Advertisement

Towards a Goal-Oriented Framework for Partial Agile Adoption

  • Soreangsey KivEmail author
  • Samedi Heng
  • Yves Wautelet
  • Manuel Kolp
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 868)

Abstract

The agile paradigm is used today for software development and project as an alternative to structured and traditional heavier life cycles. Different meta-models have been proposed trying to unify agile methods. Yet, very few of them focus on agile partial method adoption. Intuitively, choosing which practices to adopt from agile methods should be made based on their most prioritized goals in the software development process. The paper answers this issue by building a goal-oriented meta-model where each agile concept is seen as a goal to achieve and explaining how goal modeling can help the software team to partially adopt agile methods. This will also make it easier to identify vulnerabilities associated with each goal and minimize risks.

Keywords

Agile methods Partial adoption Goal modeling Meta-model Requirements engineering 

References

  1. 1.
    Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc., Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Palmer, S.R., Felsing, M.: A Practical Guide to Feature-Driven Development, 1st edn. Pearson Education, New York City (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stapleton, J.: DSDM: The Method in Practice. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc., Boston (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cockburn, A.: Surviving Object-oriented Projects: A Manager’s Guide. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc., Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with Scrum, vol. 1. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fowler, M., Highsmith, J.: The agile manifesto. Softw. Dev. 9, 28–35 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abrahamsson, P., Warsta, J., Siponen, M.T., Ronkainen, J.: New directions on agile methods: a comparative analysis. In: Clarke, L.A., Dillon, L., Tichy, W.F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, 3–10 May 2003, pp. 244–254. IEEE Computer Society, Portland (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tripp, J.F., Armstrong, D.J.: Exploring the relationship between organizational adoption motives and the tailoring of agile methods. In: 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 4799–4806. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campanelli, A.S., Parreiras, F.S.: Agile methods tailoring - a systematic literature review. J. Syst. Softw. 110, 85–100 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Esfahani, H.C., Yu, E.S.K., Annosi, M.C.: Towards the strategic analysis of agile practices. In: Nurcan, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the CAiSE Forum 2011, Volume 734 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, London, UK, 22–24 June 2011, pp. 155–162. CEUR-WS.org (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C.: A comparison of four process metamodels and the creation of a new generic standard. Inf. Softw. Technol. 47, 49–65 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mikulėnas, G., Butleris, R., Nemuraitė, L.: An approach for the metamodel of the framework for a partial agile method adaptation. Inf. Technol. Control 40, 71–82 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Esfahani, H.C., Cabot, J., Yu, E.S.K.: Adopting agile methods: can goal-oriented social modeling help? In: Loucopoulos, P., Cavarero, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS 2010, Nice, France, 19–21 May 2010, pp. 223–234. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Madi, T., Dahalin, Z., Baharom, F.: Content analysis on agile values: a perception from software practitioners. In: 2011 5th Malaysian Conference on Software Engineering (MySEC), pp. 423–428. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiv, S., Heng, S., Kolp, M., Wautelet, Y.: An intentional perspective on partial agile adoption. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Software Technologies - Volume 1, pp. 116–127. ICSOFT, INSTICC, SciTePress (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yu, E.S.: Social modeling and i*. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 99–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02463-4_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jacobson, I., Ng, P.W., Spence, I.: The essential unified process-a fresh start for processd. Dr. Dobbs J. 31, 40+ (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ambler, S.: The Agile Unified Process (AUP). Ambysoft (2005). http://www.agilealliance.hu/materials/books/SWA-AUP.pdf
  19. 19.
    Kroll, P., MacIsaac, B.: Agility and Discipline Made Easy: Practices from OpenUP and RUP (Addison-Wesley Object Technology (Paperback)). Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ambler, S.: Agile Modeling: Effective Practices for Extreme Programming and the Unified Process. Wiley, Hoboken (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ahmad, M.O., Markkula, J., Oivo, M.: Kanban in software development: a systematic literature review. In: 2013 39th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 9–16. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liker, J.K.: The Toyota Way. Esensi (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Poppendieck, M., Poppendieck, T.: Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chiarini, A.: Lean Organization: From the Tools of the Toyota Production System to Lean Office. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-2510-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schwaber, K.: Agile Project Management with Scrum. Microsoft Press (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J., Ågerfalk, P.J., Rossi, M.: Situational Method Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lin, J., Yu, H., Shen, Z., Miao, C.: Using goal net to model user stories in agile software development. In: 15th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing, SNPD 2014, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 30 June–2 July 2014, pp. 1–6. IEEE Computer Society (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shen, Z., Miao, C., Tao, X., Gay, R.: Goal oriented modeling for intelligent software agents. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT 2004), pp. 540–543. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bézivin, J.: In search of a basic principle for model driven engineering. Novatica J. Special Issue 5, 21–24 (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schuppenies, R., Steinhauer, S.: Software process engineering metamodel. OMG group, November 2002Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Damiani, E., Colombo, A., Frati, F., Bellettini, C.: A metamodel for modeling and measuring scrum development process. In: Concas, G., Damiani, E., Scotto, M., Succi, G. (eds.) XP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4536, pp. 74–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73101-6_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wautelet, Y., Heng, S., Kiv, S., Kolp, M.: User-story driven development of multi-agent systems: a process fragment for agile methods. Comput. Lang. Syst. Struct. 50, 159–176 (2017)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pourmasoumi, A., Kahani, M., Bagheri, E., Asadi, M.: Process fragmentation: an ontological perspective. In: Gaaloul, K., Schmidt, R., Nurcan, S., Guerreiro, S., Ma, Q. (eds.) CAISE 2015. LNBIP, vol. 214, pp. 184–199. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19237-6_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wautelet, Y., Heng, S., Kolp, M., Mirbel, I.: Unifying and extending user story models. In: Jarke, M., Mylopoulos, J., Quix, C., Rolland, C., Manolopoulos, Y., Mouratidis, H., Horkoff, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8484, pp. 211–225. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07881-6_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wautelet, Y., Heng, S., Kolp, M., Mirbel, I., Poelmans, S.: Building a rationale diagram for evaluating user story sets. In: Tenth IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS 2016, Grenoble, France, 1–3 June 2016, pp. 1–12. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wautelet, Y., Heng, S., Hintea, D., Kolp, M., Poelmans, S.: Bridging user story sets with the use case model. In: Link, S., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2016. LNCS, vol. 9975, pp. 127–138. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47717-6_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Seidita, V., Cossentino, M., Chella, A.: A proposal of process fragment definition and documentation. In: Cossentino, M., Kaisers, M., Tuyls, K., Weiss, G. (eds.) EUMAS 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7541, pp. 221–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34799-3_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Understanding “why” in software process modelling, analysis, and design. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 159–168. IEEE Computer Society Press (1994)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    OMG: Software & systems process engineering meta-model specification. Version 2.0. Technical report, Object Management Group (2008)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Faulkner, S., Kolp, M., Wautelet, Y., Achbany, Y.: A formal description language for multi-agent architectures. In: Kolp, M., Henderson-Sellers, B., Mouratidis, H., Garcia, A., Ghose, A.K., Bresciani, P. (eds.) AOIS-2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4898, pp. 143–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77990-2_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 12207:2008: Systems and software engineering - software life cycle processes (2008)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Van Loon, H.: Process Assessment and ISO/IEC 15504: A Reference Book. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Madeyski, L.: Test-Driven Development: An Empirical Evaluation of Agile Practice, 1st edn. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sidky, A.S., Arthur, J.D., Bohner, S.A.: A disciplined approach to adopting agile practices: the agile adoption framework. ISSE 3, 203–216 (2007)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Karlström, D., Runeson, P.: Integrating agile software development into stage-gate managed product development. Empirical Softw. Eng. 11, 203–225 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Laanti, M., Similä, J., Abrahamsson, P.: Definitions of agile software development and agility. In: McCaffery, F., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2013. CCIS, vol. 364, pp. 247–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39179-8_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pressman, R.S.: Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cohn, M.: User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc., Redwood City (2004)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yu, E., Giorgini, P., Maiden, N., Mylopoulos, J.: Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    AgileAlliance: Subway map to agile practices (2005). https://www.agilealliance.org/
  51. 51.
    VersionOne: 10th annual state of agile development survey (2016)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J.: The scrum guide. Scrum Alliance 21 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soreangsey Kiv
    • 1
    Email author
  • Samedi Heng
    • 1
  • Yves Wautelet
    • 2
  • Manuel Kolp
    • 1
  1. 1.Louvain Research Institute in Management and Organizations (LouRIM)Université Catholique de LouvainOttignies-Louvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB)LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations