Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do We Need ‘Agile’ Software Development Tools?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Objects, Components, Architectures, Services, and Applications for a Networked World (NODe 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2591))

Abstract

Lightweight, ‘agile’ software development methods are not a replacement for traditional, heavyweight methods. But under certain assumptions, they are a strong alternative in many areas of software development. In this paper, we outline the differences between agile and traditional approaches of software development and examine how development tools are used in the latter. We consider experience from industrial projects as well as results found in the research community. Then we discuss the requirements which agile methods and development processes impose on development tools and show how existing tool technology can be used to build agile tools. These tools allow agile methods to evolve through suitable tool support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. V. Ambriola, R. Conradi, and A. Fuggetta. Assessing Process-Centered Software Engineering Environments. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology, 6(3), July 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Aoyama. Web-based agile Software development. IEEE Software, 15(6):56–65, Nov. / Dec. 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. W. Appelt. WWW Based Collaboration with the BSCW System. In Proc. SOFSEM’ 99, number 1725 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 66–78, Milovy, Czech Republic, Nov. 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Astels. Refactoring with UML. In Marchesi and Succi [36], pages 67–70.

    Google Scholar 

  5. W. Becker, C. Burger, J. Klarmann, O. Kulendik, F. Schiele, and K. Schneider. Rechnerunterstützung für Interaktionen zwischen Menschen. Informatik Spektrum, 22:422–435, 1999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. K. Beck. Embracing Change with Extreme Programming. Computer, 32(10):70–77, Oct. 1999.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. B. Boehm. Get Ready for Agile Methods, with Care. IEEE Computer, 35(1):64–69, Jan. 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  8. L. Bompani, P. Ciancarini, and F. Vitali. Software Engineering on the Internet: A Roadmap. In Finkelstein [19], pages 303–318.

    Google Scholar 

  9. R. Conradi and B. Westfechtel. Version Models for Software Configuration Management. ACM Computing Surveys, 30(2):232–282, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. R. Crocker. The 5 reasons XP can’t scale and what to do about them. In Marchesi and Succi [35], pages 62–65.

    Google Scholar 

  11. D. Däberitz. Building Software Development Environments Based on Non-Standard Databases. Shaker Verlag, Aachen, 1997. (In German).

    Google Scholar 

  12. D. Däberitz. private communication, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. Dahanayake. Computer-Aided Method Engineering: Designing CASE Repositories for the 21 st Century. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, London, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  14. C. H. Damm, K. M. Hansen, M. Thomsen, and M. Tyrsted. Creative Object-Oriented Modelling: Support for Intuition, Flexibility, and Collaboration in CASE Tools. In E. Bertino, editor, Proc. 14 th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP 2000), volume 1850 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 27–43, Sophia Antipolis and Cannes, France, June 2000. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  15. C. H. Damm, K. M. Hansen, M. Thomsen, and M. Tyrsted. Supporting several levels of restriction in the UML. In A. Evans, S. Kent, and B. Selic, editors, UML 2000-The Unified Modeling Language. Advancing the Standard. Proc. 3 rdInt. Conf., York, UK, October 2000, volume 1939of LNCS, pages 396–409. Springer, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. Derniame, B. A. Kaba, and D. Wastell, editors. Software process: Principles, Methodology, and Technology, Berlin, 1999. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  17. K. Dunsmore, C. Wiemann, and G. Wolosin. A Practical Application of XP. In Marchesi and Succi [35], pages 118–121.

    Google Scholar 

  18. P. Emanuelson. An agile modeling environment for partial models. In Marchesi and Succi [36], pages 223–224.

    Google Scholar 

  19. A. Finkelstein, editor. Proceedings of the 22 nd Int. Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’00)-Track “The Future of Software Engineering”, NY, June 4-11 2000. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. Fowler. A UML Testing Framework. SD Magazine, http://www.sdmagazine.com/documents/s=759/sdm9904c/9904c.htm, Apr. 1999.

  21. M. Fowler. The New Methodology. http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/NewMethodology.htm, 2001.

  22. A. Fuggetta. A Classification of CASE Technology. IEEE Computer, 26(12):25–38, Dec. 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  23. A. Fuggetta. Software Process: A Roadmap. In Finkelstein [19], pages 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  24. W. Harrison, H. Ossher, and P. Tarr. Software Engineering Tools and Environments: A Roadmap. In Finkelstein [19], pages 261–277.

    Google Scholar 

  25. E. Hatcher. Ant and JUnit bring you one step closer to XP nirvana. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-junitmail/index.html, Aug. 2001.

  26. A. Henrich and D. Däberitz. Using a Query Language to State Consistency Constraints for Repositories. In Proc. 7th Int. Conference und Workshop on Database und Expert Systems Applications, Switzerland, 9.–13. Sept. 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  27. M. Jeusfeld, M. Jarke, H. Nissen, and M. Staudt. ConceptBase-Managing Conceptual Models about Information Systems. In P. Bernus, K. Mertins, and G. Schmidt, editors, Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems. Springer-Verlag, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  28. I. U. Jürgen Ebert, Roger Süttenbach. JKogge: a Component-Based Approach for Tools in the Internet. In Proc. STJA’ 99, Erfurt, September 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  29. U. Kelter, M. Monecke, and D. Platz. Constructing Distributed SDEs using an Active Repository. In J. Gray, J. Harvey, A. Liu, and L. Scott, editors, Proc. 1 St Int. Symposium on Constructing Software Engineering Tools (COSET’99), Los Angeles, CA, May 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  30. M. Kircher, P. Jain, A. Corsaro, and D. Levine. Distributed extreme Programming. In Marchesi and Succi [35], pages 66–71.

    Google Scholar 

  31. D. Lending and N. L. Chervany. The Use of CASE Tools. In R. Agarwal, editor, Proceedings of the ACM SIGCPR Conference (SIGCPR-98), pages 49–58, New York, Mar. 26-28 1998. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. K. Lyytinen, P. Marttiin, J.-P. Tolvanen, M. Jarke, K. Pohl, and K. Weidenhaupt. Bridging the Islands of Automation. In Proc. 8th Annual Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems (WITS’98)., volume TR-19of Computer Science and Information System Reports, Technical Reports. University of Jyväskylä, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  33. M. Marchesi and G. Succi, editors. Proc. 2nd Int. Conference on Extreme Programming und Flexible Processes in Software Engineering (XP2001), Villasimius, Cagliari, Italy, May 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  34. M. Marchesi and G. Succi, editors. Proc. 3nd Int. Conference on Extreme Programming und Flexible Processes in Software Engineering (XP2002), Alghero, Sardinia, Italy, May 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  35. S. Meyers. Difficulties in Integrating Multiview Development Systems. IEEE Software, 8(1):49–57, Jan. 1991.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. M. Monecke. Component-based Construction of Flexible Software Development Tools. In K. Mehlhorn and G. Snelting, editors, Proc. Informatik 2000-Jahrestagung der Gesellscha. für Informatik, pages 93–107. Springer, Sept. 2000. (In German).

    Google Scholar 

  37. M. Monecke and U. Kelter. A Repository-based Approach for Process-Support in CASE Tools. In Proc. Net. ObjectDays 2001, pages 50–66, Sept. 2001. (In German).

    Google Scholar 

  38. J. J. Odell. A Primer to Method Engineering. InMethod Engineering, pages 1–7. Chapman & Hall, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  39. D. Ohst and U. Kelter. A Fine-grained Version and Configuration Model in Analysis and Design. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conference on Software Maintenance 2002 (ICSM2002), Montréal, Canada, 3.–6. Oct. 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  40. M. C. Paulk. Extreme Programming from a CMM Perspective. IEEE Software, 18(6):19–26, Nov./Dec. 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. D. Roberts, J. Brant, and R. E. Johnson. A Refactoring Tool for Smalltalk. Theory und Practice of Object Systems (TAPOS), 3(4):253–263, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. M. Schild. Integrating Project Management Functionality into Software Development Environments. Master’s Thesis. Universität-Gesamthochschule Siegen, Fachbereich Elektrotechnik und Informatik, Praktische Informatik, 1999. (In German).

    Google Scholar 

  43. P. Schuh. Agility and the Database. In Marchesi and Succi [36], pages 125–129.

    Google Scholar 

  44. T. Schümmer and J. Schümmer. Support for Distributed Teams in extreme Programming. In Marchesi and Succi [35].

    Google Scholar 

  45. S. Smith and G. Meszaros. Increasing the Effectiveness of Automated Testing. In Marchesi and Succi [35], pages 88–91.

    Google Scholar 

  46. I. Thomas and B. A. Nejmeh. Definitions of Tool Integration for Environments. IEEE Software, 9(2):29–35, Mar. 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. A. van Deursen. Customer Involvement in Extreme Programming: XP 2001 Workshop Report. ACM Software Engineering Notes, pages 70–73, Nov. 2001.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FG Praktische Informatik, FB 12, Universität-GH Siegen, D-57068, Siegen

    Udo Kelter & Marc Monecke

  2. Allianz Lebensversicherung AG, IS-ADV2

    Markus Schild

Authors
  1. Udo Kelter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc Monecke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Schild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Twente, Postbox 217, 7500, AE Enschede, The Netherlands

    Mehmet Aksit

  2. Department of Computer Science, TU Darmstadt, Alexanderstraße 10, 64283, Darmstadt, Germany

    Mira Mezini

  3. Institute for Computer Science, University of Essen, Schützenbahn 70, 45117, Essen, Germany

    Rainer Unland

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kelter, U., Monecke, M., Schild, M. (2003). Do We Need ‘Agile’ Software Development Tools?. In: Aksit, M., Mezini, M., Unland, R. (eds) Objects, Components, Architectures, Services, and Applications for a Networked World. NODe 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2591. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36557-5_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36557-5_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00737-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36557-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation