Simulating the Software Development Lifecycle: The Waterfall Model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study employs a simulation-based approach, adapting the waterfall model, to provide estimates for software project and individual phase completion times. Additionally, it pinpoints potential efficiency issues stemming from suboptimal resource levels. We implement our software development lifecycle simulation using SimPy, a Python discrete-event simulation framework. Our model is executed within the context of a software house on 100 projects of varying sizes examining two scenarios. The first provides insight based on an initial set of resources, which reveals the presence of resource bottlenecks, particularly a shortage of programmers for the implementation phase. The second scenario uses a level of resources that would achieve zero-wait time, identified using a stepwise algorithm. The findings illustrate the advantage of using simulations as a safe and effective way to experiment and plan for software development projects. Such simulations allow those managing software development projects to make accurate, evidence-based projections as to phase and project completion times as well as explore the interplay with resources.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it