Advertisement

Structure of a Multi-model Catalog for Software Projects Management Including Agile and Traditional Practices

  • Andrés Felipe Bustamante
  • Jesús Andrés HincapiéEmail author
  • Gloria Piedad Gasca-Hurtado
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 405)

Abstract

Software development projects can be managed under a great variety of methodologies and frameworks. Use of traditional frameworks can lead to extended planning stages that take a significant amount of time. Agile methodologies are designed to accelerate the creation of value through an incremental evolutionary process, where activities that create more costumer value are prioritized. Use of agile methodologies can relegate important factors in project management, if they are not included in the planning phase, since these methodologies do not propose dimensions that traditional methodologies do. We pretend to identify whether it is possible to combine agile methodologies and traditional models to define a catalog of best practices for software development project planning. We propose to reduce the complexity of implementing an integrated agile/traditional model, through a methodological catalog for project planning. We present a high level solution design, including initial concepts of the model for a future catalog development.

Keywords

Process improvement Software project management Agile methodologies Traditional reference frameworks Multi-model environment 

References

  1. 1.
    Pino, F., García, F., Piattini, M.: Software process improvement in small and medium software enterprises: a systematic review. Software Qual. J. 16(2), 237–261 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Institute, P.: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Project Management Institute, USA (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Team, C.: CMMI for Development, Version 1.3. Software Engineering Institute (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Office, I.: ISO 9001:2008 Quality management systems—Requirements, Suiza (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singh, J., Sharma, M., Srivastava, S., Bhusan, B.: TSP (Team Software Process). Int J Innov Res Dev 2(5) (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwaber, K.: Agile project management with Scrum. Microsoft Press, Redmond (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Polk, R.: Agile and Kanban in coordination. In: Agile Conference, pp. 263–268 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lindstrom, L., Jeffries, R.: Extreme programming and agile software development methodologies. Inf. Syst. Manag. 21(3), 41–52 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Torrecilla Salinas, C., Escalona, M., Mejías, M.: A scrum-based approach to CMMI maturity level 2 in web development environments. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services, New York, NY, USA, pp. 282–285 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tuan, N., Thang, H.: Combining maturity with agility: lessons learnt from a case study. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Information and Communication Technology, pp. 267–274 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin, D., García Guzman, J., Urbano, J., Amescua, A.: Modelling software development practices using reusable project pattern: a case study. J. Softw. Evol. Process 26(3), 339–349 (March 2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martín, D., García Guzmán, J., Urbano, J., Lloréns, J.: Patterns as objects to manage knowledge in Software development organizations. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 10(3), 252–274 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Biolchini, J., Mian, P., Natali, A., Travassos, G.: Systematic review in software engineering. Syst. Eng. Comput. Sci. Dept. COPPE/UFRJ Tech. Rep. ES 679(05), 45 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Špunda, M.: Mixed agile/traditional project management methodology—reality or illusion? Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 119, 939–948 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pinheiro, P., Sampaio Machado, T., Tamanini, I.: Dealing the selection of project management through hybrid model of verbal decision analysis. Procedia Comput. Sci. 17, 332–339 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whitney, K., Daniels, C.: The root cause of failure in complex IT projects: complexity itself. Procedia Comput. Sci. 20, 325–330 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friis Sommer, A., Dukovska-Popovska, I., Steger-Jensen, K.: Barriers towards integrated product development—challenges from a holistic project management perspective. Int. J. Project Manage. 32(6), 970–982 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hornstein, H.: The integration of project management and organizational change management is now a necessity. Int. J. Project Manage. 33(2), 291–298 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Monteiro, P., Borges, P., Machado, R., Ribeiro, P.: A reduced set of RUP roles to small software development teams. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Process, pp. 190–199 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Buglione, L.: Light maturity models (LMM): an agile application. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Product Focused Software Development and Process Improvement, pp. 57–61 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brown, A., Ambler, S., Royce, W.: Agility at scale: economic governance, measured improvement, and disciplined delivery. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 873–881 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ng, P.-W.: Theory based software engineering with the SEMAT kernel: preliminary investigation and experiences. In: Proceedings of the 3rd SEMAT Workshop on General Theories of Software Engineering, pp. 13–20 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Hilst, M., Fernandez, E.: A pattern system of underlying theories for process improvement. In: Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (8) (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marino, L., Morley, J.: Process improvement in a multi-model environment builds resilient organizations. In: SEI. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/news-at-sei/02feature200804.cfm. Accessed 1 Apr 2008
  25. 25.
    Urs, A., Heijstek, A., Kirwan, P.: A unified process improvement approach for multi-model improvement environments. In: SEI. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/news-at-sei/feature1200604.cfm. Accessed 1 Apr 2006
  26. 26.
    Ferreira, A., Machado, R.: Software process improvement in multimodel environments. In: Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering Advances, Porto, pp. 512–517 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, USA (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrés Felipe Bustamante
    • 1
  • Jesús Andrés Hincapié
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gloria Piedad Gasca-Hurtado
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad de MedellínMedellínColombia

Personalised recommendations