is a package development methodological analysis originally based upon the Rapid Application Development methodological analysis. DSDM is an iterative and incremental attack that emphasizes uninterrupted user engagement.

Its end is to present package systems on clip and on budget while seting for altering demands along the development procedure. DSDM is one of a figure of nimble methods for developing package, and it forms a portion of the Agile Alliance.

DSDM was developed in the United Kingdom in the 1990s by the DSDM Consortium, an association of sellers and experts in the field of package technology created with the aim of “ jointly developing and advancing an independent RAD model ” by uniting their best pattern experiences. The DSDM Consortium is a not-for-profit, vendor-independent administration which owns and administers the DSDM model. The first version was completed in January 1995 and was published in February 1995. The current version in usage ( as of April 2006 ) is Version 4.2: Model for Business Centered Development, and was released in May 2003. In July 2006, DSDM Public Version 4.2 was made available for persons to position and usage ; nevertheless, anyone reselling DSDM must still be a member of the not-for-profit pool.

The Phases of DSDM

Feasibility & A ; Business Study:

This is correspondent to the induction phase of most undertakings and is where high-level concern demands are developed. The concern survey may include a series of workshops with users to flesh-out demands. These Joint Application Design ( JAD ) Sessionss have proven really effectual at capturing clients ‘ demands in a collaborative, focused manner.

Functional Model:

This is where both non-functional and functional demands are gathered.

Requirements are captured chiefly in paradigms as opposed to textual signifier.

These paradigms are typically built to throwaway.

Design & A ; Model:

This where the chief work of development happens, as the squad turns the functional paradigm into a system that returns concern benefits for the client. Testing is built-in to the lifecycle ( like XP ) and so there is no separate, distinguishable proving stage.


The package merchandise is deployed to the client ‘s site during this stage. Implementation will typically happen at the terminal of a clip box of between two and six hebdomads.

Figure 1.9: Dynamic Systems Development Methodology ( DSDM )


Active user engagement throughout the life of the undertaking and iterative nature of development improves quality of the merchandise.

DSDM ensures rapid bringings.

Both of the above factors result in decreased undertaking costs.


It is a comparatively new theoretical account. It is non really common. So it is hard to understand.

Gram: Joint Application Development ( JAD ) Methodology

Joint Application Development ( JAD ) is a development methodological analysis system originally used for planing a computer-based system, but can be applied to any development procedure. It involves uninterrupted interaction with the users and different interior decorators of the system in development. JAD centres around a workshop session that is structured and focused. Participants of these Sessionss would typically include a facilitator, terminal users, developers, perceivers, go-betweens and experts. JAD allows for a faster development procedure and minimizes mistakes at the same clip. JAD besides improves the quality of the concluding merchandise by concentrating on the up-front part of the development lifecycle, therefore cut downing the likeliness of mistakes that are expensive to rectify subsequently on.

The antonym of JAD is RAD ( Rapid Application Development )

Joint Application Design ( JAD ) was developed by Drake and Josh of IBM Raleigh and Tony Crawford of IBM Toronto in a workshop scene. Originally, JAD was designed to convey system developers and users of changing backgrounds and sentiments together in a productive every bit good as originative environment. The meetings were a manner of obtaining quality demands and specifications. The structured attack provides a good option to traditional consecutive interviews by system analysts.

When to utilize JAD

JAD can be successfully applied to a broad scope of undertakings, including the followers: New systems, Enhancements to bing systems, System transitions and Purchase of a system.

Cardinal participants

Session leader

Excellent communicating & A ; mediation accomplishments, trades efficaciously with Political differences, Power struggles, Personality clashes, Controling group including high-ranking executives, Encourages quiet participants and prevents strong personalities from ruling Sessionss. Must be impartial, maintain an unfastened head and control contentions.

Executive patron

Has fiscal duty for the system, Makes the go/no-go determination, End-user representative ( s ) , has authorization to do binding determinations about the plan and must be good communicator.


More than one developer should go to, Answers inquiries about feasibleness of proposed characteristics and costs, Role is to supply information, non do judgements, Must larn the system during JAD planning and design Sessionss to fix them to compose the specifications.


From the package development section to enter what happens during the session, Active participant, inquiring for elucidation and indicating out incompatibilities twenty-four hours by twenty-four hours.


Invited as needed to supply any particular expertness required, Exception to govern that all participants must be present at all times and Resource instead than a member of the group.

Figure 1.10: Joint Application Development ( JAD ) Methodology


Allows key users to take part efficaciously.

When decently used, JAD can ensue in a more accurate statement of system demands, a better apprehension of common ends, and a stronger committedness to the success of the new system.


More expensive and can be excessively heavy if the group is excessively big comparative to the size of the undertaking.

An Appropriative SDLC Model for Victoria Hospital System


At the present Victoria Hospital does n’t utilize the computing machines for their surgery activities and other infirmary operations. Due to the high volume of paper-work involved in their activities which are scheduling assignments, ordering interventions to the patients, repetition prescriptions and run a figure of clinics, they would wish to develop a computing machine system to cover those parts of its operation.

Following SDLC theoretical accounts are tools that allow the system analyst to right follow the SDLC stairss to make package that meets a concern demands but a system analyst has to take an appropriative SDLC theoretical account for develop a system.

The comparing of SDLC theoretical accounts for taking an appropriative theoretical account to develop Victoria Hospital Application

A. Waterfall Model

Simple and easy to utilize.

Phases are processed and completed one at a clip.

Works good for smaller undertakings where demands are really good understood.

Adjusting range during the life rhythm can kill a undertaking.

B. V-Shaped Model

Simple and easy to utilize.

Most dressed ore in proving portion and small seting range is hard and expensive.

Model does n’t supply a clear way for jobs found during proving stages.

C. Prototyping

Reduces development clip and cost.

Developers can go excessively affiliated to their paradigms.

Can take to deficient analysis.

Sometimes leads to incomplete certification.

D. Spiral Model

Good for big and mission-critical undertakings.

Hazard analysis requires extremely specific expertness.

Can be a dearly-won theoretical account to utilize.

Does n’t work good for smaller undertakings.

E. Rapid Application Development ( RAD ) Methodology

Flexible and adaptable to alterations.

Uncalculated cost of merchandise.

Requirements may non coverage.

Less efficient.

F. Dynamic Systems Development Methodology ( DSDM )

It is a comparatively new theoretical account. It is non really common. So it is hard to understand.

ALSO READ  Judicial Interpretation of the Law - Essay Sample

G. Joint Application Development ( JAD ) Methodology

More expensive and can be excessively heavy if the group is excessively big comparative to the size of the undertaking.


Waterfall theoretical account is most appropriate for develop the Victoria Hospital Application. Its strong points prevarication in the fact that it is consecutive, so there would be no confusion on the stairss and the procedures are directly down, no demand to worry about so many conditions while working on a undertaking. Additionally, this type of theoretical account tends to pack up on so much certification. Therefore, such tends to be utile for future codification alterations and mention. And it is simple, suited for little undertakings, helps to understand user demands clearly and easy to utilize.

Undertaking 02

Contentss Page No

The Stages of Waterfall Model 21

Difference between Validation and Verification 24

The Stages of Waterfall Model

Figure 2.1: The Stages of Waterfall Model

Business Case

This is the justification for constructing the package system and needs to cover a figure of countries including:

What the current concern and package state of affairs is.

What the concern chance is that the package will work out.

What the assorted solution schemes are and their feasibleness.

What the preferable solution scheme is.

What the costs versus the benefits are.

What the premises, hazards, and restraints are likely to be.

What the outline execution attack will be.

A considerable sum of work demands to be done by the users with developer input to bring forth a concern instance. The benefits of making so are to give everybody on the undertaking a clear map of where the users are traveling and why.

Requirement Analysis

The following phase is to specify a set of user demands. All possible demands of the system to be developed are captured in this stage. Requirements are set of functionalities and restraints that the end-user ( who will be utilizing the system ) expects from the system. The demands are gathered from the end-user by audience. Unless you know what you are traveling to plan, you can non near the job. Here, the specifications of the end product or the concluding merchandise are studied and marked. Finally, a Requirement Specification papers is created which serves the intent of guideline for the following stage of the theoretical account. The types of demands are,

Functional demands – what does the system demand to make e.g. Appointments inside informations of patient records.

Non-functional demands – these come in two types:

Performance restraints – what public presentation is required from the system e.g. It will update all patient records overnight.

Development restraints – what limitations on development will use e.g. the system must be available by a certain day of the month.

Design Objectives – what is the most of import characteristics that apply to the system.

System Specification

Before a starting for existent cryptography, it is extremely of import to understand what we are traveling to make and what it should look like? The demand specifications from 2nd stage are studied in this stage and system design is prepared. System Design helps in stipulating hardware and system demands and besides helps in specifying overall system architecture. The system design specifications serve as input for the following stage of the theoretical account. It covers:

System Processes – what proficient procedure is required to implement each concern procedure.

External Interfaces – what is required for the system to pass on outside including:

Transactional interfaces – what is needed to pass on with users e.g. screens.

Report Interfaces – what types of study are required.

Application Interfaces – what connexions are required to other package systems.

Non-functional demands – what the restraints on the system are.

System & A ; Software Design

Well, here the existent work Begins. Every type of resource which will be required for the smooth designing of the package is mentioned here in this stage. What type of database will be required, what type of informations should be supported, etc. are some of the of import facets that are decided in this stage. The algorithm of the procedure in which the package needs to be designed is made in this stage. This algorithm forms the anchor for the existent cryptography portion in the following stage.

Use programming techniques to plan package and hardware within the restraints and aims set in the earlier phases.

A deliverable at the terminal of this phase is the design specification.

Another deliverable is the trial program.

Coding & A ; Unit Testing

Now starts the coding portion. On having system design paperss, the work is divided in modules/units and existent cryptography is started. The system is foremost developed in little plans called units, which are integrated in the following stage. Each unit is developed and tested for its functionality ; this is referred to as Unit Testing. Unit proving chiefly verifies if the modules/units meet their specifications.

Implement the plan as designed in the earlier phases.

The deliverable at the terminal of this phase is the package plan.

Integration & A ; System Testing

As specified above, the system is foremost divided in units which are developed and tested for their functionalities. These units are integrated into a complete system during Integration stage and tested to look into if all modules/units coordinate between each other and the system as a whole behaves as per the specifications. After successfully proving the package, it is delivered to the client.

Test the package and record the consequences.

A deliverable at the terminal of this phase is the updated trial program.

Another deliverable is the updated design specification.

Operations & A ; Maintenance

This stage of “ The Waterfall Model ” is virtually ne’er stoping stage ( Very long ) . Generally, jobs with the system developed ( which are non found during the development life rhythm ) come up after its practical usage starts, so the issues related to the system are solved after deployment of the system. Not all the jobs come in image straight but they arise clip to clip and demands to be solved ; hence this procedure is referred as Maintenance.

The deliverable at the start of this phase is the operating manual.

Deliver, install and configure the completed package.

Provide care and support of the package.

Difference between Validation and Verification

Confirmation and Validation ( besides known merely as V & A ; V ) are two parts of the same package bundle. They are used in package undertaking direction, package testing, and package technology. It is the procedure by which a package system meets certain specifications. It is besides the procedure by which a package system fulfils the intended intent of its creative activity. It is besides normally known as package quality control.

Confirmation means guaranting that the package has been built right. It carries out this undertaking utilizing dynamic testing and a assortment of other signifiers of reappraisal. Dynamic proving specifically examines the physical response from the system to those variables that are non changeless and, in clip, are prone to alter. In a basic sense, proof ensures that the merchandise meets the demands of the user. It besides ensures that the certain specifications were, in fact, correct from the beginning of the plan. The conversational definition is “ Are we constructing the right merchandise ” .

Validation means guaranting that the package meets the demands, both the stated and implied. It evaluates the package to find whether the merchandises that are found in a given development stage satisfy the conditions that were put away at the beginning of that peculiar stage. In a basic sense, confirmation ensures that the peculiar merchandise has been built harmonizing to the demands and design specifications that were introduced at the beginning of the plan. The conversational definition is “ Are we constructing the merchandise right ” .

Verification takes topographic point before proof, and non frailty versa. Verification evaluates paperss, programs, codification, demands, and specifications. Validation, on the other manus, evaluates the merchandise itself. The inputs of confirmation are checklists, issues lists, walkthroughs and review meetings, reappraisals and meetings. The input of proof, on the other manus, is the existent testing of an existent merchandise. The end product of confirmation is a about perfect set of paperss, programs, specifications, and demands papers. The end product of proof, on the other manus, is a about perfect, existent merchandise.