European Journal of Information Systems

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 344–354 | Cite as

Acceptance of software process innovations – the case of extreme programming

  • George Mangalaraj
  • RadhaKanta Mahapatra
  • Sridhar Nerur
Original Article

Abstract

Extreme programming (XP), arguably the most popular agile development methodology, is increasingly finding favor among software developers. Its adoption and acceptance require significant changes in work habits inculcated by traditional approaches that emphasize planning, prediction, and control. Given the growing interest in XP, it is surprising that there is a paucity of research articles that examine the factors that facilitate or hinder its adoption and eventual acceptance. This study aims to fill this void. Using a case study approach, we provide insights into individual, team, technological, task, and environmental factors that expedite or impede the organization-wide acceptance of XP. In particular, we study widely differing patterns of adherence to XP practices within an organization, and tease out the various issues and challenges posed by the adoption of XP. Based on our findings, we evolve factors and discuss their implications on the acceptance of XP practices.

Keywords

agile methodologies extreme programming (XP) organizational adoption of XP 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the editorial board of the special issue and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback and helpful suggestions during the review of this manuscript.

References

  1. Agarwal R and Prasad J (2000) A field study of the adoption of software process innovations by information systems professionals. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 47 (3), 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agile Alliance (2001) Agile manifesto. [WWW document] http://agilemanifesto.org (accessed 26 February 2009).
  3. Ambler S (2007) Survey says … Agile has crossed the chasm. Dr. Dobb’′s Journal 32 (8) [WWW document] http://www.ddj.com/architect/200001986 (accessed 7 July 2009).
  4. Ambler SW (2004) The Object Primer: Agile Modeling-Driven Development With UML 2.0. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baskerville R, Ramesh B, Levine L, Pries-Heje J and Slaughter S (2003) Is ‘internet-speed’ software development different? IEEE Software 20 (6), 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck K (2000) Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  7. Beck K and Andres C (2005) Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Boehm BW and Turner R (2004) Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Cao L, Mohan K, Xu P and Ramesh B (2004) How extreme does extreme programming have to be? Adapting XP practices to large-scale projects. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Sprague, RH, Ed.), IEEE, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  10. Cho H and Kim YG (2001) Critical factors for assimilation of object-oriented programming languages. Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (3), 125–156.Google Scholar
  11. Cockburn A (2002) Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Conboy K, Pikkarainen M and Wang X (2007) Agile practices in use from an innovation assimilation perspective: a multiple case study. In Twenty Eighth International Conference on Information Systems. (Rivard S and Webster J, Eds.), Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case-study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  14. Fitzgerald B (1998) An empirical investigation into the adoption of systems development methodologies. Information & Management 34 (6), 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzgerald B, Hartnett G and Conboy K (2006) Customising agile methods to software practices at intel shannon. European Journal of Information Systems 15 (2), 200–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fruhling A and De Vreede G-J (2006) Field experiences with extreme programming: developing an emergency response system. Journal of Management Information Systems 22 (4), 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fruhling A, Mcdonald P and Dunbar C (2008) A case study: introducing extreme programming in a US government system development project. In Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. (Sprague RH, Ed.), IEEE, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  18. Green GC, Hevner AR and Collins RW (2005) The impacts of quality and productivity perceptions on the use of software process improvement innovations. Information & Software Technology 47 (8), 543–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hardgrave B, Davis F and Riemenschneider C (2003) Investigating determinants of software developers’ intentions to follow methodologies. Journal of Management Information Systems 20 (1), 123–151.Google Scholar
  20. Hardgrave B and Johnson R (2003) Toward an information systems development acceptance model: the case of object-oriented systems development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50 (3), 322–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Highsmith J (2003) Agile project management: principles and tools. Cutter Consortium Reports, Cutter Consortium, Arlington, MA.Google Scholar
  22. Highsmith JA (2002) Agile Software Development Ecosystems. Addison-Wesley, Boston.Google Scholar
  23. Jasperson JS, Carter PE and Zmud RW (2005) A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly 29 (3), 525–557.Google Scholar
  24. Jeffries R (2001) What is extreme programming? [WWW document] http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/whatisxp.htm (accessed 26 February 2009).
  25. Karahanna E, Straub DW and Chervany NL (1999) Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly 23 (2), 183–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Khalifa M and Verner JM (2000) Drivers for software development method usage. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 47 (3), 360–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kozar KA (1989) Adopting systems development methods: an exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems 5 (4), 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kwon TH and Zmud RW (1987) Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation. In Critical Issues in Information Systems Research (BOLAND RJ and HIRSCHHEIM RA, Eds), pp 227–251, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York, NY.Google Scholar
  29. Leonard-Barton D (1987) Implementing structured software methodologies: a case of innovation in process technology. Interfaces 17 (3), 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mahanti A (2006) Challenges in enterprise adoption of agile methods – a survey. Journal of Computing and Information Technology 14 (3), 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mustonen-Ollila E and Lyytinen K (2003) Why organizations adopt information system process innovations: a longitudinal study using diffusion of innovation theory. Information Systems Journal 13 (3), 275–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nerur S, Mahapatra R and Mangalaraj G (2005) Challenges of emigrating to agile methodologies. Communications of the ACM 48 (5), 72–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Orlikowski WJ (1993) Case tools as organizational change: investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly 17 (3), 309–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Riemenschneider CK and Hardgrave BC (2001) Explaining software development tool use with the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Information Systems 41 (4), 1–8.Google Scholar
  35. Salo O (2004) Improving software process in agile software development projects: results from two XP case studies. In Proceedings of the 30th EUROMICRO Conference. (Steinmetz R and Mauthe A, Eds.), IEEE, Rennes, France.Google Scholar
  36. Sarker S, Valacich J and Sarker S (2005) Technology adoption by groups: a valance perspective. Journal of Association for Information Systems 6 (2), 37–71.Google Scholar
  37. Shtub A, Bard JF and Globerson S (2005) Project Management: Processes, Methodologies, and Economics. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
  38. Yin RK (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Mangalaraj
    • 1
  • RadhaKanta Mahapatra
    • 2
  • Sridhar Nerur
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems and Decision SciencesCollege of Business and Technology, Western Illinois UniversityU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of Information Systems and Operations ManagementCollege of Business Administration, University of Texas at ArlingtonArlington

Personalised recommendations