nach oben

Empirical Software Engineering

Erschienen in:

01.07.2023

Does agile methodology fit all characteristics of software projects? Review and analysis

verfasst von: David Itzik, Gelbard Roy

Erschienen in: Empirical Software Engineering | Ausgabe 4/2023

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The agile paradigm for software projects has significantly impacted software development worldwide. It is currently widely accepted as having advantages in accommodating changes due to volatile requirements. However, several aspects of the agile paradigm and its compatibility with various software project characteristics remain empirically under-researched. In this paper, we employ a systematic literature review (SLR) to assess the compatibility of agile methodology with the characteristics of software development projects. We have mapped the characteristics to create a two-dimensional decision-making framework comprised of the software development life cycle (SDLC) phases (the y-axis) and knowledge areas derived from the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) (the x-axis). We have then explored the position-sentiment regarding each cell of the decision-making framework as it is expressed in a wide set of academic articles, to help researchers and practitioners evaluate the compatibility of the agile methodology with the software project they are dealing with. Predictably, this would assist them in effectively assigning the agile methodology to suitable projects.

Vorheriger Artikel Program transformation landscapes for automated program modification using Gin

Nächster Artikel Towards a taxonomy of Roxygen documentation in R packages

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Abrahamsson P, Salo O, Ronkainen J, Warsta J (2002) Agile software development methods: review and analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.08439

Abrahamsson P, Salo O, Ronkainen J, Warsta J (2017) Agile software development methods: Review and analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.08439

Abrahamsson P, Warsta J, Siponen MT, Ronkainen J (2003) New directions on agile methods: a comparative analysis. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on software engineering. IEEE, pp 244–254

Abrahamsson P, Babar MA, Kruchten P (2010) Agility and architecture: can they coexist? IEEE Softw 27(2):16–22CrossRef

Ahimbisibwe A, Cavana RY, Daellenbach U (2015) A contingency fit model of critical success factors for software development projects: a comparison of agile and traditional plan-based methodologies. J Enterp Inf Manag

Ahmad S, Mallick DN, Schroeder RG (2013) New product development: impact of project characteristics and development practices on performance. J Prod Innov Manag 30(2):331–348CrossRef

Alaidaros H, Omar M, Romli R (2019) The key factors of evaluating agile approaches: a systematic literature review. Int J Supply Chain Manag 8(2):1–11

Alami A, Krancher O (2022) How scrum adds value to achieving software quality? Empir Softw Eng 27(7):165CrossRef

Alqudah MK, Razali R (2017) Key factors for selecting an agile method: a systematic literature review. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 7(2):526–537CrossRef

Al-Saqqa S, Sawalha S, AbdelNabi H (2020) Agile software development: methodologies and trends. Int J Interact Mob Technol 14(11):246–270CrossRef

Alzoubi Y, Gill A (2021) The critical communication challenges between geographically distributed agile development teams: empirical findings. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 64(4):322–337CrossRef

Ambler SW, Lines M (2012) Disciplined agile delivery: a practitioner's guide to agile software delivery in the enterprise. IBM press

Axelsson J, Skoglund M (2016) Quality assurance in software ecosystems: a systematic literature mapping and research agenda. J Syst Softw 114:69–81CrossRef

Babar MA, Brown AW, Mistrík I (eds) (2013) Agile software architecture: aligning agile processes and software architectures. Newnes

Bass JM (2016) Artefacts and agile method tailoring in large-scale offshore software development programmes. Inf Softw Technol 75:1–16CrossRef

Bass JM, Allison IK, Banerjee U (2013) Agile method tailoring in a CMMI level 5 organization. J Int Technol Inf Manag 22(4):5

Batra D, Xia W, VanderMeer D, Dutta K (2010) Balancing agile and structured development approaches to successfully manage large distributed software projects: a case study from the cruise line industry. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 27(1):21

Batra D, Xia W, Zhang M (2017) Collaboration in agile software development: concept and dimensions. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 41(1):20

Beck K (2000) Extreme programming explained: embrace change. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing, Boston

Beck K, Beedle M, Van Bennekum A, Cockburn A, Cunningham W, Fowler M, ..., Thomas D (2001) Manifesto for agile software development

Beecham S, Clear T, Lal R, Noll J (2021) Do scaling agile frameworks address global software development risks? An empirical study. J Syst Softw 171:110823CrossRef

Behutiye W, Rodríguez P, Oivo M, Aaramaa S, Partanen J, Abhervé A (2022) Towards optimal quality requirement documentation in agile software development: a multiple case study. J Syst Softw 183:111112CrossRef

Berłowski J, Chruściel P, Kasprzyk M, Konaniec I, Jureczko M (2016) Highly automated agile testing process: an industrial case study. e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal 10(1)

Boehm B (2002) Get ready for agile methods, with care. Computer 35(1):64–69CrossRef

Boehm B, Turner R (2004) Balancing agility and discipline: Evaluating and integrating Agile and plan-driven methods. In: Proceedings. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, pp 718–719CrossRef

Borque P, Fairley R (2014) Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge version 3.0. IEEE Computer Society Staff

Campanelli AS, Parreiras FS (2015) Agile methods tailoring–a systematic literature review. J Syst Softw 110:85–100CrossRef

Capilla R, Jansen A, Tang A, Avgeriou P, Babar MA (2016) 10 years of software architecture knowledge management: practice and future. J Syst Softw 116:191–205CrossRef

Chan FK, Thong JY (2009) Acceptance of agile methodologies: a critical review and conceptual framework. Decis Support Syst 46(4):803–814CrossRef

Chow T, Cao DB (2008) A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects. J Syst Softw 81(6):961–971CrossRef

CMMI Institute (2018) Introducing CMMI® V2.0. Retrieved from https://cmmiinstitute.com/cmmi. Accessed May 2023

Cockburn A (2004) Crystal clear: a human-powered methodology for small teams. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing, Boston

Conforto EC, Amaral DC, da Silva SL, Di Felippo A, Kamikawachi DSL (2016) The agility construct on project management theory. Int J Proj Manag 34(4):660–674CrossRef

Coram M, Bohner S (2005) The impact of agile methods on software project management. In: 12th IEEE international conference and workshops on the engineering of computer-based systems (ECBS'05). IEEE, pp 363–370CrossRef

Cornide-Reyes H, Riquelme F, Noel R, Villarroel R, Cechinel C, Letelier P, Munoz R (2021) Key skills to work with agile frameworks in software engineering: Chilean perspectives. IEEE Access 9:84724–84738CrossRef

Dikert K, Paasivaara M, Lassenius C (2016) Challenges and success factors for large-scale agile transformations: a systematic literature review. J Syst Softw 119:87–108CrossRef

Dingsøyr T, Moe NB, Fægri TE, Seim EA (2018) Exploring software development at the very large-scale: a revelatory case study and research agenda for Agile method adaptation. Empir Softw Eng 23:490–520CrossRef

Drury M, Conboy K, Power K (2012) Obstacles to decision making in agile software development teams. J Syst Softw 85(6):1239–1254CrossRef

Dvir D, Lipovetsky S, Shenhar A, Tishler A (1998) In search of project classification: a non-universal approach to project success factors. Res Policy 27(9):915–935CrossRef

Dybå T, Dingsøyr T (2008) Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Inf Softw Technol 50(9):833–859CrossRef

Dyba T, Dingsoyr T, Hanssen GK (2007) Applying systematic reviews to diverse study types: an experience report. In: First international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (ESEM 2007). IEEE, pp 225–234CrossRef

Dyck S, Majchrzak TA (2012) Identifying common characteristics in fundamental, integrated, and agile software development methodologies. In: 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE, pp 5299–5308CrossRef

Felsing JM, Palmer SR (2002) A practical guide to feature-driven development. IEEE Softw 7:67–72

Gartner Inc. (2019) Gartner Says Global IT Spending to Grow 1.1 Percent in 2019. STAMFORD, Conn. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2019-04-17-gartner-says-global-it-spending-to-grow-1-1-percent-i. Accessed May 2023

Gehlenborg N, Wong B (2012) Points of view: heat maps. Nat Methods 9:213CrossRef

Ghobadi S, Mathiassen L (2016) Perceived barriers to effective knowledge sharing in agile software teams. Inf Syst J 26(2):95–125CrossRef

Gilb T (2005) Competitive engineering: a handbook for systems engineering, requirements engineering, and software engineering using Planguage. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

Glass RL (2004) Matching methodology to problem domain. Commun ACM 47(5):19–21CrossRef

Heeager LT, Rose J (2015) Optimising agile development practices for the maintenance operation: nine heuristics. Empir Softw Eng 20(6):1762–1784CrossRef

Highsmith J (2001) The great methodologies debate part I: opening statement. Cutter IT J 14(12):2–4

Hoda R, Kruchten P, Noble J, Marshall S (2010) Agility in context. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on object oriented programming systems languages and applications, pp 74–88CrossRef

Howell D, Windahl C, Seidel R (2010) A project contingency framework based on uncertainty and its consequences. Int J Proj Manag 28(3):256–264CrossRef

Huo M, Verner J, Zhu L, Babar MA (2004) Software quality and agile methods. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual international computer software and applications conference, 2004. COMPSAC 2004. IEEE, pp 520–525

Jalali S, Wohlin C (2012a) Global software engineering and agile practices: a systematic review. J Softw: Evol Process 24(6):643–659

Jalali S, Wohlin C (2012b) Systematic literature studies: database searches vs. backward snowballing. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM-IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement. IEEE, pp 29–38CrossRef

Kajko-Mattsson M, Nyfjord J (2009) A model of Agile evolution and maintenance process. In: 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, pp 1–10

Karhapää P, Behutiye W, Rodríguez P, Oivo M, Costal D, Franch X, ... Abherve A (2021) Strategies to manage quality requirements in agile software development: a multiple case study. Empir Softw Eng 26(2):28

Kasauli R, Knauss E, Horkoff J, Liebel G, de Oliveira Neto FG (2021) Requirements engineering challenges and practices in large-scale agile system development. J Syst Softw 172:110851CrossRef

Kitchenham B, Charters S (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Version 2.3 University of keele (software engineering group, school of computer science and mathematics) and Durham. Department of Computer Science, UK

Korhonen K (2013) Evaluating the impact of an agile transformation: a longitudinal case study in a distributed context. Softw Qual J 21(4):599–624CrossRef

Kropp M, Meier A, Biddle R (2016) Agile practices, collaboration and experience. Product-focused software process improvement, pp 416–431

Kula E, Greuter E, Van Deursen A, Gousios G (2021) Factors affecting on-time delivery in large-scale agile software development. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 48(9):3573–3592CrossRef

Larman C, Vodde B (2016) Large-scale scrum: more with LeSS. Addison-Wesley Professional

Larusdottir M, Gulliksen J, Cajander Å (2017) A license to kill–improving UCSD in Agile development. J Syst Softw 123:214–222CrossRef

Lee G, Xia W (2010) Toward agile: an integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Q 34(1):87–114CrossRef

Leffingwell D (2016) SAFe 4.0 reference guide: scaled agile framework for lean software and systems engineering. Addison-Wesley Professional, Indianapolis

Lehman MM (1996) Laws of software evolution revisited. In: Software process technology: 5th European workshop, EWSPT'96 Nancy, France, October 9–11, 1996 proceedings 5. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 108–124CrossRef

Lehman TJ, Sharma A (2011) Software development as a service: agile experiences. In: Annual SRII global conference. IEEE, pp 749–758

Lenarduzzi V, Sillitti A, Taibi D (2017) Analyzing forty years of software maintenance models. In: 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th international conference on software engineering companion (ICSE-C). IEEE, pp 146–148CrossRef

Lindsjørn Y, Sjøberg DI, Dingsøyr T, Bergersen GR, Dybå T (2016) Teamwork quality and project success in software development: a survey of agile development teams. J Syst Softw 122:274–286CrossRef

