Skip to main content

Is Water-Scrum-Fall Reality? On the Use of Agile and Traditional Development Practices

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 9459))

Abstract

For years, agile methods are considered the most promising route toward successful software development, and a considerable number of published studies the (successful) use of agile methods and reports on the benefits companies have from adopting agile methods. Yet, since the world is not black or white, the question for what happened to the traditional models arises. Are traditional models replaced by agile methods? How is the transformation toward Agile managed, and, moreover, where did it start? With this paper we close a gap in literature by studying the general process use over time to investigate how traditional and agile methods are used. Is there coexistence or do agile methods accelerate the traditional processes’ extinction? The findings of our literature study comprise two major results: First, studies and reliable numbers on the general process model use are rare, i.e., we lack quantitative data on the actual process use and, thus, we often lack the ability to ground process-related research in practically relevant issues. Second, despite the assumed dominance of agile methods, our results clearly show that companies enact context-specific hybrid solutions in which traditional and agile development approaches are used in combination.

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

Buying options

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 EPUB and 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A similar study is available by the “Status Quo Agile 2014” study [17]. However, this study does not provide as comprehensive historical data as the VersionOne survey series.

  2. 2.

    We conducted several test runs finding this simple string producing the best results. Including/adding keywords like “process” just inflated the result set, yet no extra publication providing quantitative data on process use could be found in these tests.

  3. 3.

    Due to space limitations, the study data set including the full list of mentioned processes is available for download here: http://goo.gl/bUB3Tr.

  4. 4.

    Although [27] supports this assumption, this study was excluded from the quantitative analysis, as the authors rejected papers not explicitly dealing with agile methods, and summarized all non-agile approaches under “custom or other”. We thus have insufficient information about what processes are eventually meant and how those could affect our study results.

  5. 5.

    This need is also supported by the just recently published GULP study (https://goo.gl/RciNpy) in which authors come to the conclusion that projects will be increasingly operated following a hybrid approach in future (population: 114 IT experts, mainly freelancers and project management consultants; study region: Germany).

References

  1. Badampudi, D., Wohlin, C., Petersen, K.: Experiences from using snowballing and database searches in systematic literature studies. In: International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 17:1–17:10. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Beck, L., Perkins, T.: A survey of software engineering practice: tools, methods, and results. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE–9(5), 541–561 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Buschermöhle, R., Eekhoff, H., Josko, B.: SUCCess and failurE of hard- and Software projectS (SUCCESS). BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  4. de Carvalho, D.D., Chagas, L.F., Lima, A.M., Reis, C.A.L.: Software process lines: a systematic literature review. In: Mitasiunas, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2014. CCIS, vol. 477, pp. 118–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  5. de O. Melo, C., Santos, V., Katayama, E., Corbucci, H., Prikladnicki, R., Goldman, A., Kon, F.: The evolution of agile software development in Brazil. J. Braz. Comput. Soc. 19(4), 523–552 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Diebold, P., Dahlem, M.: Agile practices in practice: a mapping study. In: International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE 2014, pp. 30:1–30:10. ACM, New York (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Diebold, P., Ostberg, J.-P., Wagner, S., Zendler, U.: What do practitioners vary in using scrum? In: Lassenius, C., Dingsøyr, T., Paasivaara, M. (eds.) XP 2015. LNBIP, vol. 212, pp. 40–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., Moe, N.B.: A decade of agile methodologies: towards explaining agile software development. J. Syst. Softw. 85(6), 1213–1221 (2012). Special Issue: Agile Development

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dybå, T., Dingsøyr, T.: Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(9–10), 833–859 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fitzgerald, B.: The use of systems development methodologies in practice: a field study. Inf. Syst. J. 7(3), 201–212 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fritzsche, M., Keil, P.: Kategorisierung etablierter vorgehensmodelle und ihre verbreitung in der deutschen software-industrie. Research Report (in German) TUM-I0717, Technische Universität München (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Georgiadou, E.: Software process and product improvement: a historical perspective. Cybern. Syst. Anal. 39(1), 125–142 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Jackson, M.A.: A system development method. In: Tools and Notions for Program Construction: An Advanced Course, pp. 1–25. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jones, C.: Variations in software development practices. IEEE Softw. 20(6), 22–27 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Khurana, M., He, Z., Court, I., Ross, M., Staples, G., Wilson, D.: Software quality practices - an empirical study. Softw. Qual. J. 5(2), 75–85 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kitchenham, B., Charters, S.: Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical report EBSE-2007-01, Keele University (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Komus, A., Kuberg, M., Atinc, C., Franner, L., Friedrich, F., Lang, T., Makarova, A., Reimer, D., Pabst, J.: Status quo agile 2014 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kuhrmann, M., Fernández, D.M.: Systematic software development: a state of the practice report from germany. In: International Conference on Global Software Engineering. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kuhrmann, M., Fernández, D.M., Tiessler, M.: A mapping study on the feasibility of method engineering. J. Softw. Evol. Process 26(12), 1053–1073 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kuhrmann, M., Konopka, C., Nellemann, P., Diebold, P., Münch, J.: Software process improvement: where is the evidence? In: International Conference on Software and Systems Process. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kuhrmann, M., Linssen, O.: Vorgehensmodelle in deutschland: Nutzung von 2006–2013 im überblick. MAW-Rundbrief 39, 32–47 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lagerberg, L., Skude, T., Emanuelsson, P., Sandahl, K., Stahl, D.: The impact of agile principles and practices on large-scale software development projects: a multiple-case study of two projects at ericsson. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 348–356. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  24. Martínez-Ruiz, T., García, F., Piattini, M., Münch, J.: Modelling software process variability: an empirical study. IET Softw. 5(2), 172–187 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Martínez-Ruiz, T., Münch, J., Piattini, M.: Requirements and constructors for tailoring software processes: a systematic literature rewview. Softw. Qual. J. 20(1), 229–260 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Murphy, B., Bird, C., Zimmermann, T., Williams, L., Nagappan, N., Begel, A.: Have agile techniques been the silver bullet for software development at microsoft. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ACM/IEEE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Papatheocharous, E., Andreou, A.S.: Empirical evidence and state of practice of software agile teams. J. Softw. Evol. Process 26(9), 855–866 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Petersen, K., Wohlin, C.: 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), 1479–1490 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rahim, M., Seyal, A.H., Rahman, M.A.: Use of software systems development methods an empirical study in brunei darussalam. Inf. Softw. Technol. 39(14–15), 949–963 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Reifer, D.: How good are agile methods? IEEE Softw. 19(4), 16–18 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Reifer, D.: Is the software engineering state of the practice getting closer to the of the art? IEEE Softw. 20(6), 78–83 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rose, G.B.: SSADM - the open methodology. In: IEE Colloquium on an Introduction to Software Design Methodologies, number Ref. No: 1991/181, pp. 6/1–6/5. IET, December 1991

    Google Scholar 

  33. Salo, O., Abrahamsson, P.: Agile methods in european embedded software development organisations: a survey on the actual use and usefulness of extreme programming and scrum. IET Softw. 2(1), 58–64 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Senapathi, M., Srinivasan, A.: Sustained agile usage: a systematic literature review. In: International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 119–124. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Senapathi, M., Srinivasan, A.: An empirical investigation of the factors affecting agile usage. In: International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 1–10. ACM (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Solinski, A., Petersen, K.: Prioritizing agile benefits and limitations in relation to practice usage. Softw. Qual. J., 1–36 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tripp, J., Armstrong, D.: Exploring the relationship between organizational adoption motives and the tailoring of agile methods. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 4799–4806 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  38. VersionOne. State of agile survey (2006–2014). http://www.versionone.com/agile-resources/more-resources/blogs/

  39. Vijayasarathy, L., Butler, C.: Choice of software development methodologies - do project, team and organizational characteristics matter? IEEE Softw. (99), 1 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  40. West, D.: Water-Scrum-Fall is the reality of agile for most organizations today. Technical report, Forrester (2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partially carried out and supported by a Software Campus project (BMBF 01IS12053) funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Kuhrmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Theocharis, G., Kuhrmann, M., Münch, J., Diebold, P. (2015). Is Water-Scrum-Fall Reality? On the Use of Agile and Traditional Development Practices. In: Abrahamsson, P., Corral, L., Oivo, M., Russo, B. (eds) Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9459. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26844-6_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26844-6_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26843-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26844-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics