CC BY
4INCREASING THE EFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE USE OF MODELS FOR FORMING THE PROJECT
LIFE CYCLE
STEEVO FRANCIS KANNUKADAN
Authors
1.Antonios Saravanos and Matthew X. Curinga
• Paper: Simulating the Software Development Lifecycle: The Waterfall Model.
• This paper focuses on simulation of the software life cycle, analysing bottlenecks in the Waterfall Model, and proposing changes with the help of SimPy simulation environment in Python language.
2. DeFranco and Voas
• Start with the study of the nature of disturbances of IT projects and failure rate according to Standish Group's CHAOS reports focusing on the effectiveness and risk management in software development.
Other Authors:
• Singh, Sharma, and Kaur (JETIR, 2020).
• Barry Boehm (Spiral Model Pioneer).
• Standish Group Authors (CHAOS Report).
• Roberts and Zhang (Agile Efficiency Paper).
• Patel and Joshi (Cost Optimization).
• Dr. Anwar and Smith (Lifecycle Trends)
Introduction
Employees of contemporary organizations require reliable information systems to support business processes, create value and make informed decisions. The IS development projects despite boosted by advanced technologies face some drawbacks that include missing project schedules and deadlines, observed increase in costs and thus a drain on the project's budgets and unmet customer or stakeholder expectation. These problems rise from ambiguous specifications, inadequate communication, and the rigidity of the linear models such as Waterfall. This growing complexity of IS has led to the need to find ways of managing them so that they can incorporate the best of structure and flexibility.
This paper seeks to identify and discuss generic IS development problems, assess the current lifecycle models and proffer an enhanced integrated model. In that regard, using the synthesis of methodologies, this study aims at enhancing project performance and contributing to the knowledge base for practice and research.
Aim of the Research Paper
The purpose of this research paper is to understand the effectiveness of structured project life cycle model in developing Information systems: Waterfall, Agile and Hybrid Models. The paper also defines the issues IS projects encounter, including ambiguities in requirements, communication problems, and the problems with rigid processes. The research aims at finding out how Hybrid models, which are part Waterfall in their strict nature and part Agile in their flexibility can enhance project results by comparing other models. It is aimed at presenting solutions for IS development professionals to enhance the management of project lifecycles, engage and manage stakeholders, mitigate risks and ultimately achieve efficiency in project delivery and execution timelines. Thus, it is hoped that, through this exploration, the paper will be able to show the usefulness of developing and implementing Hybrid models in a number of sectors (Kasauli et al., 2020).
Key Objectives:
1.Examine IS Development Challenges:
• Delayed project delivery.
• Communication gaps.
• Rigid methodologies. 2.Investigate Lifecycle Models:
• Waterfall Model: A rigid, sequential model that is said to lend little room for variations.
• Agile Model: An adaptable cyclic process in which feedback on the process can be incorporated and thus enhance the process.
• Hybrid Model: An integration of Waterfall approach and Agile approach which will help the project to be as rigid as Waterfall but also as dynamic as Agile depending on the project requirements.
Hybrid Model Focus:
• The Hybrid model is supposed to combine the strength of both the Waterfall and Agile models of project management.
• Primary emphasis on identifying projects that are well served by this model.
• Agile approaches.
• Key focus on understanding which projects benefit from this model. Waterfall Model Analysis:
Overview:
• The structure is highly explicit that is progress is clearly distinguishable.ng progress easy to
track.
• Challenges: Lack of adaptiveness to situations where feedback is necessary and frequent changes have to be made.
Limitations:
• Not suitable for conditions that require the ability to change quickly to meet new conditions.
Agile Model Analysis: Overview:
• Repetitive, adaptable and changeable.
• Operates in shorter bursts, thus providing a continuous reassessment of the process. prints, allowing constant revaluation.
Challenges:
• Absence of structure might hamper a project and go over its set timeframe and cost.
• ct delays and budget overruns.
Hybrid Model Analysis: Purpose:
• An effort to combine the rigidity of Waterfall with the flexibility of Agile. Benefits:
• Possibility to pay more attention to the process.
• One's ability to change from a particular project and undertake another one.
• Preferred for projects that require order but also require some freedom.ject requirements.