Martini A, Bosch J, Chaudron M (2015) Investigating architectural technical debt accumulation and refactoring over time: a multiple-case study. Inf Softw Technol 67:237–253CrossRef

McLeod L, Doolin B, MacDonell SG (2012) A perspective-based understanding of project success. Proj Manag J 43(5):68–86CrossRef

Melo CDO, Cruzes DS, Kon F, Conradi R (2013) Interpretative case studies on agile team productivity and management. Inf Softw Technol 55(2):412–427CrossRef

Meredith J, Zwikael O (2019) When is a project successful?. IEEE Eng Manag Rev 47(3):127–134

Mishra D, Mishra A, Ostrovska S (2012) Impact of physical ambiance on communication, collaboration and coordination in agile software development: an empirical evaluation. Inf Softw Technol 54(10):1067–1078CrossRef

Moe NB, Aurum A, Dybå T (2012) Challenges of shared decision-making: a multiple case study of agile software development. Inf Softw Technol 54(8):853–865CrossRef

Moe NB et al (2015) Continuous software testing in a globally distributed project. In: 2015 IEEE 10th international conference on global software engineering. IEEE

Muhammad A, Siddique A, Naveed QN, Saleem U, Hasan MA, Shahzad B (2021) Investigating crucial factors of agile software development through composite approach. Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing 27(1)

Naldi M (2019) A review of sentiment computation methods with R packages. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08319

Nurdiani I, Börstler J, Fricker SA (2016) The impacts of agile and lean practices on project constraints: a tertiary study. J Syst Softw 119:162–183CrossRef

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. J Syst Softw 82(9):1479–1490CrossRef

Petersen K, Vakkalanka S, Kuzniarz L (2015) Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: an update. Inf Softw Technol 64:1–18CrossRef

PMI (2017) A guide to the Project Management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide), 6th edn. Project Management Institute

Rahy S, Bass JM (2022) Managing non-functional requirements in agile software development. IET Softw 16(1):60–72CrossRef

Ramesh B, Cao L, Baskerville R (2010) Agile requirements engineering practices and challenges: an empirical study. Inf Syst J 20(5):449–480CrossRef

Ramesh B, Mohan K, Cao L (2012) Ambidexterity in agile distributed development: an empirical investigation. Inf Syst Res 23(2):323–339CrossRef

Rinker T (2017) Package ‘sentimentr’. Retrieved, 8, 31

Russo D (2021) The agile success model: a mixed-methods study of a large-scale agile transformation. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 30(4):1–46CrossRef

Salija K, Hidayat R, Patak AA (2016) Mendeley impact on scientific writing: thematic analysis. International Journal on Advanced Science Engineering Information Technology 6(5)

Santos A, Vegas S, Dieste O, Uyaguari F, Tosun A, Fucci D ... Juristo N (2021) A family of experiments on test-driven development. Empir Softw Eng 26:1–53

Schwaber K, Beedle M (2002) Agile software development with scrum, vol 1. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverMATH

Serrador P, Pinto JK (2015) Does agile work?—a quantitative analysis of agile project success. Int J Proj Manag 33(5):1040–1051CrossRef

Sharif B, Khan SA, Bhatti MW (2012) Measuring the impact of changing requirements on software project cost: an empirical investigation. Int J Comput Sci Issues 9(3):170

Sheffield J, Lemétayer J (2013) Factors associated with the software development agility of successful projects. Int J Proj Manag 31(3):459–472CrossRef

Shenhar AJ, Dvir D (2007) Reinventing project management: the diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Harvard Business Review Press

Silva FS, Soares FSF, Peres AL, de Azevedo IM, Vasconcelos APL, Kamei FK, de Lemos Meira SR (2015) Using CMMI together with agile software development: a systematic review. Inf Softw Technol 58:20–43CrossRef

Smite D, Gencel C (2009) Why a CMMI level 5 company fails to meet the deadlines?. In: Product-focused software process improvement: 10th International Conference, PROFES 2009, Oulu, Finland, June 15–17, 2009. Proceedings 10. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 87–95

Sommerville I (2016) Software engineering, 10th edn. Addison-Wesley, Pearson EducationMATH

Standards Coordinating Committee of the Computer Society (1990) IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology. vol IEEE Standard 610.12. Los Alamitos

Stapleton J (ed) (2003) DSDM: business focused development. Pearson Education, London

Stavru S (2014) A critical examination of recent industrial surveys on agile method usage. J Syst Softw 94:87–97CrossRef

Stray V, Florea R, Paruch L (2022) Exploring human factors of the agile software tester. Softw Qual J 30(2):455–481CrossRef

Sutherland J, Jakobsen CR, Johnson K (2008) Scrum and CMMI level 5: the magic potion for code warriors. In: Proceedings of the 41st annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS 2008). IEEE, p 466CrossRef

Tam C, da Costa Moura EJ, Oliveira T, Varajão J (2020) The factors influencing the success of on-going agile software development projects. Int J Proj Manag 38(3):165–176CrossRef

Tavares BG, Keil M, Sanches da Silva CE, de Souza AD (2021) A risk management tool for agile software development. J Comput Inf Syst 61(6):561–570

Team, C. P (2010) CMMI® for services, version 1.3. CMU SEI, Nov-2010

Tessem B (2017) The customer effect in agile system development projects. A process tracing case study. Procedia Comput Sci 121:244–251CrossRef

The Standish Group (2020) Standish group Chaos report. Retrieved from https://www.standishgroup.com/. Accessed May 2023

Tiky YT (2016) Software development life cycle. The Hongkong University of Science and Technology, Hongkong

Tiwana A, Keil M (2004) The one-minute risk assessment tool. Commun ACM 47(11):73–77CrossRef

Traini L (2022) Exploring performance assurance practices and challenges in agile software development: an ethnographic study. Empir Softw Eng 27(3):74CrossRef

Trendowicz A, Münch J (2009) Factors influencing software development productivity—state-of-the-art and industrial experiences. Adv Comput 77:185–241CrossRef

Turetken O, Stojanov I, Trienekens JJ (2017) Assessing the adoption level of scaled Agile development: a maturity model for scaled Agile framework. J Softw Evol Process 29(6):e1796CrossRef

Van Wessel RM, Kroon P, De Vries HJ (2021) Scaling agile company-wide: the organizational challenge of combining agile-scaling frameworks and Enterprise architecture in service companies. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 69(6):3489–3502CrossRef

VersionOne, Inc, The annual “state of agile development” survey, 2007–2019

Wafa R, Khan MQ, Malik F, Abdusalomov AB, Cho YI, Odarchenko R (2022) The impact of agile methodology on project success, with a moderating role of Person’s job fit in the IT industry of Pakistan. Appl Sci 12(21):10698CrossRef

Yang LR, Huang CF, Wu KS (2011) The association among project manager's leadership style, teamwork and project success. Int J Proj Manag 29(3):258–267CrossRef

Yang C, Liang P, Avgeriou P (2016) A systematic mapping study on the combination of software architecture and agile development. J Syst Softw 111:157–184CrossRef

Young DK, Beebe NL, Dietrich G, Liu CZ (2016) An empirical examination of an agile contingent project/method fit model. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 39(1):14

Zwikael O, Meredith JR, Smyrk J (2019) The responsibilities of the project owner in benefits realization. Int J Oper Prod Manag 39(4):503–524CrossRef

Titel: Does agile methodology fit all characteristics of software projects? Review and analysis
verfasst von: David Itzik
Gelbard Roy
Publikationsdatum: 01.07.2023
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Empirical Software Engineering / Ausgabe 4/2023
Print ISSN: 1382-3256
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7616
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-023-10334-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2023

A grounded theory of community package maintenance organizations

Learning to Predict Code Review Completion Time In Modern Code Review

Understanding code smells in Elixir functional language

BTLink : automatic link recovery between issues and commits based on pre-trained BERT model

Completing Function Documentation Comments Using Structural Information

18 million links in commit messages: purpose, evolution, and decay

Premium Partner