Abstract
Agile methods have gained ground in academia and industry since their inception. However, identifying whether a development method is in accordance with the agile philosophy has become a challenge because of the diversity and amount of their activities, artifacts and roles. Thus, we defined the AgilAC framework to support agility analysis of development methods. It supports software engineers to better understand the adherence of their methods to agile philosophy. In order to evaluate the applicability of this framework, an experiment was conducted to comparing the AgilAC and the ad hoc analysis, and it is presented in this paper. We adopted two criteria in the comparison: the time spent during the analysis and the correctness of the analysis result. We observed that although the AgilAC requires more time to be applied than the ad hoc analysis, the quality of the analysis results were better. Therefore, it was possible to verify the advantage of the AgilAC over an ad hoc analysis, when considering the correctness of the agility characterization.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 9th edn. Addison Wesley (2010)
Lappo, P., Andrew, H.C.T.: Assessing agility. In: Eckstein, J., Baumeister, H. (eds.) XP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3092, pp. 331–338. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Conboy, K., Fitzgerald, B.: Toward a conceptual framework of agile methods: a study of agility in different disciplines. In: 2004 ACM Workshop on Interdisciplinary Soft. Eng. Research, pp. 37–44 (2004)
Qumer, A., Henderson-Sellers, B.: A framework to support the evaluation, adoption and improvement of agile methods in practice. Journal of Systems and Soft. 81(11), 1899–1919 (2008)
Taromirad, M., Ramsin, R.: CEFAM: Comprehensive evaluation framework for agile methodologies. In: 32nd Annual IEEE Soft. Eng. Workshop, pp. 195–204 (2008)
Benites, M., Oliveira, L., Cagnin, M.I.: Agilac: A framework for agile methods evaluation. In: 39th Latin American Computing Conf., pp. 80–95 (2011)
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in software engineering. Springer (June 2012)
Software Engineering Institute (SEI): Standard CMMI appraisal method for process improvement (SCAMPI), version 1.1: Method definition doc. (2001)
Abrantes, J., Travassos, G.: Common agile practices in software processes. In: 5th Intern. Symp. on Empirical Soft. Eng. and Measurement, pp. 355–358 (2011)
PMBok: A Guide To The Project Management Body Of Knowledge (PMBOK Guides). Project Management Institute (2004)
ISO/IEC: Software process assessment (SPICE) – part 2 : A model for process management (ISO/IEC 15504) (1995)
Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley (1999)
Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with Scrum, 1st edn. Prentice Hall (2001)
Agile Alliance: Manifesto for Agile Software Development. World Wide Web (2001), http://www.agilemanifesto.org (access in January 02, 2013).
Soundararajan, S.: A Methodology for Assessing Agile Software Development Approaches. PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State University (2011)
Pikkarainen, M., Huomo, T.: Agile assessment framework. Technical Report D.4.1 v1.0, Agile VTT (Agile Soft. Develop. of Embedded Systems) Project Publication, Finland (2005)
Abrahamsson, P., Warsta, J., Siponen, M.T., Ronkainen, J.: New directions on agile methods: a comparative analysis. In: 25th Intern. Conf. on Soft. Eng., pp. 244–254 (2003)
Soundararajan, S., Balci, O., Arthur, J.: Assessing an organization’s capability to effectively implement its selected agile method(s): An objectives, principles, strategies approach. In: Agile Conf. (AGILE), pp. 22–31 (2013)
Russo, N., Shams, S., Fitzgerald, G.: Exploring adoption and use of agile methods: A comparative case study. In: 19th Americas Conf. on Information Systems, vol. 2, pp. 1565–1572 (2013)
Paulk, M.: Extreme programming from CMM perspective. IEEE Software, 1–8 (November 2001)
Arimoto, M., Murakami, E., Camargo, V.V., Cagnin, M.I.: Adherence analysis of agile methods according to the MR-MPS reference model. In: 8th Brazilian Simp. on Soft. Quality, pp. 249–263 (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Gonçalves, M.B., Paiva, D.M.B., Camargo, V.V., Cagnin, M.I. (2014). Comparing Agility Analysis Techniques: AgilAC Framework versus Ad Hoc Approach. In: Murgante, B., et al. Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2014. ICCSA 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8584. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09153-2_41
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09153-2_41
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09152-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09153-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)