Achieving agility through BRIDGE process model: an approach to integrate the agile and disciplined software development

Original Paper


Despite of many criticisms, agile software development (Beck et al., Manifesto for Agile Software Development,, [1]) philosophy has been proved to be quite successful to increase the project success rate up to a significant extent. The primary reasons behind the criticism of agile are the strong violation of the traditional disciplined software engineering theories, principles and practices. The goal of this research paper is to establish the fact that agility may also be achieved by following traditional process models especially with BRIDGE (Mandal, 2009 IEEE International Advance Computing Conference (IACC 2009) Patiala, India, [2]) process model. Hence, the aim of this paper is to integrate the agile and traditional disciplined software development process models and establish the compatibility between both the approaches. At the beginning, we have explored the objectives and principles of agile software development. Next, we briefly discussed the BRIDGE process model and further justified that—following BRIDGE process model, the philosophy of agile may also be achieved and conclude that BRIDGE model has both the capability of traditional software development process model as well as of the agile process.


Software engineering Software development lifecycle  Process model BRIDGE model Agile software development 


  1. 1.
    Beck K, Beedle M et al (2001) Manifesto for agile software development.
  2. 2.
    Mandal A (2009) BRIDGE: a model for modern software development process to cater the present software crisis. In: IEEE International Advance Computing Conference (IACC 2009) Patiala. IEEE Xplore, India. doi:10.1109/IADCC.2009.4809259
  3. 3.
    Pressman RS (2005) Software engineering: a practitioner’s approach, 6th edn. Mc-Grawhil, New yorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cho Juyun (2009) A hybrid software development method for large-scale projects: rational unified process with scrum. J Issues Inform Syst X(2):340–348Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Purcell JE (2007) Comparison of software development lifecycle methodologies. SANS Software Security, San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vijayasarathy LEOR (2008) Agile software development: a survey of early adopters. J Inform Technol Manage XIX(2):1–8Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boehm B, Turner R (2003) Observations on balancing discipline and agility. In: Proceedings of the Agile Development Conference, IEEE Computer Society, Salt Lake City, pp 32–39Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hashmi SI, Baik J (2007) Software Quality Assurance in XP and Spiral-A Comparative Study. In: International Conference on Computational Science and its Applications, Proceedings of ICCSA-2007, IEEE, Fukuoka, pp 367Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fritzsche M, Keil P (2007) Agile methods and CMMI: compatibility or conflict? e-Informatica. Softw Eng J 1(1):9–26Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Theunissen WH, Kourie DG, Watson BW (2003) Standards and agile software development. In: Proceedings of the 2003 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on Enablement through technology, South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, Johannesburg, pp 178Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turner R (2002) Agile development: good process or bad attitude? Lecture notes in computer science, pp 134–144Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turner R, Jain A (2002) Agile meets CMMI: culture clash or common cause? Lecture notes in computer science, pp. 153–165Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boehm B, Turner R (2003) Using risk to balance agile and plan-driven methods. IEEE Comput 36(6):57–66 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nawrocki J, Olek L, Jasinski M, Paliswiat B, Walter B, Pietrzak B, Godek P (2006) Balancing agility and discipline with xprince. Lecture Notes Comput Sci 3943:266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nandhakumar J, Avison DE (1999) The fiction of methodological development—a field study of information systems development. Inform Technol People 12(2):175–191Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Truex DP, Baskerville R, Travis J (2000) Amethodical systems development: the deferred meaning of systems development methods. Account Manag Inform Technol 10(1):53–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wiegers KE (1998) Read my lips: no new models. IEEE Softw 15(5):0–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baskerville R, Levine L, Pries-Heje J, Ramesh B, Slaughter S (2003) Is Internet-speed software development different? IEEE Softw 20(6):70–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Conboy K (2009) Agility from first principles: reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Inform Syst Res 20(3):329–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    VersionOne (2013) 8th Annual State of Agile SurveyGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fitzgerald B, Stol K, O’Sullivan R, O’Brien D (2013) Scaling agile methods to regulated environments: an industry case study. In: Proceedings of 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cawley O, Wang X, Richardson I (2010) “Lean/agile software development methodologies in regulated environments-state of the art”. In: International Conference Lean Enterprise Software and Systems, LNBIP 65Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turk R France, Rumpe B (2005) Assumptions underlying agile software development processes. J Datab Manag 16:2005Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mandal A, Pal SC (2012) Emergence of component based software engineering. Int J Adv Res Comput Sci Softw Eng 2(3)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mall R (2009) Fundamentals of software engineering 2nd edn, PHI PublicationGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cockburn A (2001) Agile software development. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and ApplicationUniversity of North Bengal, Raja Rammohanpur, P.O. North Bengal UniversityDarjeelingIndia

Personalised recommendations