Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • State of the Art
  • Published:
Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript


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.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Declaration of Interdependence, (2005)

  2. Manifesto for Agile Software Devleopment,, Utah, Feb 2001

  3. Abrahamsson P, Outi S, Ronkainen J, Warsta J (2002) Agile software development methods—review and analysis. VTT Electronics, Finland, pp 112

  4. Ambler S (2002). Agile modeling: effective practices for extreme programming and the unified process. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ambler SW and Sadalage PJ (2006). Refactoring databases: evolutionary database design. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  6. Amy L and Raylene C (2005). Effects of agile practices on social factors. ACM Press, St. Louis

    Google Scholar 

  7. Arthur J and Nance R (2002). Managing software quality: a measurement framework for assessment and prediction. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  8. Barnett L (2006) Agile survey results: solid experience and real results Agile Journal

  9. Barnett L, Schwaber C (2004) Adopting agile development processes; improve time-to-benefits for software projects forrester research

  10. Basili V (1992) Software modeling and measurement: the Goal/Question/Metric paradigm. University of Maryland, College Park, pp 24

  11. Beck (2002). Test driven development: by example. Addison- Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Reading

    Google Scholar 

  12. Beck K (2000). Extreme programming explained: embrace change. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  13. Beck K, Martin RC, Cockburn A, Fowler M, Highsmith J (2001) Manifesto for agile software development,, Utah

  14. Boehm B and Turner R (2005). Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional development organizations. Softw IEEE 22: 30–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Boehm BW and Turner R (2003). Balancing agility and discipline. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cockburn A (2001). Agile software development. Pearson Education, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cockburn A and Highsmith J (2001). Agile software development: the people factor. Computer 34: 131–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cohn M (2005). Agile estimating and planning. Prentice Hall PTR, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cohn M (2004). User stories applied. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  20. Elssamadisy A (2006) Getting Beyond “It Depends!” being specific but not presiptive about agile practice adoption agile journal

  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. Grady RB (1997). Successful software process improvement. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  23. Highsmith J (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Pearson Education, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  24. Highsmith J (2006) Agile: from rogue teams to enterprise acceptance cutter consortium: business technology trends and impacts

  25. Hunt A, Thomas D (2004) Pragmatic unit testing in C\# with NUnit, The Pragmatic Programmers

  26. Hunt J (2006). Agile software construction. Springer, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Jan P-H, Jorn J (2005) AIM—ability improvement model

  28. Koch AS (2005). Agile software development: evaluating the methods for your organization. Artech House, Boston

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Larman C (2004). Agile and iterative development. Pearson Education, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  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. Martin RC (2002). Agile software development, principles, patterns and practices. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  33. Newkirk JW and Martin RC (2001). Extreme programming in practice. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  34. Park R, Goethert W, Florac W (1996) Goal-driven software measurement–a guidebook, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon

  35. Pukinskis A (2005) 5 stumbling blocks for new corporate agile projects, the agile blog

  36. Rosenberg D, Stephens M and Collins-Cope M (2005). Agile development with ICONIX process : people, process, and pragmatism. Apress, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rueping A (2003). Agile documentation: a pattern guide to producing lightweight documents for software projects. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Schatz B and Abdelshafi I (2005). Primavera gets agile: a successful transition to agile development. Softw IEEE 22: 36–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schwaber K and Beedle M (2002). Agile Software Development with SUM. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sidky A, Arthur J (2006) Agile adoption process framework—indicators document, CORR - cs.SE/0612092

  41. Spayd MK (2003) Evolving agile in the enterprise: implementing XP on a grand scale, pp 60–70

  42. Tabaka J (2005). Collaboration explained; facilitation skills for software project leaders. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wake WC (2001). Extreme programming explored. Addison- Wesley Professional, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  44. Williams L and Kessler R (2002). Pair programming illuminated. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Reading

    Google Scholar 

  45. Williams L, Kessler RR, Cunningham W and Jeffries R (2000). Strengthening the case for pair programming. Softw IEEE 17: 19–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shawn Bohner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sidky, A., Arthur, J. & Bohner, S. A disciplined approach to adopting agile practices: the agile adoption framework. Innovations Syst Softw Eng 3, 203–216 (2007).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: