Scaling for agility: A reference model for hybrid traditional-agile software development methodologies

  • Asif Qumer Gill
  • Brian Henderson-Sellers
  • Mahmood Niazi


The adoption of agility at a large scale often requires the integration of agile and non-agile development elements for architecting a hybrid adaptive methodology. The challenge is ”which elements or components (agile or non-agile) are relevant to develop the context-aware hybrid adaptive methodology reference architecture?” This paper addresses this important challenge and develops a hybrid adaptive methodology reference architecture model using a qualitative constructive empirical research approach. In this way, we have uncovered the agility, abstraction, business value, business policy, rules, legal, context and facility elements or components that have not been explicitly modelled or discussed in International Standards (IS) such as the ISO/IEC 24744 metamodel. It is anticipated that a context-aware hybrid adaptive methodology can be architected by using the proposed context-aware hybrid adaptive methodology reference architecture elements for a particular situation when using a situational method engineering approach.


Agile methods Reference architecture Methodology architecture Method engineering 


  1. AgileManifesto (2001) Manifesto for Agile Software Development, . 2001, Accessed 14 March 2005.
  2. Asan, E., & Bilgen, S. (2013). Agility problems in traditional systems engineering - a case study. Complex Systems Design & Management., 2013, 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, K., & Andres, C. (2004). Extreme programming explained: Change. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Berzins, V., Gray, M., & Naumann, D. (1986). Abstraction-based software development. Communications of the ACM, 29(5), 402–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beznosov, K., and Kruchten., P (2004) Towards agile security assurance, In Proceedings of the 2004 Workshop on New Security Paradigms (Nova Scotia, Canada, September 20–23, 2004). NSPW ‘04, ACM, New York, NY, pp. 47–54.Google Scholar
  6. Boehm, B. W. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement, Computer. IEEE JNL, 21(5), 61–72.Google Scholar
  7. Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2003). Observations on balancing discipline and agility, proceedings of the agile development conference. Salt Lake City, UT, USA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  8. Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2004). Balancing agility and discipline: A guide for the perplexed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc..Google Scholar
  9. Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools, Inf. Software Technol., 38(4), 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M., & Harmsen, F. (1998). Assembly techniques for method engineering, advanced information systems engineering, 10th international conference, CAiSE’98 (pp. 381–400). Italy: Pisa.Google Scholar
  11. Bucher, T. Klesse, M (2006) Contextual Method Engineering. University of St. Gallen (HSG). Report No.: BE HSG/EIW/03Google Scholar
  12. Chapman, J.R (1997) Software Development Methodology,
  13. Chance, K. (2011). User stories in practice: A distributed cognition perspective. MCIS Thesis: Auckland University of Technology.Google Scholar
  14. Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from first principles: reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 329–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conboy, K and Fitzgerald, B (2010) Method and developer characteristics for effective agile method tailoring: a study of expert opinion, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology (TOSEM), Vol. 20, No 1.Google Scholar
  16. Cockburn, A. (2002). Agile software development. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Cockburn, A (2003). People and Methodologies in Software Development, PhD. Thesis, University of Oslo,
  18. Cockburn, A. (2005). Crystal Clear: A Human-Powered Methodology for Small Teams. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  19. Cockburn, A. (2006). Agile software development: The cooperative game. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Conboy, K., & Fitzgerald, B. (2004). Toward a conceptual framework of agile methods: A study of agility in different disciplines, proceedings of the 2004 ACM workshop on interdisciplinary software engineering research (pp. 37–44). NY, USA, Newport Beach, CA, USA: ACM Press New York.Google Scholar
  21. Cohn, M., & Ford, D. (2003). Introducing an agile process to an organisation. Computer, 36(6), 74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elssamadisy, A (2007) Patterns of Agile Practice Adoption, InfoQ, (publisher), 2007, pages 184.
  23. Feiler, P and Humphrey, W.S (1993) Software process development and enactment, International Conference on the Software Process Improvement, Berlin, Germany, 1993, pp. 28–40.Google Scholar
  24. Feuerlicht, G. (2006). System development life-cycle support for service-oriented applications, new trend in software methodologies, tools and techniques (SoMeT2006) (pp. 116–126). Quebec, Canada: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fitzgerald, B., Hartnett, G., & Conboy, K. (2006). Customising agile methods to software practices at Intel Shannon. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 200–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. FOI ACT (1982) Commonwealth Consolidated Acts:
  27. Fowler, M (2003) The New Methodology,
  28. Gains, M., & Hawkins, T. (2007). Keeping the peace: mixing agile and waterfall methods. Cutter IT Journal, pp., 25–29.Google Scholar
  29. Harrison, R. (2011) TOGAF foundation. The Open Group.Google Scholar
  30. Harmsen, A. F. (1997). Situational method engineering. Doctoral dissertation.University of Twente.Google Scholar
  31. Harmsen, F., I. Lubbers, G. Wijers. (1995) Success-driven Selection of Fragments for Situational Methods: The S3 model. In: Pohl, K., and P. Peters (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundations of Software Quality (REFSQ’95), Aachener Beiträge zur Informatik, Band 13, pp. 104–115, Aachen, 1995.Google Scholar
  32. Henderson-Sellers, B. (2003). Method engineering for OO systems development. Communications of the ACM, 46(10), 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Henderson-Sellers, B., & Serour, M. K. (2005). Creating a dual-agility method: the value of method engineering. Journal of Database Management, 16.4(2005), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Henderson-Sellers, B., & Gonzalez-Perez, C. (2006). "on the ease of extending a powertype-based methodology metamodel." meta-modelling and ontologies. WoMM, 2006(2006), 11–25.Google Scholar
  35. Henderson-Sellers, B., & Ralyté, J. (2010). Situational Method Engineering: State-of-the-Art Review. J. UCS, 16(3), 424–478. submitted 31.3.09 revised version submitted 12.3.10Google Scholar
  36. Henderson-Sellers, B., Ralyté, J., & Rossi, M. (2014). Situational method engineering. Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Gill, A. Q. (2014). Hybrid adaptive software development capability: an empirical study. Journal of Software, 9(10), 2614–2621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  39. Highsmith, J. A. I. (2000). Adaptive software development: A collaborative approach to managing complex systems. New York: Dorset House Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  41. ISO/IEC (2007) Software Engineering - Metamodel for Development Methodologies (SEMDM). ISO/IEC Standard 24744.: 2007, ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  42. ISO/IEC (2014) Software Engineering - Metamodel for Development Methodologies (SEMDM). ISO/IEC Standard 24744.: 2014, ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  43. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 (2011) Systems and software engineering — Architecture description.
  44. IIBA (2009) A guide to the business analysis body of knowledge, BABOK Version 2.0.Google Scholar
  45. Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (2000). A dynamic framework for classifying informaion system development metdholodologies and approaches. JMIS, 2000, 17(3), 179–218.Google Scholar
  46. Järvinen, P. (2001). On research methods. Tampere: Juvenes-Print.Google Scholar
  47. Janssen, M., van der Voort, H., and van Veenstra, A.F. (2015) Failure of large transformation projects from the viewpoint of complex adaptive systems: management principles for dealing with project dynamics. Information Systems Frontiers, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 15–29Google Scholar
  48. Kasanen, E., Lukka, K., & Siitonen, A. (1993). The constructive approach in management accounting research. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 243–264.Google Scholar
  49. Kenens, P., Michels, S., Matthijs, F., Robben, B., Truyen, E., Vanhaute, B., Wouter, J., & Verbaeten, P. (1998). An AOP case with static and dynamic aspects, European conference on object-oriented programming (ECOOP’1998). Belgium: Brussels.Google Scholar
  50. Kimball, R., Ross, M (2002) The Data Warehouse Toolkit: The Complete Guide to Dimensional Modeling, 2nd Edition, Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. Knolmayer, G., Endl, R., & Pfahrer, M. (2000). Modelling processes and workflows by business rules. Business Process Management, LNCS, 1806, 16–29.Google Scholar
  52. Kornyshova, E., Rébecca Deneckère, R., and Claudepierre, B (2011) Towards Method Component Contextualization. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design (IJISMD) 2, 4 (2011) 49–81″Google Scholar
  53. Kumar, K., & Welke, R. J. (1992). Methodology engineering: A proposal for situation-specific methodology construction, in Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development, J (pp. 257–269). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  54. Laanti, M. (2008). Implementing program model with agile principles in a large software development organisation (pp. 1383–1391). Turku, Finland: IEEE COMPSAC.Google Scholar
  55. Laanti, M. (2013). Agile Methods in Large-Scale Software Development Organizations. Applicability and model for adoption. Diss. Dissertation. University of Oulu, 2013.Google Scholar
  56. Lee, S. and Young, H (2013) Agile Software Development Framework in a Small Project Environment, J Inf Process Syst, Vol.9, No.1.Google Scholar
  57. Leite, J. C., & Leonardi, M. C. (1998). Business rules as organisational policies, proceedings of the 9th international workshop on software specification and design. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 1998, 68.Google Scholar
  58. Leonardi, M.C. and Leite, J.C (2002) Using business rules in extreme requirements, 14th international conference, CAiSE,Toronto, Canada, 2002, pp.420–435.Google Scholar
  59. Mahanti, A (2006) Challenges in Enterprise adoption of agile methods – a survey, Journal of Computing and Information Technology - CIT , pp. 197–206.Google Scholar
  60. Maharmeh, M. and Unhelkar, B (2008) Investigation into the creation and application of a composite application software development process framework (CASDPF), fifth international conference on Information technology: New generations, ITNG, IEEE, pp.1286.Google Scholar
  61. March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Miller, J. G. (1995). Living systems. University Press of Colorado.Google Scholar
  63. Nasir, M. H., Ahmad, R., & Hassan, N. H. (2008). Resistance factors in the implementation of software process improvement project in Malaysia. Journal of Computer Science, 4(3), 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Odell, J. (2002). Objects and agents compared. Journal of Object Technology, 1(1), 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ojala, L., & Hilmola, O. P. (2003). Case study research in logistics’. Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Series B/, 1.Google Scholar
  66. Orriens, B., & Yang, J. (2006). A rule driven approach for developing adaptive service oriented business collaboration. IEEE International Conference on Service Computing, Chicago, USA, 2006, 182–189.Google Scholar
  67. Osterle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., Loos, P., Mertens, P., Oberweis, A., and Sinz, E.J (2010) Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(1), pp. 7–10.Google Scholar
  68. Palmer, S. R., & Felsing, J. M. (2002). A practical guide to feature-driven development. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  69. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Gengler, C. E., Rossi, M., Hiu, W., Virtanen, V., & Bragge, J. (2006). The design science research process: A model for producing and presenting information systems research. Claremont, CA, USA: DESRIST.Google Scholar
  70. Qumer, A., & Henderson-Sellers, B. (2008a). An evaluation of the degree of agility in six agile methods and its applicability for method engineering. Information and Software Technology, 50(4), 280–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Qumer, A., & Henderson-Sellers, B. (2008b). A framework to support the evaluation, adoption and improvement of agile methods in practice. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(11), 1899–1919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Qumer, A., & Henderson-Sellers, B. (2009). Agile software solution framework: An analysis of practitioners’ perspectives. In Information Systems: Modeling, Development, and Integration (pp. 41–52). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  73. Qumer, A., & Henderson-Sellers, B. (2010). Framework as software service (fass) an agile e-toolkit to support agile method tailoring. Athens, Greece: CSOFT.Google Scholar
  74. Racheva, Z., and Daneva, M., and Sikkel, K (2009) Value creation by agile projects: methodology or mystery? PROFES, pp. 141–155.Google Scholar
  75. Ralyté, J. (1999). Reusing scenario based approaches in requirement engineering methods: CREWS method base, proceedings of the 10th international workshop on database and expert systems applications (DEXA’99) (pp. 305–309). Italy, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA: Florence.Google Scholar
  76. Randell, B., & Zurcher, F. W. (1968). Iterative multi-level modelling: A methodology for computer system design (pp. 867–871). IFIP: IEEE CS Press.Google Scholar
  77. Reifer, D. (2002). How good are agile methods? IEEE Software, 19, 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reis, C. A. L., Reis, R. Q., Schlebbe, H., & Nunes, D. J. (2002). Resource instantiation policies for software process environments, 26th annual international computer software and applications conference (pp. 53–58). Oxford: England.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rolland, C., Prakash, N (1996) A Proposal for Context-Specific Method Engineering, in: Brinkkemper, S., Lytinnen, K., Welke, R.J. (Hrsg.), Method Engineering, Principles of Method Construction and Tool Support, Proceedings of the IFIP TC8, WG8.1/8.2 Working Conference on Method Engineering, Springer, Berlin pp. 191–207.Google Scholar
  80. Royce, W.W (1970) Managing the Development of Large Software Systems: Concepts and Techniques. In WESCON Technical Papers, Western Electronic Show and Convention, Los Angeles, Aug. 25–28, number 14. Reprinted in proceedings of the ninth international conference on software engineering, Pittsburgh, ACM Press, PA, USA, 1989, pp. 328–338.Google Scholar
  81. Rodríguez, P., Markkula, J., Oivo, M., & Turula, K. (2012). Survey on agile and lean usage in finnish software industry. In Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement (pp. 139–148). ACM.Google Scholar
  82. Schwaber, K. (2007). The Enterprise and scrum. Washington: Microsoft Press.Google Scholar
  83. Smith, G., & Sidky, A. (2009). Becoming agile in an imperfect world. Manning: Publications.Google Scholar
  84. Sommer, A.F., Dukovska-Popovska, I., Steger-Jensen, K. (2014). Agile Product Development Governance – On Governing the Emerging Scrum/Stage-Gate Hybrids. 2014. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology pp 184–191.Google Scholar
  85. Stapleton, J. (1997) ‘DSDM: The method in practice’, Addison-Wesley, IncGoogle Scholar
  86. Theodorakis, M., Analyti, A., Constantopoulos, P., & Spyratos, N (1999) Contextualization as an Abstraction Mechanism for Conceptual Modelling, International conference on conceptual modeling, Paris, France, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, vol. 1728.Google Scholar
  87. Tolfo, C., & Wazlawick, R. S. (2008). The influence of organisational culture on the adoption of extreme programming. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(11), 1955–1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tyndale-Biscoe, S., Sims, O., Wood, B., & Sluman, C. (2002). Business modelling for component systems with UML, in proceedings of the sixth international enterprise distributed object computing conference. Washington, USA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  89. Vähäniitty, J., & Rautiainen, K. T. (2008). Towards a conceptual framework and tool support for linking long-term product and business planning with agile software development. In Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on software development governance (pp. 25–28). Leipzig: Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vijayasarathy, L.R., and Turk, D (2008) Agile software development: a survey of early adopters. Journal of Information Technology Management Volume XIX, Number 2.Google Scholar
  91. Wallin, C., Ekdahl, F., & Larsson, S. (2002). Integrating business and software development models. IEEE Software, 19(6), 28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wong, S. P., & Whitman, L. (1999). Attaining agility at the Enterprise level, proceedings of the 4th annual international conference on industrial engineering theory. San Antonio, Texas, USA: Applications and Practice.Google Scholar
  93. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Asif Qumer Gill
    • 1
  • Brian Henderson-Sellers
  • Mahmood Niazi
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Technology SydneyUltimoAustralia
  2. 2.King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM)DhahranSaudi Arabia
  3. 3.Riphah International UniversityIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations