Our investor wants a SDLC. I've never written one before, and I don't have enough time to go and buy a book, or spend much time learning about them. From what I've been told about them, they consist of requirements (what needs to be done), and a list is done. Is this correct?
Update:
I have found this article which really helps to explain things in simple terms and very quickly. Not that I think an SDLC should be done quickly. In my case, I have no other option.
Not really; that's more project management. That's what you need at the point where you've figured out how you're going to develop software.
For the 'how' of developing Software, the two 'biggies' are Agile and Waterfall; with a weird hybrid in between the two.
But that's only one part of the Software Development Life Cycle: You still have to have a maintenance and deployment plan.
My question for you: If someone's giving you money, and they want a plan, isn't it in your best interest to read a book about the SDLC and give them a plan?
There are lots of ideas about SDLC out there. You can't swing a cat without hitting one.
What have you done to develop software that attracted your investor in the first place? Can't you describe that? Why do you have to go out and "learn one"?
There's a number of choices:
If your investor wants you to describe the SDLC, he wants that you describe how looks the life of a software project which is done by you from its plan, birth, through growth to maturity and death. That is the reason why it has "life" in its name. The result of SDLC should be "software" hence the first word. The "development" part comes from the fact that you are responsible for planning, specifying, designing and implementation of the software, you should create (develop) the software. And finally, "cycle" means that, when the investor looks at you SDLC and thinks it is good (it produces quality and business value), he can ask you to use the same process once again in another project.