Risks of rapid application development

Abstract

Proliferating information systems (IS) application development backlogs and everescalating business demands for applications software have resulted in a constant search by IS organizations for paradigms and tools that accelerate the pace of software development. Along with rapid application development (RAD), technologies such as CASE, object-oriented development, client/server computing, and flexible middleware are being hailed as potential solutions to the software crisis [11]. Although industry experience with these paradigms is mixed, the benefits of such technologies are acknowledged—at least with regard to improvements in development productivity and application delivery times [3]. While no universal definition of RAD exists, it can be characterized in two ways: as a methodology prescribing certain phases in software development (similar in principle to the spiral, iterative models of software construction), and as a class of tools that allow for speedy object development, graphical user interfaces, and reusable code for client/server applications. Indeed, the tools and methodology are inextricably linked: the tools enable the methodology and circumscribe what is accomplished during a development project. In a world dominated by deadlines and irate users, where competitive advantage can depend on how quickly software is developed to support new business, RAD is certainly appealing. The popular press extols its virtues with adjectives like “evolutionary,” “iterative,” “interactive,” and “dynamic,” emphasizing the delivery rate increases facilitated by RAD, which range from 25% to 1,000% [4]. But software development does not conclude with speedy application delivery. For the true benefits of the technology to be realized, the applications must exhibit reusability and maintainability so that total life-cycle costs are reduced. Surprisingly little time has been spent determining if the value of RAD tools to business extends beyond the