Comparative Study of Different SDLC Models

The Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) refers to a methodology with clearly defined processes for creating highquality software which are cost effective and reliable. This method of software developing process is quite systematic and structural. SDLC defines the framework that has different activities and tasks to be administered during the software development process. Software development process is quite complex, and to do it without any proper planning would be inefficient. So, we use these SDLC models to make the Software development process simple and systematic. There are various software development life cycle models that are used in the software development process, all having their own advantages and limitations. In this paper, we have included six of these SDLC models - Waterfall Model, Spiral Model, V Model, Agile Model, Iterative Model and Rapid Application Development (RAD) Model. These Software Development processes have their own Advantages and Disadvantages, and the main purpose of this paper is to explain these models and know the difference between them. Keywords: Software Development life cycle, Models, Risk Analysis, Framework, SRS.

A life cycle for creating an uncomplicated software

Modern software development life cycle models tend to be less formal and less rigid then Waterfall based models of the past. However, creating software without followingeven the most basic of plans often results in poorly structured, faulty, and hard to maintain software. This paper proposes a practical development model for the purpose for software development. Following some sort of plan produces better code than no plan at all. This model has been shown to be successful even with inexperienced developers.

Identifying the potential of anadromous salmonid habitat restoration with life cycle models

An investigation into the causes of species decline should include examination of habitats important for multiple life stages. Integrating habitat impacts across life stages with life-cycle models (LCMs) can reveal habitat impairments inhibiting recovery and help guide restoration efforts. As part of the final elements of the Habitat Restoration Planning model (HARP; Beechie et al. this volume), we developed LCMs for four populations of three species of anadromous salmonids (Oncorhynchus kisutch, O. tshawytscha, and O. mykiss), and ran diagnostic scenarios to examine effects of barrier removal, fine sediment reduction, wood augmentation, riparian shade, restoration of the main channel and bank conditions, beaver pond restoration, and floodplain reconnection. In the wood scenario, spawner abundance for all populations increased moderately (29–48%). In the shade scenario, spring-run Chinook salmon abundance increased the most (48%) and fall-run Chinook salmon and steelhead were much less responsive. Coho responded strongly to the beaver pond and floodplain scenarios (76% and 54%, respectively). The fine sediment scenario most benefitted fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon (32–63%), whereas steelhead and coho were less responsive (11–21% increase). More observations are needed to understand high fine sediment and its impacts. Our LCMs were region-specific, identifying places where habitat actions had the highest potential effects. For example, the increase in spring-run Chinook salmon in the wood scenario was driven by the Cascade Mountains Ecological Region. And, although the overall response of coho salmon was small in the barrier removal scenario (6% increase at the scale of the entire basin), barrier removals had important sub-regional impacts. The HARP analysis revealed basin-wide and regional population-specific potential benefits by action types, and this habitat-based approach could be used to develop restoration strategies and guide population rebuilding. An important next step will be to ground-truth our findings with robust empirically-based estimates of life stage-specific survivals and abundances.

The Journey of Mapping the Entire Destination Lifecycle

The two destination life cycle models proposed by Plog (1974) and Butler (1980) have been recognizing by most of the tourism destination scholars. Questions tend to arise on the possible use of these models to map the entire destination life cycle from the beginning. Therefore, this study aims to discuss the possibility of entire lifespan of tourism destination by using the destination life cycle models from Plog and Butler. This research analyses the strengths and weaknesses of the models revealed from existing studies using critical inputs of the tourism industry. The main difference between the famous models, i.e. Butler and Plog lies in the authors' background and the approach of the different themes. Complexity factors such as multi-market, time boundaries, political agenda, market evolution/ access, mode of transportation, and technological innovation, makes it impossible to map the entire destination life cycle confidently. The ability to innovate reduces the relevancy of life cycle models. Therefore, the DMO needs to deal with the changes associated with increasing the destination's values to avoid stagnation or decline in stages.

The Life Cycle Process Model

This chapter describes the core features of life cycle models of organizational change. These models of change are also referred to as regulated, mandated, prescribed, imposed, logically necessary, or prefigured in advance of their execution. Life-cycle models do not imply that an actor must passively comply with mandated changes; actors may be proactive individuals who adapt to their environments and make use of rules to accomplish their purposes. The strengths, challenges, and stages of life cycle models are examined, and future developments advancing life cycle models by considering the role of choice and of multiple forms of agency are advocated.

Design as an Indicator of Tourist Destination Change: The Concept Renewal Cycle at Watkins Glen State Park

For decades, the Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) model, its iterations, and its critics have shaped the conversation about change and adaptation at tourist destinations. However, few life cycle models consider the designed landscape as a factor in the evolutionary process or as a signifier of change. This oversight is problematic because the landscape, the aggregation of consciously designed spaces and amenities, is where tourism takes place. It is the physical manifestation of the tourist destination and therefore significantly influences how the site is organized, consumed, and evaluated. To illustrate the landscape’s importance, this article proposes a new life cycle model called the Concept Renewal Cycle (CRC), which tracks the intent of the designed landscape, the concept, to understand and document destination change. The model introduces and utilizes relevancy as the variable that determines concept success and instigates action. The proposed model and other prominent life cycle models are analyzed and compared through the case study of Watkins Glen State Park in New York state. While the other models struggle to reflect the evolution at Watkins Glen, the CRC shows resilience by eschewing TALC’s inevitable, time-based decline structure in favor of a cyclical pattern where concept revision allows for prolonged maturity.

Overview Of System Development Life Cycle Models

During the time half of the twentieth century, the utilization of Programmed computers has become huge. As an outcome, software programming has turned out to be increasingly differing and complex. Also, there are expanding requests on software programming – it must be less expensive, have more usefulness, be conveyed speedier, and be of higher quality than already. In the constantly changing environment and society of programming advancement, the procedures and strategies utilized when growing little projects are not adequate while developing extensive frameworks. As one response to this, distinctive improvement lifecycle models have been characterized. This paper portrays the three fundamental sorts of systems Development lifecycle models, from the successive models using incremental models to transformative models. The iterative advancement technique is additionally examined, and we additionally intricate the association of advancement lifecycle models to two rising fields in programming designing: programming design and part-based programming advancement.