Software Development LifeCycle (SDLC)
#1

[attachment=11313]
1.INTRODUCTION
This document describes the Software Development LifeCycle (SDLC) for small to medium database application development efforts This chapter presents an overview of the SDLC, alternate lifecycle models, and associated references. The following chapter describes the internal processes that are common across all stages of the SDLC, and the third chapter describes the inputs, outputs, and processes of each stage. Finally, the conclusion describes the four core concepts that form the basis of this SDLC.
1.1 THE SDLC WATERFALL
Small to medium database software projects are generally broken down into six Stages:The relationship of each stage to the others can be roughly described as a waterfall, where the outputs from a specific stage serve as the initial inputs for the following stage. During each stage, additional information is gathered or developed, combined with the inputs, and used to produce the stage deliverables.
1.2 OTHER SDLC MODELS
The waterfall model is one of the three most commonly cited lifecycle models. Others include the Spiral model and the Rapid Application Development (RAD) model, often referred to as the Prototyping model.
1.3 SPIRAL LIFECYCLE:
The spiral model starts with an initial pass through a standard waterfall lifecycle, using a subset of the total requirements to develop a robust prototype. After an evaluation period, the cycle is initiated again, adding new functionality and releasing the next prototype. This process continues, with the prototype becoming larger and larger with each iteration.Hence,the“spiral.” The theory is that the set of requirements is hierarchical in nature, with additional functionality building on the first efforts. This is a sound practice for systems where the entire problem is well defined from the start, such as modeling and simulating software. Business-oriented database projects do not enjoy this advantage. Most of the functions in a database solution are essentially independent of one another, although they may make use of common data. As a result, the prototype suffers from the same flaws as the prototyping lifecycle described below. For this reason, the software development team has decided against the use of the spiral lifecycle for database projects.
1.4 RAPID APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT (RAD) / PROTOTYPING LIFECYCLE
RAD is, in essence, the “try before you buy” approach to software development. The theory is that end users can produce better feedback when examining a live system, as opposed to working strictly with documentation. RAD-based development cycles have resulted in a lower level of rejection when the application is placed into production, but this success most often comes at the expense of a dramatic overruns in project costs and schedule. The RAD approach was made possible with significant advances in software development environments to allow rapid generation and change of screens and other user interface features. The end user is allowed to work with the screens online, as if in a production environment. This leaves little to the imagination, and a significant number of errors are caught using this process.
The down side to RAD is the propensity of the end user to force scope creep into the development effort. Since it seems so easy for the developer to produce the basic screen, it must be just as easy to add a widget or two. In most RAD lifecycle failures, the end users and developers were caught in an unending cycle of enhancements, with the users asking for more and more and the developers trying to satisfy them. The participants lost sight of the goal of producing a basic, useful system in favor of the siren song of glittering perfection.
For this reason, the software development team does not use a pure RAD approach, but instead blends limited prototyping in with requirements and design development during a conventional waterfall lifecycle.
2.GENERIC STAGE:
Each of the stages of the development lifecycle follow five standard internal processes.These processes establish a pattern of communication and documentation intended to familiarize all participants with the current situation, and thus minimize risk to the current project plan. This generic stage description is Provided to avoid repetitive descriptions of these internal processes in each of the following software lifecycle stage descriptions. The five standard processes are Kickoff, Informal iteration, Formal iteration, In-stage assessment, and Stage exit:
KICKOFF PROCESS
Each stage is initiated by a kickoff meeting, which can be conducted either in person, or by Web teleconference. The purpose of the kickoff meeting is to review the output of the previous stage, go over any additional inputs required by that particular stage, examine the anticipated activities and required outputs of the current stage, review the current project schedule, and review any open issues.
The PDR is responsible for preparing the agenda and materials to be presented at this meeting. All project participants are invited to attend the kickoff meeting for each stage.
INFORMAL ITERATION PROCESS
Most of the creative work for a stage occurs here. Participants work together to gather additional information and refine stage inputs into draft deliverables. Activities of this stage may include interviews, meetings, the generation of prototypes, and electronic correspondence. All of these communications are deemed informal, and are not recorded as minutes, documents of record, controlled software, or official memoranda.
The intent here is to encourage, rather than inhibit the communication process. This process concludes when the majority of participants agree that the work is substantially complete and it is time to generate draft deliverables for formal review and comment.
FORMAL ITERATION PROCESS
In this process, draft deliverables are generated for formal review and comment. Each deliverable was introduced during the kickoff process, and is intended to satisfy one or more outputs for the current stage. Each draft deliverable is given a version number and placed under configuration management control.
As participants review the draft deliverables, they are responsible for reporting errors found and concerns they may have to the PDR via electronic mail. The PDR in turn consolidates these reports into a series of issues associated with a specific version of a deliverable. The person in charge of developing the deliverable works to resolve these issues, then releases another version of the deliverable for review. This process iterates until all issues are resolved for each deliverable. There are no formal check off / signature forms for this part of the process. The intent here is to encourage review and feedback.
At the discretion of the PDR and PER, certain issues may be reserved for resolution in later stages of the development lifecycle. These issues are disassociated from the specific deliverable, and tagged as "open issues." Open issues are reviewed during the kickoff meeting for each subsequent stage.
Once all issues against a deliverable have been resolved or moved to open status, the final (release) draft of the deliverable is prepared and submitted to the PDR. When final drafts of all required stage outputs have been received, the PDR reviews the final suite of deliverables, reviews the amount of labor expended against this stage of the project, and uses this information to update the project plan.
The project plan update includes a detailed list of tasks, their schedule and estimated level of effort for the next stage. The stages following the next stage The Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC)
For small to medium database applications Version 1.0d 10 (out stages) in the project plan are updated to include a high level estimate of schedule and level of effort, based on current project experience.
Out stages are maintained at a high level in the project plan, and are included primarily for informational purposes; direct experience has shown that it is very difficult to accurately plan detailed tasks and activities for out stages in a software development lifecycle. The updated project plan and schedule is a standard deliverable for each stage of the project. The PDR then circulates the updated project plan and schedule for review and comment, and iterates these documents until all issues have been resolved or moved to open status.
Once the project plan and schedule has been finalized, all final deliverables for the current stage are made available to all project participants, and the PDR initiates the next process.
IN-STAGE ASSESSMENT PROCESS
This is the formal quality assurance review process for each stage. In a small software development project, the deliverables for each stage are generally small enough that it is not cost effective to review them for compliance with quality assurance standards before the deliverables have been fully developed. As a result, only one in-stage assessment is scheduled for each stage.
This process is initiated when the PDR schedules an in-stage assessment with the independent Quality Assurance Reviewer (QAR), a selected End-user Reviewer (usually a Subject Matter Expert), and a selected Technical Reviewer.
These reviewers formally review each deliverable to make judgments as to the quality and validity of the work product, as well as its compliance with the standards defined for deliverables of that class. Deliverable class standards are defined in the software quality assurance section of the project plan.
The End-user Reviewer is tasked with verifying the completeness and accuracy of the deliverable in terms of desired software functionality. The Technical Reviewer determines whether the deliverable contains complete and accurate technical information.
The QA Reviewer is tasked solely with verifying the completeness and compliance of the deliverable against the associated deliverable class standard. The QAR may make recommendations, but cannot raise formal issues that do not relate to the deliverable standard.
Each reviewer follows a formal checklist during their review, indicating their level of concurrence with each review item in the checklist. Refer to the software quality assurance plan for this project for deliverable class standards and associated review checklists. A deliverable is considered to be acceptable when The Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC)
For small to medium database applications Version 1.0d 11 each reviewer indicates substantial or unconditional concurrence with the content of the deliverable and the review checklist items.
Any issues raised by the reviewers against a specific deliverable will be logged and relayed to the personnel responsible for generation of the deliverable. The revised deliverable will then be released to project participants for another formal review iteration. Once all issues for the deliverable have been addressed, the deliverable will be resubmitted to the reviewers for reassessment. Once all three reviewers have indicated concurrence with the deliverable, the PDR will release a final in-stage assessment report and initiate the next process
Reply

Important Note..!

If you are not satisfied with above reply ,..Please

ASK HERE

So that we will collect data for you and will made reply to the request....OR try below "QUICK REPLY" box to add a reply to this page
Popular Searches: ppt on sdlc for online shopping, project development lifecycle, teme za diplomski rad, sdlc model for online voting system, hospital management system based sdlc, seminarski rad iz geografije, architecure of activity lifecycle in android,

[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Image Verification
Please enter the text contained within the image into the text box below it. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.
Image Verification
(case insensitive)

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Application of Software Testing in E-Learning full report project topics 3 6,510 27-06-2013, 07:52 PM
Last Post: Ashley Brownile
  NETWORKING OF GPS., SENSORS AND SOFTWARE SYSTEMS WITH DBMS seminar class 0 1,856 31-03-2011, 11:12 AM
Last Post: seminar class
Thumbs Up EXPERT SYSTEM DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT. projectsofme 2 2,912 14-10-2010, 01:29 PM
Last Post: projectsofme
  Rapid Application Development Model project report helper 0 1,639 05-10-2010, 01:00 PM
Last Post: project report helper
  Development of the Internet computer science crazy 0 1,240 23-09-2008, 12:47 AM
Last Post: computer science crazy

Forum Jump: