{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,28]],"date-time":"2026-04-28T05:40:13Z","timestamp":1777354813861,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":25,"publisher":"Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2016,2,22]],"date-time":"2016-02-22T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1456099200000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.acm.org\/publications\/policies\/copyright_policy#Background"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["dl.acm.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2016,2,22]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>Software Engineering provides a standard way to develop and maintain a complex software. Industry uses software development Life Cycles (SDLC) to develop a software. SDLC plays an important role as it helps to define the software requirements, model the software component, reduce development and maintenance cost and finally provides manageable software. There exist numerous SDLC models viz. Waterfall, Incremental, Rapid, Agile, Hybrid etc. After a comprehensive study and analysis of existing SDLC models, I observe all models are complementary, not competitive. I divide all models into three broad categories viz. Traditional models, Agile models and Hybrid models. The main objective of the paper is to give a quick review of SDLC models and an effective answer to the most confusing question arise in software engineering practice \"how to select an efficient SDLC model for practice?\" Many factors viz. nature of requirements, the size of software development team, project size, customer interaction etc. have an effect on selection criteria. This paper presents a brief insight into each model and its comparative analysis. The analysis helps to understand the basic characteristics of each model and its applicability. Furthermore, the analysis helps software manager to select the appropriate model for practice<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1145\/2853073.2853080","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2016,2,23]],"date-time":"2016-02-23T13:43:21Z","timestamp":1456235001000},"page":"1-6","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":11,"title":["An Excursion to Software Development Life Cycle Models"],"prefix":"10.1145","volume":"41","author":[{"given":"Unnati S.","family":"Shah","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Computer Engineering, C.K. Pithawalla College of Engineering and Technology, Surat"}]},{"given":"Devesh C.","family":"Jinwala","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Computer Engineering, S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat"}]},{"given":"Sankita J.","family":"Patel","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Computer Engineering, S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat"}]}],"member":"320","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2016,2,22]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_2_1_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1109\/32.6190"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_2_1","volume-title":"Software Engineering","author":"Sommerville"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_3_1","unstructured":"Jacobson I. Booch G. Rumbaugh J. Rumbaugh J. & Booch G. 1999. The unified software development process (Vol. 1). Reading: Addison-wesley.   Jacobson I. Booch G. Rumbaugh J. Rumbaugh J. & Booch G. 1999. The unified software development process (Vol. 1). Reading: Addison-wesley."},{"key":"e_1_2_2_4_1","volume-title":"Fundamentals of software engineering","author":"Ghezzi C."},{"key":"e_1_2_2_5_1","volume-title":"Product-focused software process improvement (pp. 386--400)","author":"Petersen K."},{"key":"e_1_2_2_6_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/1764810.1764814"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_7_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kleijnen J. P. 1995. Verification and validation of simulation models.European Journal of Operational Research 82(1) 145--162.  Kleijnen J. P. 1995. Verification and validation of simulation models.European Journal of Operational Research 82(1) 145--162.","DOI":"10.1016\/0377-2217(94)00016-6"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_8_1","first-page":"605","volume-title":"June","author":"Goel A. K."},{"key":"e_1_2_2_9_1","unstructured":"Geambasu and I. Jianu. 2011. Influence factors for the Choice of a Software Development Methodology. Accounting and management Information Systems Vol. 10 No.4 pp. 479--494 2011.  Geambasu and I. Jianu. 2011. Influence factors for the Choice of a Software Development Methodology. Accounting and management Information Systems Vol. 10 No.4 pp. 479--494 2011."},{"key":"e_1_2_2_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1109\/MC.2003.1204375"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_11_1","unstructured":"May E. L. & Zimmer B. A. 1996. The evolutionary development model for software.Hewlett Packard Journal 47 39--41.  May E. L. & Zimmer B. A. 1996. The evolutionary development model for software.Hewlett Packard Journal 47 39--41."},{"key":"e_1_2_2_12_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2307\/248654"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_13_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/12944.12948"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_14_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/336512.336519"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_15_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/336512.336521"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_16_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1109\/2.947100"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_17_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/2693208.2693233"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_18_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","volume-title":"The new methodology","author":"Fowler M.","DOI":"10.1007\/BF03160222"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_19_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.infsof.2008.01.006"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_20_1","volume-title":"Requirements engineering and agile software development. In null (p. 308)","author":"Paetsch F."},{"key":"e_1_2_2_21_1","volume-title":"Presented at OOPSLA'95 Workshop on Business Object Design and Implementation","author":"Schwaber Scrum Development","year":"1995"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_22_1","unstructured":"J. Stapleton. 1997. Dynamic Systems Developments Method - The Method in Practice: Addison Wesley.   J. Stapleton. 1997. Dynamic Systems Developments Method - The Method in Practice: Addison Wesley."},{"issue":"2","key":"e_1_2_2_23_1","first-page":"340","article-title":"A Hybrid Software Development Method for Large-Scale Projects: Rational Unified Process with Scrum","volume":"10","author":"Juyun Cho","year":"2009","journal-title":"Issue in Information Systems."},{"key":"e_1_2_2_24_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1109\/MS.2008.1"},{"key":"e_1_2_2_25_1","volume-title":"Requirements engineering in agile software development. InSoftware for People (pp. 97--119)","author":"Grau R."}],"container-title":["ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/10.1145\/2853073.2853080","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/pdf\/10.1145\/2853073.2853080","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,6,18]],"date-time":"2025-06-18T19:04:30Z","timestamp":1750273470000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/dl.acm.org\/doi\/10.1145\/2853073.2853080"}},"subtitle":["An Old to Ever-growing Models"],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2016,2,22]]},"references-count":25,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2016,2,22]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1145\/2853073.2853080"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/2853073.2853080","relation":{},"ISSN":["0163-5948"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0163-5948","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2016,2,22]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2016-02-22","order":2,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}