Advertisement

Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 203–216 | Cite as

A disciplined approach to adopting agile practices: the agile adoption framework

  • Ahmed Sidky
  • James Arthur
  • Shawn BohnerEmail author
State of the Art

Abstract

Many organizations aspire to adopt agile processes to take advantage of the numerous benefits that they offer to an organization. Those benefits include, but are not limited to, quicker return on investment, better software quality, and higher customer satisfaction. To date, however, there is no structured process (at least that is published in the public domain) that guides organizations in adopting agile practices. To address this situation, we present the agile adoption framework and the innovative approach we have used to implement it. The framework consists of two components: an agile measurement index, and a four-stage process, that together guide and assist the agile adoption efforts of organizations. More specifically, the Sidky Agile Measurement Index (SAMI) encompasses five agile levels that are used to identify the agile potential of projects and organizations. The four-stage process, on the other hand, helps determine (a) whether or not organizations are ready for agile adoption, and (b) guided by their potential, what set of agile practices can and should be introduced. To help substantiate the “goodness” of the Agile Adoption Framework, we presented it to various members of the agile community, and elicited responses through questionnaires. The results of that substantiation effort are encouraging, and are also presented in this paper.

Keywords

Measurement Index Adoption Process User Story Agile Method Software Process Improvement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Declaration of Interdependence, http://pmdoi.org/ (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Manifesto for Agile Software Devleopment, www.agilemanifesto.org, Utah, Feb 2001Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrahamsson P, Outi S, Ronkainen J, Warsta J (2002) Agile software development methods—review and analysis. VTT Electronics, Finland, pp 112Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ambler S (2002). Agile modeling: effective practices for extreme programming and the unified process. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ambler SW and Sadalage PJ (2006). Refactoring databases: evolutionary database design. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amy L and Raylene C (2005). Effects of agile practices on social factors. ACM Press, St. Louis Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arthur J and Nance R (2002). Managing software quality: a measurement framework for assessment and prediction. Springer, Heidelberg Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barnett L (2006) Agile survey results: solid experience and real results Agile JournalGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barnett L, Schwaber C (2004) Adopting agile development processes; improve time-to-benefits for software projects forrester researchGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Basili V (1992) Software modeling and measurement: the Goal/Question/Metric paradigm. University of Maryland, College Park, pp 24Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beck (2002). Test driven development: by example. Addison- Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Reading Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beck K (2000). Extreme programming explained: embrace change. Addison-Wesley, Reading Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beck K, Martin RC, Cockburn A, Fowler M, Highsmith J (2001) Manifesto for agile software development, www.agilemanifesto.org, UtahGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boehm B and Turner R (2005). Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional development organizations. Softw IEEE 22: 30–39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boehm BW and Turner R (2003). Balancing agility and discipline. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cockburn A (2001). Agile software development. Pearson Education, Indianapolis Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cockburn A and Highsmith J (2001). Agile software development: the people factor. Computer 34: 131–133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohn M (2005). Agile estimating and planning. Prentice Hall PTR, New Jersey Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohn M (2004). User stories applied. Addison-Wesley, Boston Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Elssamadisy A (2006) Getting Beyond “It Depends!” being specific but not presiptive about agile practice adoption agile journalGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fowler M, Beck K, Brant J, Opdyke W and Roberts D (1999). Refactoring: improving the design of existing code. Addison Wesley, Reading Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grady RB (1997). Successful software process improvement. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Highsmith J (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Pearson Education, Indianapolis Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Highsmith J (2006) Agile: from rogue teams to enterprise acceptance cutter consortium: business technology trends and impactsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hunt A, Thomas D (2004) Pragmatic unit testing in C\# with NUnit, The Pragmatic ProgrammersGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hunt J (2006). Agile software construction. Springer, London zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jan P-H, Jorn J (2005) AIM—ability improvement modelGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koch AS (2005). Agile software development: evaluating the methods for your organization. Artech House, Boston zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kuppuswami S, Vivekanandan K, Ramaswamy P and Rodrigues P (2003). The effects of individual XP practices on software development effort. SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 28: 6–6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Larman C (2004). Agile and iterative development. Pearson Education, Boston Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Law A and Charron R (2005). Effects of agile practices on social factors, Proceedings of the 2005 workshop on Human and social factors of software engineering. ACM Press, St. Louis Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Martin RC (2002). Agile software development, principles, patterns and practices. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Newkirk JW and Martin RC (2001). Extreme programming in practice. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Park R, Goethert W, Florac W (1996) Goal-driven software measurement–a guidebook, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie MellonGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pukinskis A (2005) 5 stumbling blocks for new corporate agile projects, the agile blogGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rosenberg D, Stephens M and Collins-Cope M (2005). Agile development with ICONIX process : people, process, and pragmatism. Apress, Berkeley Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rueping A (2003). Agile documentation: a pattern guide to producing lightweight documents for software projects. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schatz B and Abdelshafi I (2005). Primavera gets agile: a successful transition to agile development. Softw IEEE 22: 36–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schwaber K and Beedle M (2002). Agile Software Development with SUM. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sidky A, Arthur J (2006) Agile adoption process framework—indicators document, CORR - cs.SE/0612092Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Spayd MK (2003) Evolving agile in the enterprise: implementing XP on a grand scale, pp 60–70Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tabaka J (2005). Collaboration explained; facilitation skills for software project leaders. Addison-Wesley, Reading Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wake WC (2001). Extreme programming explored. Addison- Wesley Professional, Reading Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Williams L and Kessler R (2002). Pair programming illuminated. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Reading Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Williams L, Kessler RR, Cunningham W and Jeffries R (2000). Strengthening the case for pair programming. Softw IEEE 17: 19–25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations