Software Life-cycle Model (SLIM)

The paper is an essay that will base its discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of Putnam’s software lifecycle model (SLIM).

Strengths of Putnam’s model (SLIM)

From the use of Putnam’s software life cycle model (SLIM), we encounter or rather realize strengths and weaknesses of the model. From the application of Putnam’s software life cycle model (SLIM), we find that there is the use of linear programming in considering development constraints on both effort and cost (Boehm, Abts & Chelan, 2000). The other advantage or rather strength is that software lifecycle model (SLIM) has fewer parameters that are required for the generation of an estimate over constructive cost model (COCOMO’II) and COCOMO’81 (Basili & Musa, 1991).

The model in its application leads to the aspect of calibration in that the model is fine-tuned to represent the local software development environment through the interpretation of a historical database of past projects. It enhances in the building of information model of the system, persona, attributes, collecting software and computer attributes in a broader perspective. Still on the use of Putnam’s software lifecycle model (SLIM), there is the aspect of software sizing that uses the automated version of the lines of code (LOC) costing technique (Boehm, Abts & Chelan, 2000).

The other strength that can be noted in the application of Putnam’s software life cycle model (SLIM) is that it makes a sharp distinction between process productivity and conventional productivity in that case, which makes it more sensitive hence its preference for other models (Putnam, 2001).

The weaknesses of Putnam’s software life cycle model (SLIM)

On the other hand, the weaknesses of its applications such as estimates are more sensitive to the technology factor making it a weakness for its implementation. The other drawback is that it is not suitable for smaller projects (Basili & Musa, 1991). It is also noted that it is not in a position of dealing with exceptional conditions which are encountered in the process. It is also a weakness of the model in that it cannot quantify some actors and experiences within the process. Lastly, we find that it also consumes much time and money before the expected results are realized from the application of the model (Putnam, 2001).

From the use of Putnam’s software life cycle model (SLIM), we find numerous advantages over the other cost estimation models such as constructive cost model (COCOMO) which is one of the earliest and most used models commercially as compared to Putnam’s software lifecycle model (SLIM) (Putnam, 2001). COCOMO’81 was established back in the year 1981 and later led to the establishment of COCOMO’11, which has also found its wider application in cost estimation. As we compare these models, we still find Putnam’s more accurate from the application of estimation method of an algorithmic approach that makes it more suitable for use especially in the field of engineering. Therefore, it has found its wider use as an estimation model because of its numerous advantages over the other models such as constructive cost model (COCOMO’81) and COCOMO’ 11 (Putnam, 2001).

 

References

Basili, V. R., & Musa, J. D. (1991). Future engineering of software: A management perspective. Computer, (9), 90-96.

Boehm, B., Abts, C., & Chulani, S. (2000). Software development cost estimation approaches—A survey. Annals of software engineering, 10(1-4), 177-205.

Putnam, L. (2001). “Software Life Cycle Model (SLIM).”