Comparative Study Between Software Product Line and Waterfall Process

Main Article Content

Waraporn Jirapanthong


- Software product line has been recognised as an important paradigm for software systems engineering. In the last years, a large number of methodologies and approaches have been proposed to support the development of software systems based on product line development. However, its context leads difficulties to software product line engineering in practical. It has been quested whether software product line-based approach is more productive and flexible than traditional software development model i.e. waterfall model. This research thus examines the qualitative and quantitative aspects of software development which applies software product line and waterfall. The paper presents the study on empirical projects based on software product line and waterfall processes. In particular, we conducted the survey and interview to capture the satisfaction of stakeholders and measured the effort spent during software development and maintenance.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
W. Jirapanthong, “Comparative Study Between Software Product Line and Waterfall Process”, JIST, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-8, Jun. 2010.
Research Article: Soft Computing (Detail in Scope of Journal)


1. Atkinson, C., J. Bayer, and D. Muthig. 2000. Component-based product line development: The KobrA approach. Pages 289-310. the 1st Software Product Line Conference, SPLC. Kluwer, Denver, Colorado, USA.

2. Bayer, J., O. Flege, P. Knauber, R. Laqua, D. Muthig, K. Schmid, T. Widen, and J.-M. DeBaud. 1999. PuLSE: A methodology to develop software product lines. Pages 122-131. the Fifth ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Reusability (SSR'99), Los Angeles, CA, USA.

3. Boehm, B. 1991. Software Risk Management: Principles and Practices. IEEE Software, no.pp. 32-41, January.

4. Clements, P., and L. Northrop. 2004. A Framework for Software Product Lines Practice.

5. Fenton, Norman E.. 1991. Software Metrics: A Rigorous Approach. Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London, UK.

6. Griss, M. L., J. Favaro, and M. d. Alessandro. 1998. Integrating feature modeling with the RSEB. Pages 76-85 in P. Devanbu and J. Poulin, eds. the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse. IEEE Computer Society Press.

7. Jirapanthong, W. 2008. An Approach to Software Artefact Specification for Supporting Product Line Systems. the 2008 International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP’08), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 2008.

8. Jirapanthong, W., and A. Zisman. 2009. XTraQue: traceability for product line systems. Software and System Modeling 8(1): 117-144 (2009).

9. Kang, K., S. Cohen, J. Hess, W. Novak, and A. Peterson. 1990. Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

10. Kang, K. C., S. Kim, J. Lee, K. Kim, E. Shin, and M. Huh. 1998. FORM: a feature-oriented reuse method with domain-specific architectures. Annals of Software Engineering 5: 143-168.

11. Linden, F. v. d., J. Bosch, E. Kamsties, K. K¨ans¨al¨a, and H. Obbink. 2004. Software Product Family Evaluation. Pages 110-129. the Third International Software Product Line Conference, SPLC 2004. Springer Boston, MA, USA.

12. Mills, Everald E. 1998. Software Metrics. SEI Curriculum Module SEI-CM-12-1.1, December.

13. Sharpe, J.L., and J. W. Cangussu. 2005. A productivity metric based on statistical pattern recognition. Computer Software and Applications Conference, 29th Annual International, 26-28 July.

14. Weiss, D. 1995. Software Synthesis: The FAST Process. the International Conference on Computing in High