[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
article

Prioritizing agile benefits and limitations in relation to practice usage

Published: 01 June 2016 Publication History

Abstract

In recent years, there has been significant shift from rigid development (RD) toward agile. However, it has also been spotted that agile methodologies are hardly ever followed in their pure form. Hybrid processes as combinations of RD and agile practices emerge. In addition, agile adoption has been reported to result in both benefits and limitations. This exploratory study (a) identifies development models based on RD and agile practice usage by practitioners; (b) identifies agile practice adoption scenarios based on eliciting practice usage over time; (c) prioritizes agile benefits and limitations in relation to (a) and (b). Practitioners provided answers through a questionnaire. The development models are determined using hierarchical cluster analysis. The use of practices over time is captured through an interactive board with practices and time indication sliders. This study uses the extended hierarchical voting analysis framework to investigate benefit and limitation prioritization. Four types of development models and six adoption scenarios have been identified. Overall, 45 practitioners participated in the prioritization study. A common benefit among all models and adoption patterns is knowledge and learning, while high requirements on professional skills were perceived as the main limitation. Furthermore, significant variances in terms of benefits and limitations have been observed between models and adoption patterns. The most significant internal benefit categories from adopting agile are knowledge and learning, employee satisfaction, social skill development, and feedback and confidence. Professional skill-specific demands, scalability, and lack of suitability for specific product domains are the main limitations of agile practice usage. Having a balanced agile process allows to achieve a high number of benefits. With respect to adoption, a big bang transition from RD to agile leads to poor quality in comparison with the alternatives.

References

[1]
Begel, A. & Nagappan, N. (2007). Usage and perceptions of agile software development in an industrial context: An exploratory study. In Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2007. ESEM 2007. First International Symposium on IEEE, pp. 255-264.
[2]
Berander, P. & Andrews, A. (2005). Requirements prioritization. In Engineering and managing software requirements (pp. 69-94). Berlin: Springer.
[3]
Berander, P. & Jönsson, P. (2006). Hierarchical cumulative voting (hcv)prioritization of requirements in hierarchies. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 16(06), 819-849.
[4]
Boehm, B. (2000). Project termination doesn't equal project failure. Computer, 33(9), 94-96.
[5]
Boehm, B. (2002). Get ready for agile methods, with care. Computer, 35(1), 64-69.
[6]
Boehm, B. & Turner, R. (2003a). Observations on balancing discipline and agility. In Agile Development Conference, 2003. ADC 2003. Proceedings of the IEEE, pp. 32-39.
[7]
Boehm, B. & Turner, R. (2003b). Using risk to balance agile and plan-driven methods. Computer, 36(6), 57-66.
[8]
Brooks, F. P, Jr. (1987). No silver bullet-essence and accidents of software engineering. IEEE Computer, 20(4), 10-19.
[9]
Charette, R. N. (2005). Why software fails. IEEE spectrum, 42(9), 36.
[10]
Chow, T., & Cao, D.-B. (2008). A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(6), 961-971.
[11]
Connors, D. T. (1992). Software development methodologies and traditional and modern information systems. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 17(2), 43-49.
[12]
Dahlberg, H., Solano Ruiz, F., & Olsson, C. M. (2006). The role of extreme programming in a plan-driven organization. In The transfer and diffusion of information technology for organizational resilience (pp. 291-312). Berlin: Springer.
[13]
Dogs, C., & Klimmer, T. (2004). An evaluation of the usage of agile core practices. PhD thesis, Masters thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden.
[14]
Drehmer, D. E., & Dekleva, S. M. (2001). A note on the evolution of software engineering practices. Journal of Systems and Software, 57(1), 1-7.
[15]
Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and software technology, 50(9), 833-859.
[16]
Finch, H. (2005). Comparison of distance measures in cluster analysis with dichotomous data. Journal of Data Science, 3(1), 85-100.
[17]
Forward, A., & Lethbridge, T. C. (2008). A taxonomy of software types to facilitate search and evidence-based software engineering. In Proceedings of the 2008 conference of the center for advanced studies on collaborative research: meeting of minds, p. 14. ACM.
[18]
Fowler, M., & Highsmith, J. (2001). The agile manifesto. Software Development, 9(8), 28-35.
[19]
Ganis, M., Leip, D., Grossman, F., & Bergin, J. (2005). Introducing agile development (xp) into a corporate webmaster environment-an experience report. In Agile Conference, 2005. Proceedings (pp. 145-152). IEEE.
[20]
Judy, H., Gray, I. L., & Densten, J. C. (2003). Size matters: Organisational culture in small, medium, and large australian organisations. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 17(1), 31-46.
[21]
Hayata, Tomohiro, & Han, Jianchao. (2011). A hybrid model for it project with scrum. In Service operations, logistics, and informatics (SOLI), 2011 IEEE International Conference on IEEE, pp. 285-290.
[22]
Hirsch, M. (2005). Moving from a plan driven culture to agile development. In International conference on software engineering (ICSE 2005) (Vol. 27, p. 38).
[23]
Kurapati, N., Sarath, V., Manyam, C., & Petersen, K. (2012). Agile software development practice adoption survey. In Agile processes in software engineering and extreme programming (pp. 16-30). Berlin: Springer.
[24]
Kuzniarz, L., & Angelis, L. (2011). Empirical extension of a classification framework for addressing consistency in model based development. Information & Software Technology, 53(3), 214-229.
[25]
Laanti, M., Salo, O., & Abrahamsson, P. (2011). Agile methods rapidly replacing traditional methods at nokia: A survey of opinions on agile transformation. Information & Software Technology, 53(3), 276-290.
[26]
Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., & Mangalaraj, G. (2005). Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 48(5), 72-78.
[27]
Paulson, L. D. (2001). Adapting methodologies for doing software right. IT Professional, 3(4), 13-15.
[28]
Petersen, K. (2007). Implementing lean and agile software development in industry, Phd. thesis, Doctoral Dissertation series no. 2010:04. Technical report, Blekinge Institute of Technology.
[29]
Petersen, K. (2011). Is lean agile and agile lean. A comparison between two software development paradigms, Modern software engineering concepts and practices: advanced approaches, IGI Global, pp. 19-46.
[30]
Petersen, K., & Gencel, C. (2013). Worldviews, research methods, and their relationship to validity in empirical software engineering research. In Proceedings of the joint conference of the 23rd international workshop on software measurement and the 8th international conference on software process and product measurement (IWSM-Mensura 2013), 2013.
[31]
Petersen, K., & Wohlin, C. (2009). A comparison of issues and advantages in agile and incremental development between state of the art and an industrial case. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(9), 1479-1490.
[32]
Petersen, K, & Wohlin, C. (2009). Context in industrial software engineering research. In Proceedings of the 2009 3rd international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (pp. 401-404). IEEE Computer Society.
[33]
Petersen, K., & Wohlin, C. (2010). The effect of moving from a plan-driven to an incremental software development approach with agile practices. Empirical Software Engineering, 15(6), 654-693.
[34]
Petersen, K., Wohlin, C., & Baca, D. (2009). The waterfall model in large-scale development. In Product-focused software process improvement (pp. 386-400). Berlin: Springer.
[35]
Pikkarainen, M., Salo, O., Kuusela, R., & Abrahamsson, P. (2012). Strengths and barriers behind the successful agile deployment-insights from the three software intensive companies in finland. Empirical Software Engineering, 17(6), 675-702.
[36]
Quispe, A., Marques, M., Silvestre, L., Ochoa, S. F., & Robbes, R. (2010). Requirements engineering practices in very small software enterprises: A diagnostic study. In Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC), 2010 XXIX International Conference of the IEEE, pp. 81-87.
[37]
Rinkevics, K., & Torkar, R. (2013). Equality in cumulative voting: A systematic review with an improvement proposal. Information & Software Technology, 55(2), 267-287.
[38]
Rising, L., & Janoff, N. S. (2000). The scrum software development process for small teams. IEEE Software, 17(4), 26-32.
[39]
Rovegard, P., Angelis, L., & Wohlin, C. (2008). An empirical study on views of importance of change impact analysis issues. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 34(4), 516-530.
[40]
Saiedian, H., & Dale, R. (2000). Requirements engineering: making the connection between the software developer and customer. Information and Software Technology, 42(6), 419-428.
[41]
James, S. et al. (2008). The art of agile development. O'Reilly.
[42]
Sommerville, I. (2010). Software engineering (9th edn). Addison Wesley Professional, 2010.
[43]
Sumrell M. (2007). From waterfall to agile-how does a qa team transition? In Agile Conference (AGILE), 2007, pp. 291-295. IEEE, 2007.
[44]
SH VanderLeest and A Buter. Escape the waterfall: Agile for aerospace. In Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2009. DASC'09. IEEE/AIAA 28th, pp. 6-D. IEEE, 2009.
[45]
Viega, J & McGraw, G. (2001). Building secure software: how to avoid security problems the right way. Pearson Education.
[46]
Vijayasarathy, L., & Turk, D. (2008). Agile software development: A survey of early adopters. Journal of Information Technology Management, 19(2), 1-8.
[47]
West, D., Grant, T., Gerush, M., & DSilva, D. (2010). Agile development: Mainstream adoption has changed agility. Forrester Research.
[48]
Williams, L. (2010). Agile software development methodologies and practices. Advances in Computers, 80, 1-44.
[49]
Wohlin, C., & Prikladnicki, R. (2013). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Information & Software Technology, 55(6), 919-920.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)SAFe transformation in a large financial corporationEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-023-10420-w29:1Online publication date: 16-Dec-2023
  • (2021)A Framework for the Adoption of Agile within Software SMEs in Saudi ArabiaProceedings of the 2021 European Symposium on Software Engineering10.1145/3501774.3501785(73-77)Online publication date: 19-Nov-2021
  • (2021)The Impact of Pair Programming on College Students’ Interest, Perceptions, and Achievement in Computer ScienceACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/344075921:3(1-19)Online publication date: 10-May-2021
  • Show More Cited By
  1. Prioritizing agile benefits and limitations in relation to practice usage

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Software Quality Journal
    Software Quality Journal  Volume 24, Issue 2
    June 2016
    276 pages

    Publisher

    Kluwer Academic Publishers

    United States

    Publication History

    Published: 01 June 2016

    Author Tags

    1. Agile
    2. Benefits
    3. Limitations
    4. Practice adoption
    5. Prioritization

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 16 Dec 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)SAFe transformation in a large financial corporationEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-023-10420-w29:1Online publication date: 16-Dec-2023
    • (2021)A Framework for the Adoption of Agile within Software SMEs in Saudi ArabiaProceedings of the 2021 European Symposium on Software Engineering10.1145/3501774.3501785(73-77)Online publication date: 19-Nov-2021
    • (2021)The Impact of Pair Programming on College Students’ Interest, Perceptions, and Achievement in Computer ScienceACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/344075921:3(1-19)Online publication date: 10-May-2021
    • (2021)Awareness and perception of Agile in saudi software industryProceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society10.1109/ICSE-SEIS52602.2021.00010(10-18)Online publication date: 25-May-2021
    • (2021)Supervision of master theses based on Scrum: A case studyEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-021-10433-226:4(3721-3741)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2021
    • (2021)ARP–GWO: an efficient approach for prioritization of risks in agile software developmentSoft Computing - A Fusion of Foundations, Methodologies and Applications10.1007/s00500-020-05555-725:7(5587-5605)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2021
    • (2021)Towards the statistical construction of hybrid development methodsJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.231533:1Online publication date: 18-Jan-2021
    • (2020)An Agile Product Design in a Smart City Context: A Use Case for Air Pollution AwarenessSocial Computing and Social Media. Participation, User Experience, Consumer Experience, and Applications of Social Computing10.1007/978-3-030-49576-3_35(483-500)Online publication date: 19-Jul-2020
    • (2020)GLOBJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.230232:12Online publication date: 3-Dec-2020
    • (2019)Catching up with method and process practiceProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice10.1109/ICSE-SEIP.2019.00036(255-264)Online publication date: 27-May-2019
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    View options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media