• Suitable for complex projects needing both discipline and flexibility. Key Themes of the Research Paper:
Assess Project Success and Failure Rates:
• Compare one theory to another based on the Waterfall, Agile and Hybrid to identify which model is suitable for the different projects.
Cost Analysis:
• Determine how the resource allocation and the financial consequences of each model change with different phases.
• The objective is to identify the most optimal lifecycle model for given projects.ases.
• The goal is to determine the most cost-effective lifecycle model for specific projects.
Empirical Data from Case Studies:
• Gather information from organizations implementing Waterfall, Agile, Hybrid methods.
• Demonstrate how success and failure can be modeled in a real business projects using these models.
• Provide real-world examples of project success and failure using these models.
Cost-Benefit Analysis:
• Consider costs in relation to people and workforce, time lost and other incidental expenses.
• Determine which lifecycle model is most feasible in terms of cost.nd unforeseen expenses.
• Recommend the most cost-efficient lifecycle model.
Problem Analysis
Challenges in IS Development
1. Unclear Requirements: It is common for many projects to face unclear specifications which could change at any one time.
2. Inefficient Communication: It means that there is a problem with the goal congruence in a project because the stakeholders and the developers are not closely related.
3. Rigid Methodologies: The more traditional approaches such as Waterfall are not well suited for such requirements because they are too bureaucratic.
4. High Failure Rates: A study done in 2022 showed that about 23% of IS projects do not achieve its planned goals and objectives.
Problem Analysis chart as times Spent in Each Phase
Time Spent in Each Phase
Figure 1: Problem analysis
Explanation:
This bar chart shows how much time go through each project life cycle phase for both traditional and hybrid models. The time required on each task is less in the hybrid model throughout the process, for instance 15 hours in planning as compared to 20 hours in the traditional model and thus making it efficient in terms of task accomplishment and its flexibility.
Comparison of Lifecycle Models with New Insights:
Traditional, agile and hybrid models of product development all outline different ways in which the process must be carried out, the effectiveness of each and which is the best for use under a particular circumstance. The traditional waterfall model provides strong, linear steps, these are useful for projects with clearly defined specifications. This offers flexibility when there are fluctuations in the requirements and is opposite of the traditional development where emphasis is made on the speed of project delivery. Hybrid models blend the right level of structure and process
ОФ "Международный научно-исследовательский центр "Endless Light in Science"
offered by traditional methodologies with the flexibility of agile thus increasing both time and risk optimization. This research finds hybrid models most suitable for projects that need both flexibility and structure, while case studies show that such models are effective to run complex system development.
Spiral Model Insights:
• The Spiral Model developed by Barry Boehm is an iterative and sequential software development process, which fundamentally addresses risk.. This model is especially helpful when the project is large and the expectations are changing over time. It is characterized by its four key phases: planning, risk analysis, engineering, and evaluation forms the four fundamental macros and they are framed in spirals within the project life cycle.
• Each iteration enables a reduction of objectives' vagueness and a consideration of risks, as well as the reception of feedback from users.. The model focuses on identification and mitigation of risks at an early stage and so it is suitable for important or new endeavors. The cycle structure of the spiral is depicted to present the different iterations, which build up to a final, fully imple- mented and risk-managed solution.
• For dynamic environment the Spiral Model is ideal given its flexibility while also offering a mechanism for improvement and check with the stakeholders. It has been used mostly in aerospace and defense industries because flexibility, precision and risks management are key success factors in such businesses.
Empirical Data on Project Success and Failure:
With regards to success and failure trends, the empirical data available from reports such as the Standish Group's CHAOS Report is informative of information system development projects. Consequently, they have revealed that only 35% of all projects deliver on the intended objectives, 45% go over their budget and time estimates. The sources of failures include; poorly defined requirements, low levels of stakeholder engagement, and ineffective risk management. In comparison, hybrid lifecycle models enhance success percentages due to balanced formal planning with increased adaptability and less risk for stakeholders. These facts confirm the need for adaptability approaches in present days IS development (Glass, 2006).
Implications
• Overhead costs, for example, resulting from the need to carry out additional work on a project.
• Negative impact on stakeholders' satisfaction and decrease in their IS team's trust.
• Low stakeholder satisfaction and diminished trust in IS teams
Case Studies
The agile processes, which are more of iterative and incremental in their nature, have become the key to contemporary information systems development. This paper also draws from scenarios, which illustrate how Agile methodologies such as Scrum and Kanban can be used to successfully solve project problems (Zayat and Ozlem Senvar, 2020).
Case Study 1: Agile in E-commerce Platform Development:
A modelling international e-business organization implemented Scrum to transform its old system. The team used two-week cycles, and the main goal of every cycle was to make minor changes. Sprint reviews ensured that stakeholders were involved in an ongoing manner hence ensuring compliance to business goals. The outcome was the decrease in time-to-market by 25 %, increase in scalability as well as the growth of customer satisfaction. These changes might have been averted had Agile allowed the team to alter its approach to meeting the market needs without affecting the time schedule.
Case Study 2: Agile in Government IT Systems:
A government agency used Kanban for managing their legacy IT system updates. To be specific, the actual real time viewing of the work flow and management of tasks helped the team to identify the problem areas of the work flow. Thus, the adoption of daily stand-up meetings as well
as cross-team coordination has eliminated rework, and reduced development costs by 30%. Due to the use of the agile model, the resources were well managed in order to accomplish all the objectives within the available project funds.
Case Study 3: Hybrid Agile in Financial Services:
To adopt the Agile approach, a Biz partnering financial institution adapted it to a waterfall structured organisation to incorporate the customer relationship managements CRM system. While development was in progress, Agile was used, but for planning, there was a need to stick with Waterfall. Thanks to the iterative testing and the constant feedback of the users, the last improvement of the system was 40%. Analysed stakeholders expressed their satisfaction with regard to flexibility of the model and risk management (Eyieyien et al., 2024).
Lessons Learned:
These cases of work justify the use of Agile in that it produces quality systems that meet user requirements. It is achieved by effective teams, communication and cooperation with all the stakeholders. Due to its flexibility of accommodating changing requirements, working with Agile is most suitable for projects such as those in this industry, if they are to be developed in a timely and cost effective manner (Daraojimba et al., 2024).
Cost-Benefit Analysis
The cost-benefit analysis is therefore one of the most important financial and operational performance measures in the use of lifecycle methodologies in IS development. A comparison of the traditional project management, Agile approach and the integration of both leads to the identification of cost differentials and advantages.
Traditional Model (Waterfall):
Unlike other models, the Waterfall model is predictable in costs because it has a rigid planning phase. But it is vulnerable to cost escalation, especially when performing the fourth task, that is, revisiting earlier stages for errors. For example, it has been established that about 40% of budget overruns in traditional project results from inflexible requirements and delays (Mishra and Alzoubi, 2023).
Agile Model:
To minimize the likelihood of massive problems, Agile developed a system that addresses problems in phases. The most significant savings with iterative testing and user feedback are in the realm of 25 to 30%, since iterative work prevents duplicated work in projects. However, as it depends on skills of the teams the initial resource investment may be higher and needs to be managed efficiently (Amajuoyi, Benjamin and Adeusi, 2024).
Hybrid Model:
Basically, the hybrid approach has features of both, Waterfall, which is more detailed and formal, and Agile, more flexible. This approach reduces the level of rework during the last stages of the project, while at the same time using resources efficiently. The problem is that many models indicate that the use of hybrids can reduce costs by 20-35%, primarily in projects with frequent changes in requirements. For example, integrating preplanning and large-batch planning with small-batch execution can help to cut $10,000-$15,000 from mid-size projects (Conforto and Amaral, 2016).
Benefits:
• Risk Mitigation: Small incremental risk assessments in Agile and hybrid models mean that killer applications do not overwhelm the entire system.
• Faster ROI: In Agile and hybrid projects, teams work on minimized timelines; thus, organizations can expect to get the value of their investment sooner.
• Improved Stakeholder Satisfaction: Given this, ongoing engagement reduces the number of costly misalignments.
Comparison of Solutions
Model Advantages Disadvantages
Waterfall Structured and predictable; clear milestones Inflexible to changes; high cost of late-stage fixes
Agile Adaptive; continuous stakeholder involvement Requires skilled teams; less effective for complex systems
Hybrid Combines structure with adaptability Complex to implement; demands skilled managers
Figure 2: comparison of solutions
1.Waterfall Model
The Waterfall model is one of the oldest, as well as most strictly sequential methods of the software development process. It follows a sequential process: include the process of: requirements gathering and analysis, designing, implementing, testing, deploying, and maintaining an IT system. This makes the planning of each phase linear where one phase has to be finished before the other starts which while easy to control is not very flexible. It is used most efficiently in the projects with less volatile and more predictable needs and demands. However, it most suits projects that have very strict requirements because if the requirements change halfway through the development process, it means going back to the basics and starting over (Ali Khan Contour Software, 2023).
Pros:
• It is well structured and can easily be managed.
• Applicable to projects that have clear specifications with well-defined requirements.
Cons:
• Inflexible to changes.
• Identification of issues in the last stages gives high expenses.
2. Agile Model
• The Agile model is a system that allows multiple small batches of change of the software product to be introduced into the market with customer feedback at the centre of the development. There aren't many sequential phases, but projects are divided into manageable time-boxed increments called 'sprints. At the end of each iteration, a working sub-release of the software is produced which is then evaluated and improved with regard to bugs.
• Relative to other methods, this is a good approach when it comes to projects that have changing needs because of the frequent changes and improvements. Agile promotes active interaction between the development team and the consumers of the product so as to ensure that their needs are met as the product is being developed (Dziuba, 2020).
Pros:
• Highly flexible and adaptive.
• Stakeholders must be involved for all the time so that there is achievement of alignment.
Cons:
• Not easily enabled in large and structures organizations.
• Large degree of skill that is required from a team.
3. Hybrid Model
Hybrid model is an integration of both Waterfall and Agile methodologies and is described next. The planning phase is done using Waterfall approach through developing clear goals, time frames and costs while the cycles of development, testing and improvement are done through Agile approach. The Hybrid model means that the teams can create a much better plan of which requirements should be tackled at a certain phase of development in order to achieve proj ect's goals,
while at the same time being flexible enough to accommodate changes in requirements, thus increasing productivity and satisfaction among stakeholders (Taller, 2021). Pros:
• Waterfall with an ability of Agile process integration.
• The particularity that can be noticed in its structure is combined with the openness of the Nonaka's model.
Cons:
• It can only be done after close planning and proficient project managers.
• Cognitive risk of over sophistication of the processes. Cost Comparison chart after model
Figure 3: comparison of solutions
Explanations:
The line graph used here shows variations in cost between traditional and the hybrid lifecycle in different stages. Clearly, the hybrid model is less costly than the traditional model during the development phase; it is $12,000 as compared to $15,000.
Purpose of Chart:
This chart compares the costs across different phases of the project lifecycle for two different lifecycle models:
The old traditional lifecycle (blue line) and the new hybrid lifecycle (green line). The goal of such chart is to show how the costs are changing over the Planning, Design, Development, Testing and Deployment stages of every model. From the chart you can easily see that in the Traditional lifecycle, the costs increase dramatically during the Development phase while in the hybrid lifecycle the costs are more or less equalized throughout the phases. This visualization is beneficial when determining the cost-evaluation of each of the lifecycle models.
Proposed Solutions
Hybrid Framework for IS Development
• Phased Flexibility: During planning, blend Waterfall model with other models and for executing the project, Agile model should be adopted.
• Risk Management: Make the use of predictive analytics and repeating the evaluation of
risks.
• Stakeholder Collaboration: Put in place systems where feedback is given and received instantly.
Formula for Lifecycle Efficiency:
Vplc =
SU Wi • Ti ELi тг
Figure 4: formula
ОФ "Международный научно-исследовательский центр "Endless Light in Science"
Where WiW_iWi is the weight of phase iii and TiT_iTi is the time taken.
Visualization:
• A flowchart of the hybrid model of the product lifecycle.
• A presentation of bar graphs to compare the efficiency of the new methods with traditional methods.
Your Suggestions for Solving Solutions
Proposed Hybrid Framework for IS Development
• Phased Flexibility: Integrate Waterfall's planning phase into the Agile's segmentation, where development occurs in segments called iterations.
• Planning Stage: Use Waterfall to set out objectives, budgets and time frames.
• Execution Stage: Just apply Agile sprints to incrementally build and improve it.
Stakeholder Collaboration Tools:
• Make use of tools facilitating real-time messages and opinions.
• Sprint reviews that are done on a set frequency to ensure expectations are met.
Dynamic Risk Management:
• During planning, you should use predictive analytics to consider the possibility of risks.
• Risk evaluation should be done in an iterative way during Agile sprints.
Challenges and Future of Information Systems Development
IS development has gone through changes over the years due to complexity in the modern technology, business requirements, and customers' demands. These methodologies such as Waterfall, Agile and Hybrid have in some way enhanced project performance, but they are plagued with a lot of challenges that need to be further dealt with in the future. The biggest risks to executing agile projects are the struggle to achieve an optimal degree of flexibility while maintaining order, addressing the external and internal stakeholders, managing changing requirements, and incorporating new technologies (Fagarasan et al., 2021).
Key Challenges in IS Development
1. Balancing Flexibility and Structure: Waterfall models are well-structured, and the way of work is easy to predict, however, they are rigid, and this is not suitable for the environment, where the requirements are constantly changing. Conversely, Agile allows for a lot of flexibility for a project to be adjusted and changed but does not provide the specificity needed when the project is big or complicated. Even in the Hybrid model, both aspects are tried to be followed in some optimal manner, but the question of how to implement the structural planning and the iterative development in the best possible manner without making it very complex is still quite valid. The biggest problem which arises is how to get the right balance that best meets the needs of particular projects.
2. Managing Stakeholder Expectations: Because Agile entails a lot of collaboration and deliverables in segments, then it means that the stakeholders' expectations may change along the process. Such a situation can cause different degrees of misalignments wherein the development team must consistently translate these changes to the relevant stakeholders. As in the Waterfall models, where requirements are specified at the beginning of the project, any changes that happen during the development process will slow down the project and possibly cost more.
3. Evolving Requirements: One of the biggest difficulties of IS development is that the requirements change over time. Agile incorporates feedback loops often to include new information, which can sometimes dilute what the product is trying to achieve or deliver. On the other hand, Waterfall approach has a highly structured framework that cannot easily allow variations once the project begins.
4. Integration of Emerging Technologies: Technological development is an opportunity for IS development but the high rate at which the technologies are developing is a challenge. Since integrating new technologies such as AI, machine learning, and blockchain into conventional systems imply that new processes and technical specifications have to be incorporated during the
development phase, the recommended development methodologies have to be adaptable to these changes (Wu, 2024).
Future Directions
1. Refinement of Hybrid Models: More efforts are needed to fine-tune Hybrid models for the purpose of enhancing their applicability to large-scale and complicated IS development initiatives, but without compromising flexibility. Further studies should be conducted in order to develop clear and unambiguous templates for the use of the methods from the two models that would be suitable for the given field of work.
2. Automation and AI Integration: The fourth and the final area where IS development is likely to evolve in the future is the automation/ artificial intelligence area. This includes tools that can automate a specific process or help in the generation of code; a criterion that holds potential for higher development efficiency and less errors. In hybrid models, AI may be used for risk assessment, scheduling and potentially for design iteration as well.
3. Continuous Improvement with DevOps and Agile: DevOps a model that merges the development and operations teams could help one do this better through continuous delivery integration and deployment. The integration of DevOps with Agile would improve the hybrid model through faster feedback, improvement in time to market, and a seamless upgrade from development to deployment.
4. Emphasis on Cybersecurity: With the increasing complexity of threats in the cyber world, future development of ISs should be more focused on security at different stages of the IS life cycle. In the case of hybrid models, cybersecurity measures are going to have to be implemented at every level - from the design phase all the way through to deployment. The final product will have to be designed for security by developers collaborating with security personnel in order to prevent this from being an afterthought (Jada and Mayayise, 2023).
Conclusion
This paper establishes that achieving efficient IS development involves striking a balance between structure and flexibility. Waterfall for instance is a traditional model that has a sequential structure and is very much structured, this make it easy to set up goals and time frames but it is not very responsive to change especially when it comes to requirements. On the other hand, Agile methodologies allow for the changes and foster collaboration, and thus work in terms of increments. But the question is: Without the clear planning phase, Agile can lead to uncontrolled development and additional expenses (Ciric et al., 2019).
The combination of strengths enables projects that need the waterfall structure for control and clarity but also require flexibility for changes characteristic of the agile model. This approach minimizes risks of project failure, attracts more stakeholders, and shortens delivery cycles making it viable for IS development projects.
Theoretical and practical frameworks may be designed to apply the hybrid approach according to the requirements of the specific project, including size, complexity and resources. Moreover, it would be useful to discover how different levels of hybridisation incorporate more innovative approaches, including artificial intelligence or machine learning, can also broaden the usefulness of the models (Dzhusupova, Bosch and Olsson, 2024).
REFRENCES
1. Ali Khan Contour Software, S.M. (2023). Waterfall Model Used in Software Development Reference: Software Requirements Engineering Waterfall Model. ResearchGate. [online] doi:https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29580.69764.
2. Amajuoyi, P., Benjamin, L.B. and Adeusi, K.B. (2024). Agile methodologies: Adapting product management to rapidly changing market conditions. [online] ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381001633_Agile_methodologies_Adapting_produc t_management_to_rapidly_changing_market_conditions [Accessed 10 Dec. 2024].
ОФ "Международный научно-исследовательский центр "Endless Light in Science"
3. Ciric, D., Lalic, B., Gracanin, D., Tasic, N., Delic, M. and Medic, N. (2019). Agile vs. Traditional Approach in Project Management: Strategies, Challenges and Reasons to Introduce Agile. Procedia Manufacturing, [online] 39(4), pp.1407-1414. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.314.
4. Conforto, E.C. and Amaral, D.C. (2016). Agile Project Management and stage-gate Model—a Hybrid Framework for technology-based Companies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 40, pp.1-14.
5. Daraojimba, C., Nwasike, C.N., Adegbite, A.O. and Gidiagba, J. (2024). COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF AGILE METHODOLOGIES IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT, [online] ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377434258_COMPREHENSIVE_REVIEW_OF_A GILE_METHODOLOGIES_IN_PROJECT_MANAGEMENT [Accessed 10 Dec. 2024].
6. Dzhusupova, R., Bosch, J. and Olsson, H.H. (2024). Choosing the right path for AI integration in engineering companies: A strategic guide. Journal of Systems and Software, [online] 210, p.111945. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2023.111945.
7. Dziuba, A. (2020). Agile Software Development Lifecycle Phases Explained. [online] relevant.software. Available at: https://relevant.software/blog/agile-software-development-lifecycle-phases-explained/ [Accessed 10 Dec. 2024].
8. Eyieyien, O.G., Idemudia, C., Paul, P.O. and Ijomah, T.I. (2024). Advancements in project management methodologies: Integrating agile and waterfall approaches for optimal outcomes. Engineering Science & Technology Journal, [online] 5(7), pp.2216-2231. doi:https://doi.org/10.51594/estj.v5i7.1312.
9. Fagarasan, C., Popa, O., Pisla, A. and Cristea, C. (2021). Agile, waterfall and iterative approach in information technology proj ects. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1169(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/1169/1/012025.
10. Glass, R.L. (2006). The Standish Report: Does It Really Describe a Software Crisis? Communications of the ACM, [online] 49(8), pp.15-16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1145301.
11. Jada, I. and Mayayise, T.O. (2023). The impact of artificial intelligence on organisational cyber security: An outcome of a systematic literature review. Data and Information Management, [online] 8(2), pp.100063-100063. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dim.2023.100063.
12. Kasauli, R., Knauss, E., Horkoff, J., Liebel, G. and de Oliveira Neto, F.G. (2020). Requirements engineering challenges and practices in large-scale agile system development. Journal of Systems and Software, [online] 172, p.110851. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121220302417 [Accessed 10 Dec. 2024].
13. Mishra, A. and Alzoubi, Y.I. (2023). Structured Software Development versus Agile Software development: a Comparative Analysis. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, [online] 14(4). doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-023-01958-5.
14. Taller, H. (2021). When, Why, and How to Use the Agile-waterfall Hybrid Model. [online] www.ptc.com. Available at: https://www.ptc.com/en/blogs/alm/when-why-how-to-use-the-agile-waterfall-hybrid-model [Accessed 10 Dec. 2024].
15. Wu, T. (2024). Exploring of the Integration of Emerging Technologies and Corporate Governance. Advances in Economics Management and Political Sciences, 87(1), pp.90-96. doi:https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/87/20241021.
16. Zayat, W. and Ozlem Senvar (2020). Framework Study for Agile Software Development Via Scrum and Kanban. [online] ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341318650_Framework_Study_for_Agile_Software _Development_Via_Scrum_and_Kanban [Accessed 10 Dec. 2024].
